I understand that this kind of thing is a judgement call on the mods part and I have no problem with it, especially when there is a muddy middle ground. In this case, though, it seems clear that he was way over the line and into violating the first rule territory. And honestly, it seems that defining his posts as simply “annoying” is a way for you to not have to deal with this situation.
Take the following snippet from that thread.
Czarcasm: Please cite any of these so-called “facts” that you wish to discuss.
Daz ‘the burner’ Rush: *Czarcasm, if you were to correctly read my post i did not mention anything as ‘fact’, merely something that ‘has been said’.
* Czarcasm: Again, said by who?
Daz ‘the burner’ Rush: Why exactly does this matter, if you understand the general point i was trying to make? It could be some bloke at a bar, it was a glib statement used to make a point.
Czarcasm: It matters who said it if we are to consider it as a possible statement of fact.
Czarcasm’s first post mischaracterizes the OP. The OP clarifies his position and the terms he did not use. Czarcasm’s following posts continue paint the OP’s words in a different light than intended after the OP has explained he was not presenting them as “facts”.
Is that really OK in GQ? If the OP had claimed they were facts, I would have no problem with that exchange but as it stands it just seems to run afoul of how GQ should be conducted. I mean, isn’t Czarcasm’s (posts) continued putting words in the OP’s mouth moddable? I realize he didn’t use quote tags but still…
Not only did those posts violate rule #1, but also was clearly threadshitting. As **PlainJain **said, labeling it as “annoying” seems to just be a way to defend poor moderation.
IIRC, there was a thread here in ATMB where a poster asked whether or not it was within the rules to continue to ask the same (or very similar) question of a member posting in a thread. The context was, I believe, related to repeated calls for a cite.
Again, my memory is even worst than my search skills, but IIRC, TomnDebb (or the staff member) answered that once was fine, twice was forgivable, but three times could border on harassment. (paraphrased and likely misquoted)
Does anyone have a link to that thread? I’m curious as to whether I actually remember it correctly and whether or not it would be relevant.
PlainJain and Joey P (post #105) have very kindly summarized Czarcasm’s “contributions” to the General Questions thread.
It that is not being a jerk, what is? I guess I need a reminder course since I thought that if it seems apparent to most dopers that a post looks, walks, and talks like a jerk, it probably indicates jerkish behavior.
I realize that Banquet Bear is likely to post that it’s another forum and has absolutely nothing in common with this situation like he posted last time I provided a cite, but for the rest of us, it’s pretty clear.
According to the mods those posts were not jerkish. Per post 16 they “might have been beligerant” and post 23 they were “aggressive” and neither of those two things cross the line into being a “jerk” in General Questions.
Also per post 71 who cares if those posts were “annoying” being annoying in General Questions is not against the rules.
Oddly posts 16 and 23 seem to be talking about the poster and not the posts.
And he also (correctly, IMO) points out that it derails the thread. Which, until post 16 of this thread, was against the rules. Now deliberately badgering a poster for an answer is “an interesting digression”