# So I got this warning **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [June 16, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695 "2015-06-16T19:12:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/81 "2015-06-18T12:05:51Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > You might need to look at the application of it though. > > If ignorance of a mod instruction is no defense, then what of the many, many people who do not read every page and every post of every thread, but who jump in to give their opinion anyway. Its incredibly common to see a post started with “I haven’t read all the posts but…”. As said up thread already, a mod note multiple pages back that gets missed might be treated differently than one only a few posts before. Conversely a mod note simul posted with a new post might get simply another reminder. I’ve certainly done that latter. > [@](#): > > When those people fall foul of a mod instruction it now seems precedent has been set for official warnings as the punishment. This being the case, should the mod instructions be made more visible? This isn’t new precedent. One of our preset warning categories is failure to follow mod instructions. Posters have always recieved warnings, if appropriate, for failure to follow mod instructions set out by mod notes in specific threads many, many times. > [@](#): > > Its common on other boards to have thread title edited to include reference to any mod instructions. For example “So I got this turnip (MOD WARNING Post 458)”. Should this practice be adopted here? Most mods here indicate in some fashion when they are acting as mods as opposed to posting as regular posters. I use Mod Hat On as a title, for example. In this case the post itself as a mod instruction was not missed. Again, the note was two sentences: the first directed to **adher** and the second sentence to Everyone. SA was a poster in the thread, before the mod note and after, and on the topic being moderated. He saw the note and chose not to read it all because he believed it didn’t apply to him- which he decided without reading it. Everyone else stopped the hijack immediately. He didn’t. He got warned. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/82 "2015-06-18T12:06:23Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Again you’re getting tripped up due to the way the note was composed. Someone’s getting tripped up due to the way the note was composed, but I don’t think you realize who. > [@](#): > > When I’m engaged in that sort of board activity I frequently skip over posts and comments that don’t seem to pertain to the things I’m following. It’s a time allocation issue. I simply don’t have time to read everything written in every thread I’m following, so I scan for what interests me and skip over what doesn’t in order to move on to the next germane post or off to the next thread. Yeah, I’m sure that’s how you’ve engaged in board activity in the past. How’s that working out for you? Based on this experience, I can imagine a change you might make. Can you? ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/83 "2015-06-18T12:17:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > End of the warning? The whole warning was just 4 sentences, and the transgender part started at sentence #2. Yepper. If the warning had been lengthy, with the instructions for all poster embedded in a meandering fifth paragraph, then maybe SA would have a valid excuse. Regarding Una’s odd threat/challenge, I don’t know what it meant, but I interpreted it as, “I’ll begin a refutation that will continue as long as necessary. Days. Weeks. Page upon page upon more.” As for posters missing mod instructions because they posted without reading an entire thread, that’s the chance you take. I would have sympathy if the thread is over 500 posts and the mod instruction is around post 250. Ideally there’d be a way to check the epic threads for all mod instructions, but it doesn’t seem like an issue that arises often. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/84 "2015-06-18T12:46:35Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Most mods here indicate in some fashion when they are acting as mods as opposed to posting as regular posters. I use Mod Hat On as a title, for example. In this case the post itself as a mod instruction was not missed. This doesn’t address my point. Anybody reading the thread will see the Mod hat title, but I referred to the very common instances where a poster jumps to the end of a thread without reading every page. Can’t see the “Mod Hat” on page 4 of a thread if you didn’t even read page 4. This board takes its warnings very seriously, they never expire and only a few will get you banned for good. As you said in your own words, failure to follow mod instructions is a preset warning category. That being so, I’m simply asking if the mod instructions are visible enough? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/85 "2015-06-18T13:06:20Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > This doesn’t address my point. Anybody reading the thread will see the Mod hat title, but I referred to the very common instances where a poster jumps to the end of a thread without reading every page. Can’t see the “Mod Hat” on page 4 of a thread if you didn’t even read page 4. > > This board takes its warnings very seriously, they never expire and only a few will get you banned for good. As you said in your own words, failure to follow mod instructions is a preset warning category. That being so, I’m simply asking if the mod instructions are visible enough? As I said earlier, this very thing becomes a problem in a long thread. Those threads seem to have more bends and turns in them, with topics coming and going. I don’t read back 200 posts, let alone 1000, when posting. But apparently I’m, at least to some extent, held by that requirement. I see the mod side too with respect to the warnings. Maybe this is a good reason to disallow \*one size fits all \*threads like the pit “Controversial encounters” thread on cops. They just get too long and become logistical nightmares for staff and members alike. