I’ve asked the question inthis Pit thread but a Pit thread is no where to get an answer to a serious question.
Miss Spaulding was given a “note” to cut out posting in Green Font because she kept it up after some number of other posters let her know that they found it annoying.
Shodan OTOH has no moderation placed on his “Regards” despite that he also persists after some number of other posters let him know that they found it annoying.
The justification for the divergent response was given in [the Miss Spaulding thread](after some number of other posters let her know that they found it annoying.), specifically here.
All well and good. But capriciously applied.
In the linked Pit thread a poster again bemoans the annoying frequent usage a nonsensical phrase. It is made clear by the fact that multiple posters have Pitted over this several times that the repetitive nature of its usage annoys many people, even if most of us merely scroll past anything its user posts with at most a rolling of our eyes. It is minimally jerkish to keep it up and again to me is being done in order to provoke a reaction and to draw attention to the poster.
It is clarified in the Pit thread that this is not someone merely making the same bad or stupid joke over and over again (something that arguably is part of board culture) but someone who has set all of his devices to automatically replace every “LOL” he types with his annoying phrase. That use of the board for such performance art behavior is certainly NOT a norm for this board, not part of the board culture.
Now I don’t particularly mind skipping his posts but I also would not have minded just skipping Miss Spaulding’s green ones. It does seem to me that we should however have some consistency in how rules are applied.
Minimally I would like to hear an explanation of why green fonts crossed a line to being advised to cut it out, but use of autocorrect to insert a phrase repetitively does not, when both annoy many other posters and neither is behavior consistent with board culture.
Personal opinion?
Bo’s rather infrequent (as far as I’ve noticed) use of his catchphrase is not annoying. Trying to read green text is - at any rate, I find it harder to read than black on white. Furthermore, the green text posts are the entire post, unlike (usually) Bo’s catchphrase.
Good lord, people, could you stop trying to get bright lines painted around all aspects of posting behaviour! I have the feeling it’s only so you can sidle up as close to the line as you can, and argue endlessly whether you’ve crossed it.
ETA: I’ve just noticed my usual sig line is unusually apropos today…
And to me the green text is as easy to read, and to ignore, as any other. Not really the point though. The point is that in each case large numbers of people found/find the behavior annoying. Whether or not you or I or a particular mod are/were a member of either or both sets doesn’t matter: large number of posters were/are. You want to discuss how not annoying or annoying the repetitive use of the phrase is please take it to the Pit thread devoted to that. I am asking for clarification about the rules, not complaining about the phrase here.
This is ATMB and clarifying the rules is the point of this forum. Frankly complaining in this forum that someone is asking for rule clarification is threadshitting.
If the answer is that it depends on if it annoys a mod enough and screw what annoys everyone else, then fine, but let’s be clear about it.
If the answer is that less slack is cut for a new poster, then also fine. But again, state it.
We had considerable discussion about both issues. There were various opinions among the staff, as there have been among other posters. The consensus that was arrived at was that one was allowed and not the other. I’m not going to go into any details of the discussions.
That wasn’t really part of the discussion.
People somehow want things on the board to be more clear cut than they are in real life. They aren’t. There is some slop around the edges, just as it is in real life. You’ll find some inconsistency in Supreme Court decisions. Do you really expect things to be more clear cut here than there? While we strive for some consistency, not everyone will perceive that the same way.
The Supreme Court shares the rationale for their decisions, especially when there are inconsistencies.
In my real life I chair a department of multiple sites of physicians. If there it seems like there is inequity is how different sites or different physicians are being treated, if it seems that rules are being applied differently to one group or individual than another, then I am obligated to figure out what is going on and why and report back to the parties involved. I work to make sure that processes are as transparent as possible. I deal with powers upstream to help make it so as well. That’s real life for me.
No question that this is your party to run in whatever capricious and opaque manner you see fit. You have no obligation to explain apparent inconsistent application of rules to we mere participants of these fora.
That makes sense to me, “one was allowed and not the other.” Now if only you had reached a consensus on why one was allowed and not the other you would be able to explain what is and isn’t allowed in future.
There’s nothing wrong with Regards, Quarries, green text or even purple text. That’s fine. The problem arises when someone disobeys the instructions of the volunteer mods. That’s called being a jerk.
