You do realize that you instruct other people not to do things in this post then turn around and do them in the same post.
With all due respect, Dex, I have seen y’all pull that card way too many times. If the thread is about how a poster is treated by mods, we can’t discuss that without discussing the poster. Logically, you should know that. “Take it to the pit” is a dodge by y’all. It is a refusal to discuss the poster in question, be it Czarcasm, or somebody else.
I have seen that dodge by the mods way, way too often.
Charming as ever Dex. With you as our role-model courtesy, it’s no wonder ATMB is so civilized.
That said, if you’d bothered to actually read the thread in question, I was told that this post
was “junior modding” because the “you’re best of disregarding” stuff and stating the obvious truth that responding to a neverending string of nitpicky lame-ass rhetorical questions will derail the thread is somehow “giving instructions to other posters”. Please. :rolleyes: I can dig up dozens of threads where people were told to beware of other posters pet issues. Newbies being warned about various posters regarding religion or regarding The Amazing Randi, or about bad dreams masquerading as near-death experiences. But apparently this is JUST NOW junior modding, despite years of it being ok.
I’m not complaining about the mod-note: I knew that the snark-level of that post was on the line for GQ (I thought it was on the OK side of the line since I was talking about the posts and not the poster, but hey, fair enough, I guessed which way the wind was blowing that day). But there’s no possible way to squint and make that post into “junior modding” by any definition that’s existed before or since (since you claim that LHoD doing exactly the same thing might garner the same warning was “disconnected from reality”)
Ironic in that it was Czarcasm’s poking at someone that started all this.
OK. I’m not one who usually chimes in on these discussions.
All the moderating in the original thread and this one has been bullshit. This is not a ‘poke at Czarcasm,’ but *you *have allowed him to fuck up a decent GQ thread while blaming others, and then continue the crap in here. What you call insults aren’t, what you deny is junior modding is. What you’ve called ‘piling on Czarcasm’ is questioning you.
I’m glad you chose to do so now. That post sums things up nicely.
Hear, hear.
In a thread questioning whether or not certain posters receive preferential treatment, Dex’s replies have proven the point that yes in fact they do, and that we can go fuck ourselves if we have a problem with it.
Methinks the moderator doth protest too much.
You’re setting a standard of insulting in this thread that doesn’t match any of the previous standards of insults that I’ve been familiar with in fifteen years of posting on this board. But: your board, your rules; I’ll abide by it.
Dex, please hear me when I tell you this. I’m not trying to play gotcha, I’m not trying to prove you wrong, I’m not trying to argue for either side of this issue. But you’re giving people instructions with regards to personal insults that simply don’t make sense. Once upon a time, the rule against personal insults was quite simple: don’t call people names outside of the Pit. Now, in ATMB, I honestly haven’t the faintest idea what posts you will deem as insults and which you won’t.
You’re of course entitled to mod ATMB however you see fit. However, I urge you to at least come up with a more clear description of what behavior you believe to be against the rules so that posters can discuss moderation issues involving other posters without risking warnings.
No, sorry, but that was never the standard. The rule was don’t INSULT people outside the Pit, and it continues to be such. “Personal insults” are NOT limited to name-calling. Attributing motives to a person can be another form of personal insult. Thus, saying that a person has such a “great desire to win a nitpicker prize” that they are “blinded” is about the person, and an insult. (That’s what Left Hand said about Czarcasm.
Sorry that you’re not familiar with it, but what I said is perfectly consistent with what we’ve always moderated. And please note that I said was not about Fenris, but about his post – and that’s always been one of our clear distinctions. One can comment about the post, but about the poster (outside the Pit.) So, the comparison of what I said to what Left Hand said is … misplaced.
Another aspect of “personal insult” is when something is thinly veiled – e.g., an insult directed against “anyone who does X” when it’s clear that there is only one person in the thread who does X.
Second clarification: The OP (as I understand it) was asking why one person got a “friendly reminder” and another person didn’t. So, just to repeat:
(1) The person who was given the reminder used a thinly-veiled insult.