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/86 "2015-06-18T13:21:38Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > You may not believe me, and that’s your prerogative, but your past had nothing to do with it and I know of no conspiracy to eliminate you. I doubt if there’s any sort of “conspiracy to eliminate” SA. But it’s pretty clear that posters who are perceived as problematic, aka extremely unpopular, are kept on a much shorter leash than are other posters. > [@](#): > > It was a warning, rather than a note, because the topic had become nasty and heated and extremely unkind that it needed to be shut down. To have that instruction ignored just a handful of posts later needed to be dealt with. If anything I regret not giving more warnings, rather than fewer. FWIW, I thought it was a slightly dubious warning as well, though not for the reason SA is advancing here. I had read that earlier note, but assumed it was about hijacking the thread for a discussion of transgender issues. SA’s post was very much focused on the transracial aspect, and only briefly mentioned transgender by way of illustration. Not a terrible call - I can see it either way - but if it was me I would have made clear that even references of this sort were unacceptable rather than giving a warning at that point. But it wasn’t me, so that’s not what happened. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/87 "2015-06-18T13:24:27Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > This doesn’t address my point. Anybody reading the thread will see the Mod hat title, but I referred to the very common instances where a poster jumps to the end of a thread without reading every page. Can’t see the “Mod Hat” on page 4 of a thread if you didn’t even read page 4. > > This board takes its warnings very seriously, they never expire and only a few will get you banned for good. As you said in your own words, failure to follow mod instructions is a preset warning category. That being so, I’m simply asking if the mod instructions are visible enough? > [@Morgenstern](#): > > As I said earlier, this very thing becomes a problem in a long thread. Those threads seem to have more bends and turns in them, with topics coming and going. I don’t read back 200 posts, let alone 1000, when posting. But apparently I’m, at least to some extent, held by that requirement. > > I see the mod side too with respect to the warnings. Maybe this is a good reason to disallow \*one size fits all \*threads like the pit “Controversial encounters” thread on cops. They just get too long and become logistical nightmares for staff and members alike. In my experience as a poster and now a mod, mod instructions from pages back don’t generally become a warning against a new poster in a thread. As said, that sort of context gets taken into account. Other boards I’m on use colored posts for mod instructions. I don’t think we have that capability here, but short of that it’s hard to know what else to do, for instructions multiple pages back. How would you suggest making them more visible to some one skimming a long thread? I’m sure we’re open to any ideas that help new people to an exceptionally long thread get caught up. That of course wasn’t the issue here, since SA wasn’t new to the thread, it wasn’t a long thread, says he saw the instructions, and used his judgment to not read a mod note he felt didn’t apply to him. But any suggestions for other situations are welcome. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Not a terrible call - I can see it either way - but if it was me I would have made clear that even references of this sort were unacceptable rather than giving a warning at that point. But it wasn’t me, so that’s not what happened. 🙂 “Not a terrible call” is fine by me. I’ll take it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/88 "2015-06-18T13:29:49Z")
**Starvie** , I love you like a brother but I suggest you look at it practically. The mods don’t have any way to communicate their rulings in a thread except by posting in the thread. Therefore the burden of being aware of what they have said in a thread lies with those who post to a thread. Otherwise, how can the mods mod? Just say “Apologies - I missed the ruling. My bad.” and let it go. My $.02 worth, and cheap at half the price. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/89 "2015-06-18T13:32:43Z")
My suggestion remains the same. If there is a very clear instruction from a mod to the general public that certain discussions or topics are not allowed to be mentioned, and that continuing that discussion will result in a formal warning, then make reference to that instruction in the thread title. A gentle “lets get back on track here folks” doesn’t need referenced, but if its an instruction that could lead to formal warnings then it should be. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/90 "2015-06-18T13:35:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **Starvie** , I love you like a brother but I suggest you look at it practically. The mods don’t have any way to communicate their rulings in a thread except by posting in the thread. Therefore the burden of being aware of what they have said in a thread lies with those who post to a thread. Otherwise, how can the mods mod? > > Just say “Apologies - I missed the ruling. My bad.” and let it go. > > My $.02 worth, and cheap at half the price. Its easy to say let it go, but when the inevitable banning comes there will be a link to that warning and similar others, then there will be a shrug of the shoulders and the reasoning that he had loads of warnings so it was his own fault. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/91 "2015-06-18T13:37:29Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Other boards I’m on use colored posts for mod instructions. I don’t think we have that capability here, but short of that it’s hard to know what else to do, for instructions multiple pages back. How would you suggest making them more visible to some one skimming a long thread? I’m sure we’re open to any ideas that help new people to an exceptionally long thread get caught up. This post has been– –aw, hell, I can’t do it. Anyway, I think it’d be very easy for y’all to change the color of posts for moderation; it takes about five seconds to do. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/92 "2015-06-18T13:37:50Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > My suggestion remains the same. If there is a very clear instruction from a mod to the general public that certain discussions or topics are not allowed to be mentioned, and that continuing that discussion will result in a formal warning, then make reference to that instruction in the thread title. > > A gentle “lets get back on track here folks” doesn’t need referenced, but if its an instruction that could lead to formal warnings then it should be. Yeah, I saw that idea. I’m just not sure how that could really work in practice. It opens up a new can of worms, because any mod instruction (including “let’s get back on track”) has the possibility of being warnable if ignored in the right situation. By adding a new layer of importance (the important instructions go in the title), there is now even more wiggle room to decide to ignore in-thread notes that don’t make it to the title. Plus, for really long threads, there can be multiple notes with multiple insertions into the title. Honestly, is this really such a huge problem for the few exceptionally long threads? It’s seems to be sorting itself out in practice. > [@bucketybuck](#): > > Its easy to say let it go, but when the inevitable banning comes there will be a link to that warning and similar others, then there will be a shrug of the shoulders and the reasoning that he had loads of warnings so it was his own fault. Not that I think a ban is coming, but in this case it was his fault. He saw the note and didn’t think it applied to him, without having read it. It wasn’t missed. He made a mistake and ended up doing something that earned him a warning. