2 May 2019:
13 October 2018:
I pointed out that acting like a nut isn’t conducive to being a teacher and linked that Pit post in an Elections thread. I was attacking the post, not the poster, but now I have a note for the link and a warning for pointing out that I was not attacking the poster.
Is attacking the post allowed or not?
I don’t find the instructions from the moderator difficult to understand. You were instructed not to link to insulting posts (which were originally posted in the Pit) in that situation, and you did it again.
Aside from that, criticizing someone’s posting style is certainly different from criticizing the contents of a post. You used the words “acting like a nut” which sounds like an attack on the poster to me.
There were other ways to do what you say you were trying to do, if you had wanted to take the time to do so more carefully.
You weren’t attacking the post; you were attacking the poster. That’s why you felt it necessary to bring in posts from other threads in other forums to make your point, which was totally about asahi and not about refuting the content of his posts.
I linked to the same two posts that are in the OP. He wants to be seen as a teacher? He should have chose different language than in the second example.
He still wants teach the board, in that Elections thread and elsewhere.
The second quote in the OP comes across as nutty.
Hey look: that post was also about asahi and not about the content of his posts.
Unless something’s changed since Dex departed, it’s not an insult. Nor is saying that he comes across as a crazed street corner preacher.
Good job pointing that out! Since no one said anything about an insult, tho, why did you bring it up?
The note:
The thing is, it’s not that you can’t tell the difference between an insult and something that is not an insult, right? That wasn’t what got you dinged and it wasn’t what you started this thread over, was it?
Which is why I didn’t use the word nor invoke it in any way.
Moderator Note
Personal attacks aren’t allowed either, and this post and this whole thread comes across as a continued personal attack. Keep that to the Pit.
Colibri
Moderator
Moderating
Yeah, in my book likening someone to a crazed street corner preacher is an insult, even if you try to make it about the post with “comes across as.”
Colibri
Attacking the post continues to be allowed. Following moderator instructions is also a requirement.
You linked to a Pit post and Tom dropped a note. It instructed, do not:
[ol]
[li]Link to insulting posts; that[/li][li]Contain no actual information; while[/li][li]attempting to provide “explanations” of other posters’ actions[/li][/ol]
Here’s how I break it down:
[ol]
[li]What was the point of your followup post if not meant to hold asahi in a negative light - hence the personalizing aspect[/li][li]You linked to two separate Pit threads, yet you weren’t pitting him. It wasn’t about the thread topic at all - no actual information.[/li][li] Not exactly explaining another posters’ actions per se, but still it strikes me as a way to hold asahi out for mockery.[/li][/ol]
Like I noted, if it weren’t for Tom’s note immediately prior that you were responding to, I’d leave it as a note. But it doesn’t make sense to me to continue with basically the same thing that was instructed against.
It generally doesn’t make sense to take someone’s tone and words from The Pit and use them as an argument in another forum about that person’s demeanor and intent. The Pit is the forum designed to allow that behavior. Cite his attitude in forums where he is actually trying to teach.
I think that saying that someone “comes across as a crazed street corner preacher” is an insult.
IIRC, the rules prohibit nitpickery rules lawyering where you pretend to attack the post, but it is a veiled attack on the poster.
You can’t say, “That post is written as if it was authored by a dickless little douchebag who probably beats his wife.” When modded, I doubt that, “But I clearly attacked only the post” would be an acceptable explanation.