Sorry Samclem I know you closed it because it was boring but I read another thread this morning and it’s solidified for me why I think the original mod note was wrong.
Our favorite weirdo Diamonds02 started her weekly thread and these were among the replies:
Let me be clear - I don’t think any of these should get a warning or a mod note, and I while the volume is unusual I don’t think the attitude is. What makes Starving Artist and paper towel tubes deserving of protection? Is it his reaction? If so, wouldn’t it make more sense to tell him to grab a sense of perspective and take it to the pit if he feels the need to respond?
Provocation has not in my recollection been accepted as a defense for people committing message board crimes here but in this one case it seems that since SA has not been able to control himself the moderating has shifted to preventing what triggers his outbursts rather than simply punishing them.
If you can’t refer to a posters history or reputation we might as well go the snackpit route and wipe out user names and just judge each post on it’s content.
Would the use of the word “cromulent” be considered a jab at SA? This is a serious question & not meant as snark.
ETA: Also this question is not intended as a hijack of this (diamonds) thread, but after reading the other thread, the question occurred to me…but by the time I arrived on the scene, it was already closed.
So if I call you a bunch of names *to piss you off *and you respond by calling me names only you should be punished?
The jerks bringing up the paper towel thing are doing it just to piss off SA. Or they’re doing it because they want to feel like they are “in” with The Cool Kids.
Exactly. See the original ATMB complaint thread for an example.
To be perfectly clear, in no way, shape, or form were my actions intended to “protect” Starving Artist. In my opinion as a poster, he deserves every ounce of opprobrium he gets. But the place for that is the Pit.
My actions were to protect General Questions. Sniping at Starving Artist has no place in that forum. I don’t want people making remarks that can lead to a hijack. For example, political remarks are allowed in GD and Elections, but not in GQ.
And the original “trigger” wasn’t punished. Ludovic received only a mod note. Saint Cad received a warning for not following moderator instructions.
No one ever said anything like that.
No, cromulent is a Simpson’s reference. Just because it was mentioned in the Pit thread doesn’t wipe out its previous meaning. As was pointed out, the use of “paper towel tube” is not prohibited either - only its use in reference to the Pit thread (which clearly was the case in the post for which it was mod noted).
Okay lets change the analogy a bit - if you followed me around to every thread and quoted my wild failure at an ATMB thread and I couldn’t handle my own words being repeated back to me without hijacking the thread then yep, I should be the one punished.
You would both be punished. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. In that example Drunky Smurf would probably be acting like a jerk and hijacking threads, and you’d also be hijacking threads.
Was still half awake. :). That’s more what I meant. I was focused more on the GQ is for factual answers part and probably shouldn’t post until the caffeine has fully kicked in.
As Marley says, I would consider that harassment or stalking. I would probably mod note it in the first instance and give instructions that it should not be repeated. Retaliation by the target would receive a mod note or warning depending on the nature of the response.
[QUOTE=Moonlitherial]
Our favorite weirdo Diamonds02 started her weekly thread and these were among the replies:
[/QUOTE]
If someone took potshots at Diamonds02 in an unrelated GQ thread, I would probably mod note it. In fact, I have instructed Diamonds specifically to keep her wacky threads out of GQ. They soon become more about Diamonds than about the actual subject (which I’m sure is the intent). However, if Diamonds ever actually asked a GQ straight up, without all the side commentary intended to be provocative, I would moderate it to avoid personal remarks regarding her other threads.
As I said in the other thread, I’ve been stating my policy on this for GQ. Moderators in other forums may choose to handle it differently. However, in general I think off topic sniping at other posters, especially if it’s likely to be inflammatory, may be subject to moderation.
But there is one wrong thing in your post that may be why we are still talking about it.
Yes - ludovic just got a note.
Yes - my warning was for (unintentionally) disobeying a mod instruction.
Yes - “paper towel tube” leads to hijacks and to be honest, SA himself did a much better job than you and Marley put together to explain why this is so.
No - It was not a snipe at SA. It was participating in a SD meme and IMO less offensive than if I were to write something ultra commie liberal and sign it