[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
Again, I don’t say that I didn’t deserve a warning. I don’t say I didn’t deserve the suspension. I do say that, the way things worked, I really had no chance to abide by the warning. By the time I received the notification of the warning it was already too late.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not like the rule against insulting posters only kicks in if you get a warning and read it. It’s a general rule, and you kept breaking it.
It looks like you were warned at 2:00. Your post was at 2:20 and then the suspension was at 2:29.
I don’t know about how the mods feel about it, but if it were me, and I had written what you did in the 2:20 post, I would have immediately deleted it if it were within the five minutes or written posted again that I hadn’t been it before being warned.
It does seem that while others may be jabbing, your replies were much more clearly outside of the rules.
Zeke, if you don’t see that you started off the OP looking to hit, and then hit more, I don’t know what to say. Stomping around and making absolute statements like “no one ever cites them as influences” or sneering at the amount of covers on their original albums, you were baiting folks. And then, when people point out corrections, or suggest that there are other ways to look at things, you launch at them with sarcasm and arrogance.
And you are surprised that the tone went that way - and you think that behavior entitles you to punch back hard?
Folks love the Beatles, and the Kinks, and other great music. It is entirely possible to say “I don’t like the Beatles - here’s why” and engage in a great conversation. You didn’t do that at all, and posted yourself into a place where you got suspended. Own your own behavior.
How can a person post if the person has been suspended?
He got better.
(the mods indicated it was a two-day suspension. It has ended by now.)
Zeke, I generally agree with your POV in that thread. However, even the OP was combative and contained incorrect info. The other side responded by being insulting and dismissive, but as explained above, it’s not much of a defense when you reply in kind, even if the Mods did agree with you.
All I can advise is to try to take the high road next time when faced with that in the future. Responding in kind doesn’t work anyway, and being nicer than they are makes your argument seem more reasonable, and often infuriates your opponent. So, double win.
Good point. That was some of the weirdest moderation I’ve ever seen.
In post #103, Idle Thoughts suspends Zeke and moves the thread to the pit.
I have no idea what he thought this would accomplish when Zeke could not post. In any case, the other posters behaved as ideally as the Board could possibly want. They stopped engaging with someone who could not respond for two days.
A day and a half later, Miller moves the thread back to CS because no one was fighting! Even though Idle Threads had earlier said the Pit was “where it probably should have been started in the first place” and Zeke was being given no change to respond and the other posters were given no chance to respond in kind.
Both mod moves make no sense. Either a thread belongs in the Pit and Zeke can respond or Zeke gets suspended and the thread stays in CS. You can’t mix and match this way.
IMHO, regardless if the thread could have been opened in the Pit, it wasn’t. It ended up being a fascinating thread on an interesting topic, albeit with some behavior that needed moderation. As always, if someone wanted to hash it out with the OP for his tone or position, they were welcome to start a Pit thread and link to the CS thread. If the OP wants to let loose a rant, and not discuss, he is still welcome to start a Pit thread as well.
As it stands, the music discussion is still gong strong, and I think it would have been a shame to have derailed that just for the opportunity to go after the OP. I know the back and forth was a bit dizzying, but I think we ended up with (with apologies to Ed Sullivan) “a really big thread”.
For those of you following along, here are the relevant threads:
Idle Thoughts’ warning (posted at 12:00)
I thought the moderation was pretty good. Zeke is a long-time poster who (I assume) has made significant contributions over the years. He got himself (and others) worked up and the moderator stepped in with an uncommon–but reasonable–2-day suspension.
Glad you didn’t get banned Zeke.
I still laugh when I think of your lobster rant.
Stick around. Obey the rules, okay?
I want to get a clarification here.
Let us posit a four page new thread. On the bottom of page three, you (or another mod) posts “OK, No more discussion of topic XXX”. Do you expect a new reader to read the entire thread, all pages, before responding to a post on page 1? :dubious:
This question has been discussed before at length, so let me sum-up.
Black and white answer: Yes.
Subtle, judgement call answer: Mods are generally more patient with a situation you just described (in which the instruction was multiple pages back) and may simply remind a poster of the rule.
However, that wasn’t even close to the situation here, which is the specific instance Idle Thoughts was replying to.
Yes, I agree, the sitrep here is different.
I think the Black and white answer need rethinking, but I understand a need for a judgment call.
Sometimes you need to have the nuclear response at your disposal, even if you rarely need to use it.
Seriously dude, you let people get under your skin because of your dislike of the Beatles? Let it go. We’re not even talking about facts but qualitative opinions. Hopefully the two days away gave you some perspective. Good luck.
Pretty sure if you delete cookies come back and don’t try to log in, you can read but not post.
Or at least, that was the case when I was banned by mistake a few years ago.
Sure, that’s what they all say. There’s not a single guilty man in prison either. 
Was that during the Great Banning? 
Never mind. I’m remembering it wrong. Apparently, the IP on my phone was banned, but I could still post from my laptop.
So, I don’t know where the hell I got the whole delete cookies bit. lol.