This was not an attack, it was an observation based on the posts. I will concede there’s a certain dark humour in someone not knowing what an attack is in the context of that thread, though.
If you want to know what an attack is, go to the pit thread iiandyiiii has revived to attack me in, and where I respond in kind.
I don’t see any attacks in that thread. Just a bunch of neutral observations based on your posts.
In that case, you are presumably agreeing with me that the post I was warned for was not an attack either.
I’m just a humble layperson, but ISTM that accusing another poster of having a “childish desire for vengeance” counts as an attack. YMMV.
Free advice @Steophan My rule in GD is to just not comment on other poster’s intentions. It’s quite useful advice.
“Zimmerman is a lying, child murdering, racist who should be jailed. It’s a crime that he is not. etc.”
You can state your views, you can repeat your views, you can defend your views, you can clarify your views. However, if you don’t comment on other posters or their intentions you are not attacking them. I mean you might be attacked for your views, but that’s on them. Don’t bite.
Also meet me back in the pit where we are free to say what we like to you.
I was thinking it was more the “you are why we need laws”.
Attacks are allowed in the Pit. Accusing someone of having no “system of morality” is a pretty clear attack.
You can’t defend an attack by claiming that it was an “observation based on the posts”. Go read the board rules again, it doesn’t say personal attacks are allowed outside of the Pit as long as they are based on things you’ve read someone write on the board.
I mean, I can’t call someone an asshole in Great Debates and then say, “But I’m right, look at what they wrote, only an asshole would say that.” I could go to the BBQ Pit and point to a post someone made and call them an asshole, that’s what that board is for. Otherwise GD would just devolve into people insulting each other back and forth, which is no longer a debate, it’s just a fight.
Moderator Note
ATMB is for resolving issues. The forum does not exist for your entertainment, and posts like these run very much counter to the purpose of this forum. Do not insult or belittle other’s posts outside of the Pit. Do not post snark or insult posts or posters in ATMB.
Posts in ATMB are expected to be respectful towards other users. I can forgive people losing their temper when the subject is highly emotional, but intentional disrespect towards others for nothing more than entertainment value is not tolerated in this forum. Do not do this again.
My apologies. Forgot where I was.
Yeah, oops with me, too. Although I knew where I was. Won’t happen again.
I think your posts in that thread violate the don’t be a jerk rule, as you are going beyond simple disagreement and impugning the motives and character of others, therefore this is a deserved warning. It would be nice if knowledgeable people could debate issues without such an air of superiority. You might find people would be more inclined to listen.
@Martin_Hyde is a good example to learn from. He gets testy sometimes, but for the most part his posts are more illuminating than hostile.
Right now you are more hostile than illuminating.
(I hope this fits in the rules of this forum. My intent is not to insult. I have no dog in this fight so I’m arguably a neutral party.)
Unless @Steophan has a history of doing this in GD, I don’t see why a mod note wouldn’t have done just as well. I am aware he has had run ins with mods before, I’m just not aware of what the problems were or how extensive. Basically, if this was a one off, I think a note would do. If it’s part of a larger pattern, I understand the warning.
Are we allowed to ask if the post drew a lot of flags?
That should never matter.
You can ask and it did indeed.
I also felt it teeters over the line of modnote or warning to warning.
Finally I reviewed the fact that there have been a lot of flags on steophan and we have tended to dismiss it but looking at them collectively, they push the border of what is allowed outside the Pit fairly often. I felt a warning was due. I know looking at it, I dismissed a lot of flags on their posts.
Maybe, but I’m always curious about that kind of stuff. I know I’ll never see the data, but I wonder things like if right wing posters get flagged more often than left wing. Or if unpopular posters draw more than popular. Or if, in this case, if the person was attacked reported the post. Does it weigh into a mods decision if the recipient of the insult doesn’t report it? If they aren’t bothered by the post, should mods act on it if someone else reports it?
Like I said, I know I will not have all the info the mods have but it doesn’t mean I’m not curious.
Thanks for the reply and the info. As I said, I knew he had some troubles before. From your reply I think you did the right thing. I’m in favor of erring on the side of using too many notes rather than warnings whenever possible, but this was obviously over the line. Good call.
A two-edged sword. On another forum, such curiosity led me to discover that I am the most reported poster.
Wish they’d give me a custom title for that.