(2) “Junior modding” is accusing another poster of a rules violation.
(a) Suggesting that something is in the wrong forum is NOT a rules violation.
(b) Being annoying is NOT a rules violation. (If someone is being so annoying as to cross the point into trolling, that decision should be made by a moderator, not another poster.)
(c) Saying that someone is “derailing” a thread could be a rules violation (depends on circumstances) but is always something that should be decided by a moderator.
Colibri therefore gave a “friendly reminder” to Fenris, for violating (1) with a thinly-veiled personal insult, and (2)(c) for accusing Czarcasm of derailing the thread. He did NOT give any “friendly reminder” to Czarcasm, because Czarcasm did NOT break any rules: he may have been annoying (that’s not a rules violation) and he may have suggested a forum change (that’s not a rules violation) so there’s no reason for saying anything to him.
Now, I think that answers the OP, and that answer was given many many posts ago. The rest of this has become “Yeah, but Czarcasm was really, REALLY being annoying.” The answer is: so what? That’s not against the rules. Therefore, Colibri did not make any comment to Czarcasm in that thread.
I hope that his post has clarified for you: fucking up a thread is NOT necessarily a rules violation (and it’s arguable whether that was Czarcasm did). Colibri, as moderator on the spot, clearly didn’t think so.
f you want to open a thread about Czarcasm being annoying, do it in the Pit.
POST SCRIPT: I would like to close this thread. If I do so, there will outcry that I “had the last word” so I’m issuing notice that I will close the thread in a few hours, and I do not anticipate posting here again.
I still don’t understand why saying “Poster X gets an extra break because of special circumstance Y” is insulting to Poster X.
Regards,
Shodan
Dex, I suggest you keep this thread open. Your actions are being criticized, don’t take the coward’s way out.
Except that The Pit is not allowed to be used to discuss threads like this that focus on Moderator actions because ATMB is designated as the place to go to discuss Moderator actions except that now you’ve instructed all Dopers that discussing Moderator action may not take place in ATMB but instead must take place in The Pit except that The Pit is not allowed to be used to discuss threads like this when the focus involves Moderator action because that is what ATMB is for except that now you’ve instructed all Dopers that discussing Moderator action may not take place in ATMB but instead must take place in The Pit except that The Pit is not allowed to be used to discuss threads like this when the focus involves Moderator action.
Nicely played, Dex. Nicely played.
:smack:
So nitpickery is not an insult but nitpickery+blinded=insult and unconnected from reality is not?
I really don’t think I’m unusual in thinking that "Congrats, this post wins the “least connected to reality” prize of the day. " is far more insulting than “Your desire to win the nitpickery prize apparently blinded you to the actual claim.”
Funnily, it’s an “insult” that probably wouldn’t fly in the pit, either. Because you can’t pit moderator decisions, which is really what such a comment is bringing attention to.
As I said, you are welcome to moderate however you see fit. I would argue that using such a broad definition of personal insult is a huge mistake, though, and one which absolutely does not conform to how many forums on the board have been moderated in the past or present. (I’m sure I can dig up several dozen links without leaving the first page of GD, and I say that having not read GD in months.)
Moreover, I know you’re annoyed at the kerfuffle and you want people to stop doing the thing that’s annoying you. But I urge you to think through the consequences of what you’re proposing. If the other mods actually used your definition, people would be able to spew ignorance in GD all day long and good posters would have to tiptoe ever so carefully lest they imply that these posts were motivated by ignorance or that the poster was blinded by their own ideology. Cecil would be banned almost immediately if he tried to post under these rules.
Hey, if you want to talk about Cecil that way, take it to the pit!
Yes, yes, we all know: The books are not The SDMB and The SDMB is not the books. Still and all, we must know our provenance, mustn’t we?
Read the first 50 pages of the first The Straight Dope book. And tell us that he wouldn’t have been banned.