How did the mods decide that Quarries are ok while green text is verboten? I opine that they had to draw a line somewhere and that’s where they drew the line. Green text is easier to blow off, or at least that would be the justification. I’m not saying I agree with that take. I’m saying, see preceding paragraph.
The Supremes lay down the rationale for their decisions so that lower courts can do their jobs. Though of course internal deliberations mostly stay internal, at least when Bob Woodward’s attention is elsewhere.
The Junior Moderators receive a monthly summary of the deliberations of TPTB. But they are sworn to secrecy. (I understand that the hamsters are more easily bought.)
It’s up the the powers that be to decide where to draw the line, but I also find it baffling that SB is on the right side of it, wheras Miss Spaulding was on the wrong side. Any of the other three possible outcomes would make some sense.
As I said the last time this popped up in ATMB, this issue is not something the mods should do anything about. There’s nothing officially wrong with what Snowboarder Bo is doing. If it annoys posters, they should start a Pit thread about it. As I did three years ago. As Guin did three days ago.
I categorize the lot of them much like the guy in your town walking about with an exotic bird on his shoulder. He’s not doing anything illegal, and it’s not exactly annoying, but it still rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
We all have some affectations, no matter how minor they may be. The annoyance we all feel, in the face of other’s overt, attention whoring, affectations is related to a deep fear that our own must surely surface in such a way, from time to time, I think.
The exotic bird guy doesn’t annoy so much as induce pity, that anyone need be so obviously attention seeking from every stranger, they encounter. But affectations betray insecurity. They seek to cover up our shortcomings, as distractions. Made up catch phrases being unendingly offered, oblique insult to end every post, or purple highlights to one’s prose, are really all the same, though different.
People who frequently exhibit really overt affectations are revealing something pitiful about themselves, in my opinion.
I don’t see the need for a firm rule here, seems like the textbook time for a Mod to make a call, and agree or not, leave it at that.
[QUOTE=Frank;18720607 There’s nothing officially wrong with what Snowboarder Bo is doing. If it annoys posters, they should start a Pit thread about it. As I did three years ago. As Guin did three days ago.[/QUOTE]
There was less officially wrong with using green font.
I am not asking for action to be taken, and given that my assessment is that the phrase is mild trolling, no, posters should not feed the troll. I am curious as to the rationale that moderated against something so benign as font color choice while allowing something that annoys many more to a greater degree.
If the answer is that “the mods as a whole dislike seeing green font a lot” and do not personally find the autocorrect catchphrase bit as grating" okay.
If the answer is that the autocorrect catchphrase performance art is similar enough to other stupid catchphrases used that modding it risks having to judge how annoying other catchphrases and memes that some group use as in jokes … also justifiable.
We decided this way because we decided this way? Not so satisfactory.
It appears the rules you quoted *don’t *support your contention. Shodan’s behavior is in fact specifically supported by a rule provision. One which looks almost tailor-written just for him.
I don’t have a dog in Shodan’s fight, nor in Bo’s. Nor in DSeid’s really. My own attitude is a milder version of elbows’.
I really don’t get the problem with Shodan’s sign off. It’s just a sign off. A good-bye of sorts. It’s always in the same place. It’s always (as far as I’ve seen) been there and it probably always will.
If I signed off with “Thank you, Morgenstern,” would it really be any different?
But If I created a catch phrase. Something like “Kahuna’s got a big old butt” and posted it over and over in threads, even after being told it annoyed people, then perhaps I’m simply trying to annoy those people instead of being funny.
Green text against a white background is not a problem for those with colorblindness. Web guidelines do caution against putting green against red, brown, blue, yellow, black or grey backgrounds. Against white is fine.
I actually have no dog in any fight. I don’t particularly care if a poster is annoying and do not understand why so many have such a hard time just scrolling past such posts. As long as someone’s jerkiness does not hijack other discussions at least I am fine just rolling on by. But being apparently intentionally annoying in a manner not within board culture has been declared unacceptable and at the same time been declared as being nothing wrong. Schrodinger’s moderation warrants a question. Apparently though the question does not warrant an answer.
I didn’t think getting an answer for why one was bad enough to moderate and the other is okay despite bothering so many would be a big ask honestly.