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/93 "2015-06-18T13:45:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This post has been– > > –aw, hell, I can’t do it. > > Anyway, I think it’d be very easy for y’all to change the color of posts for moderation; it takes about five seconds to do. Cute. I suppose, but I didn’t even notice that you had changed the color on that to purple until I read your comment. On the other board it’s more like the entire field is highlighted yellow with black text. I think that’s a big fix to solve a pretty non-existant problem, but other mods might feel differently. Plus, I post from Tapatalk a lot and I don’t think I can change font color there. I’d rather not have to wait until I get to a CPU to give mod instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/94 "2015-06-18T14:01:15Z")
There really isn’t a good answer to this. Hopefully the other mods will take into consideration your ( **ITD** ’s) comment about a _new_ poster to the thread and the warning being buried a few pages back. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/95 "2015-06-18T14:01:49Z")
> [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > Regarding Una’s odd threat/challenge, I don’t know what it meant, but I interpreted it as, “I’ll begin a refutation that will continue as long as necessary. Days. Weeks. Page upon page upon more.” Bingo; you got it exactly right. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/96 "2015-06-18T14:06:23Z")
That seems unlikely. What “refutation” is there to being called Frankenstein? I understood it as just some bluster, like a lot of people who dare others to do things without a clear idea of what they would do next but intending to communicate that they meant business. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/97 "2015-06-18T14:08:35Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I doubt if there’s any sort of “conspiracy to eliminate” SA. But it’s pretty clear that posters who are perceived as problematic, aka extremely unpopular, are kept on a much shorter leash than are other posters. Then again, they are also protected by mods. I have received a warning over a **SA** post, and **Grand Wino** just got one. Just an observation. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/98 "2015-06-18T14:13:47Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Was he being a jerk in this thread? > > Did the moderators have to moderate him for being a jerk in this thread? > > Or was it simply a potshot against an easy target over past occurrences? 1. I take the Fifth and invoke my rights as an American citizen. 2. No but I probably would have. I used to teach and I’ve heard every excuse for bad behavior in the book given by kids who honestly believed that just because they wanted something to be true, it had to be true. This event and SAs attempt to dance around it in this thread strikes me as something I’ve seen before and something I didn’t care for even back then. It’s one of the many reasons I would make a terrible mod, here or anywhere else. 3. 1. > [@bucketybuck](#): > > Thats the point isn’t it. There was no moderation for being a jerk in this thread, and no post that required moderation for being a jerk. Rather the mod just said he was a jerk, just because. > > A mod, in ATMB, just decided to say a poster was a jerk. > > Its not like I’m too bothered about it, but people really can’t see how its inappropriate in an ATMB thread? In most cases I would agree with you but not so much here. From what I’ve seen over the years in ATMB, for the sake of clarity I would suppose, some things happen or are allowed that wouldn’t stand most other places. Mostly we have been the guilty parties but the mods are basically just us, right? Regular posters who have taken on added responsibility for the community we have here. Like I said before, I did wince a little when I read it but I can see where it was coming from. “Sure, **SA** can be a jerk sometimes, but don’t try to outdo him.” is a lot different from “Sure, **SA** is being a jerk here, but don’t try to outdo him.” Accepting that we can all act like jerks sometimes, the first I can accept as a full explanation of why **Grand Wino** caught the warning; the second would be a clear potshot against **SA** for something he wasn’t warned for in this thread or moderated for to the best of my knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/99 "2015-06-18T14:16:49Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Yes it did, but the whole point is that a person would have to scrutinize it at least somewhat in order to determine that. > > [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18438384&postcount=134) ITD’s post in its entirety. On my computer it takes up about four vertical inches, 3 7/8ths of which relate to the Frankenstein remark or are empty space. On that basis, it’s ridiculous that you didn’t read it in full. It doesn’t require “scrutiny.” It is clearly labeled “Mod Hat On,” in boldface, and has only two lines, the _second one of which is directed to you:_ “Everyone.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695/100 "2015-06-18T14:23:28Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > “Sure, **SA** can be a jerk sometimes, but don’t try to outdo him.” is a lot different from “Sure, **SA** is being a jerk here, but don’t try to outdo him.” Accepting that we can all act like jerks sometimes, the first I can accept as a full explanation of why **Grand Wino** caught the warning; the second would be a clear potshot against **SA** for something he wasn’t warned for in this thread or moderated for to the best of my knowledge. FWIW, my take on it is that he was warning someone for an offense against a very unpopular poster, and that line served to disassociate himself from him. Sort of like “yeah, I’m with you about SA as a general rule, but still you gotta follow the board rules”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-got-this-warning/722695.md?page=6)