So factual jr modding is OK now?

-cough- See my post up there.

…you didn’t do exactly the same thing. You did a different thing, in a different forum, which exists under different rules.

I’m of the opinion you should have been modded for that post in ATMB. I’m on record here in stating that ATMB has been moderated to lightly and that calling out other posters should not be allowed. But hey, thats how things are. If this thread is an example of the moderators stepping up and stopping faux-pit threads in ATMB, then I applaud it.

Ah…I see that you were first
well said.

ETA, post 75

This has potential to become the next “go fuck a cactus”.

Come on, fess up… you didn’t really read that thread did you? :wink:

He’s accusing you of misunderstanding his posts, and believes that he can’t clarify his intent without falling afoul of Dex’s instructions. This is pretty much because they are quite vague and seem to be arguing that any mention of Czarcasm’s actions amount to pitting him.

I can only say that I clearly interpreted the post as insulting the moderation. But it was done in a snarky way, and snark is usually pretty much sacrosanct on this board, as long as it doesn’t fall afoul of anything else.

As for the topic of this thread: I question the notion that hostility is allowed in GQ. Nearly every time I’ve seen it, there is either a mod note or the thread has been moved. So if you admit that Czarcasm was being hostile, then there should have been some action once you were made aware of it.

I also would argue that I’ve seen many people accuse others of hijacking a thread, and I do not see how it can be junior moderation. Yes, hijacks can be a moderatable offense, but they need not be. And I’ve seen quite few posts where people give advice on how they should post.

Now, maybe Fenris was being too hostile in how he said it, and needed a note to dial it back. But that offense isn’t junior modding, and calling it such is what created the confusion that led to this thread.

-cough- See my response in Post #83. You are perfectly able to criticize someone’s POST in ATMB. You are NOT able to criticize the PERSON in ATMB. There is a difference between “That post is stupid” and “You are stupid.” The former is permitted everywhere; the latter, only in the Pit. You may note that I have allowed all the comments about Czarcasm’s POSTS to remain. My admonition was not to make comments about the person. We don’t prohibit “insults,” we prohibit “personal insults” – that is, negative comments about a person.

On a separate issue: I would like to sincerely apologize to Fenris for my remark about how his post was the most disconnected from reality. I was grotesquely premature in making that award, and I’m very sorry for it.

The question of what constitutes “junior modding” is now, and has always been, somewhat ambiguous and subject (as all these things are) to variation due to context and situation. It is rare that people are actually given Official Warnings for “junior modding”, they’re usually just told to dial it back (as was the situation in this case.)

So, now, can I summarize? Most of the posts here believe that Czarcasm was being annoying in that thread. Sadly, there is no popular vote, it’s only people posting in this thread (a biased sample) and there several people voted many times, so I think I can fairly state that most of the posts here believe there should have been some scolding issued. Understood.

Most of the mods believe that being annoying is not a warnable offense. (Being annoying is not the same as “being a jerk.”) Hence, no scolding was issued, nor should be.

[MODERATOR HAT OFF]I’m frankly saddened a bit by this. I think it would be wonderful if being annoying were against the rules. We could insta-ban the people who think the moon landing was a hoax, homophobes, sexists, racists, people who oppose gun laws… and I could have issued about a dozen warnings his thread alone, to meet my monthly quota.

Accusing Giraffe of belief in Astrology is an insult, right?

…if you feel that what I wrote was an insult, please feel free to report my post. But I didn’t accuse Giraffe of belief in Astrology. And my post was not intended as an insult. Nor does it read as one. But feel free to take action if you feel you must.

Could you explain how “Poster X gets a break because of special circumstance Y” is a personal insult directed at another poster?

Regards,
Shodan

Wow.

Whoa, fella. I never meant to imply that you suggested Giraffe was into woo, it was your post I felt suggested such.

But why else would someone give thanks to lucky celestial bodies?

I accept your apology and would like to offer my own apology in the exact same spirit as your own. I said your post was cowardly, borderline paranoid and delusional and that your post won the “completely disconnected from reality.” award for the day.

I was grotesquely premature in making that award, and I’m just as sorry about my post as you are about yours.

PS–I note with awe the leadership your posts provide in trying to make ATMB more civil.

My lord is so tall, he must know more about the bodies in the sky than I.

–Golf clap–

I think you’re slightly misreading the question. It went something like this:

Is being psychopathic inborn? I kind of think it is, but people can learn not to be. Would everyone be psychopathic without civilization to teach them not to be?

The implications you cite are actually part of the question: the OP was ASKING if the things he believed were actually accurate. Addressing those points WOULD address the question.

But addressing them doesn’t mean asking snarky questions about the questions. It means doing some research, quoting some stats, finding authorities in the field, etc.

Your post does not show any relevancy with the issue being discussed. It’s not the subject matter that’s the problem, it’s the ongoing, repeated badgering of the op that is. No-one in the entire thread has said they have a problem with Czarcasm posting his question–the first time.

Pretty much everyone who objects to Czarcasm’s posts in both threads does seem have a problem with him posting the same question multiple times over and over.

Perhaps you could post something that addresses the concerns that exist, not the ones you feel like writing about.

His posts (as is typical of his posts) were douchy, badgering, unnecessarily hostile (“so-called facts” as an opening salvo? In GQ?). It’s not his questioning of the OP, it’s his hijacking the thread. [del]And he does this all the[/del]…[del]and his posting style is the same in[/del]…ok, how are we supposed to fuckin’ discuss this in ATMB under your current rules?

How do you address a poster’s ongoing behavior without addressing the poster? Let’s imagine a hypothetical poster in, oh, let’s say, GD, who posts over and over “Religious people sux!” and very little else. It’s no big deal for him to post it once. It is a problem for him to hijack every damn religion thread with the same twaddle. It’s not the content, it’s the behavior. So how could that be addressed in the brave new world of ATMB?

I don’t know–can you? What followed this question was a terrible, hostile summary of what people are saying. I don’t know whether you’re deliberately misinterpreting people, or if it’s genuinely your best attempt at a summary, but either way, it demonstrates that you’re failing to understand both the problem and the proposed solution. Is there someone else we can talk to?

Gee, sweet.

I like that. Tell us that what he did was wrong or tell us what he did was okay.

If it was okay it reminds me of your kid sister that sits there in the car with her finger one inch from your face. The difference is, when you say “Mom, Czusie is being annoying” and Czusie says “I’m not touching him” mom always said “I don’t care, keep your hands to yourself”. Mom would never let Czusie sit there with her finger one inch from your face for the entire ride to grandma’s.
Czusie wasn’t touching you but mom still enforced the “Don’t be a jerk rule” to put a stop to it. Whether it was to get her to stop doing it or to get you to stop telling on her, it just stopped everything. Besides, she didn’t have to be doing that just because she can and it made the ride less enjoyable for everyone.

At what point does that type of behavior become threadshitting?
Anyone?