Mmm, perhaps, but then shouldn’t we have “Marquess of Queensberry” type rules? That would lead to less blood in the ring, which would be less interesting, but also more fair fights with mod intervention where needed.
[sub]sigh I know it’s not funny, I just can’t help myself. It feels like we’re reading the same script over and over. It gets a bit dull after the first 12 months.[/sub]
I’m not sure why you’re wondering, since I think I was pretty clear above about what the problem was with the post. Yes, I would. As I said above:
The rant itself was inappropriate for GQ. The fact that Rumor also posted serious information doesn’t make the rest of the post acceptable, regardless of the order it’s posted in.
Sparky812 said:
What image is that? That Mac users prance around in Richard Simmons short-shorts?
Meant to say something about toning down the “joke” but forgot. Sorry.
If the “joke” had been toned down considerably, the post might have been OK. Still, if the main point had been to ridicule Mac users, that might have gotten a note as well for not being on point and tending to disrupt the discussion.
The thing is, GQ isn’t a boxing match. In GQ our objective is not to referee fights, but to keep them from breaking out in the first place, and stop them as soon as possible when they do take place.
Your experience in GQ is enhanced when someone calls Mac users fags?
“Fags,” no. “Macfags,” just a little.
You don’t say?
Well, seeing as I wasn’t suggesting that a conversation in GQ was like a boxing match - that’s right, it was the refereeing bit that was relevant - that’s neither here nor there.
No; neither is it impaired. It is a word, and only has as much importance as I attach to it.
No, GQ isn’t a boxing match.
The conversation was in GQ. If you weren’t comparing it to a boxing match, then your comparison was irrelevant.
No, it has as much importance as other people attach to it. Your personal opinion, and whether or not you are offended by it, is irrelevant.
Mods should be like ninjas!
Hiding in the shadows - you never see them untill - SHWAAAAHH!!!
and them some guys head is all like split right down the middle and shit!
That’d be AWESOME!
Take everything a person says literally much?
See, there you go again!
Is this your personal opinion, or is it sticky-ed somewhere?
Good grief it wasn’t even an official warning. You were behaving like a jerk. I didn’t report it but when I read the thread in the first place I thought, “What an ass!” And your lame suggestion was “plug it in”. That’s not exactly helpful.
So there ya go. Don’t know you, don’t know your posting history and barely keep up with all these mod operations. But I’ve been around for a long time, and I know when people act like jackasses without at least giving a decent answer first in GQ they generally get a good fussing-at.
It’s not true even figuratively. GQ is not supposed to be a fight.
Regarding whether or not “fag” is offensive, you might want to check the dictionary.
From Merriam-Webster:
Bolding mine.
And yet again you’ve managed to completely miss the point here.
Threatening to warn or ban someone is different than posting a mod note about maintaining etiquette. Posters should not be punished or threatened with punishment for things that don’t violate the rules.
The conduct in question didn’t violate any rules, except for the unwritten rule that mods are allowed to make arbitrary decisions under the nebulous “Don’t be a jerk” rule, which wasn’t even applicable in this case, except by a major stretch.
There are several GQ mod peers of yours who have aptly demonstrated the difference; I suggest you go back and take a look at how it’s done.
I fully expect any day now to receive a warning for “being a jerk” because I haven’t stroked your ego enough or accepted your flawed premises; that I should have such worries is a damning indictment of the level of trust and respect you’ve managed to build with all of these warnings and threats.
ETA: Actually, I don’t think your decisions are arbitrary in the technical sense; I think they are merely biased and based upon your ability to take offense quickly.
Actually, you’re the one who’s missed the point.
I mentioned the possibility of a warning in that thread because Rumor already had accumulated several warnings and mod notes. He wasn’t showing much tendency to learn from his mistakes. I thought he need a strong heads up about his behavior here.
It isn’t an “unwritten rule,” it’s in the Registration Agreement.
From the FAQ on Board Guidelines and Etiquette:
Also from the Registration Agreement:
You have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules are, and of the authority the moderators have to enforce them. The basic rules, including the “don’t be a jerk” rule, are deliberately broad. Moderators also have very broad authority to interpret the rules in order to maintain board standards. I realize you don’t like this, but that’s how this board operates. Saying that these are “made up rules,” when they explicitly appear in the Registration Agreement and the Board FAQ, is nonsense.
This is a free message board, moderated by part-time unpaid volunteers. To expect that we are going to develop detailed rules to cover every tiny contingency to the level of the US Code is absurd, as is the idea that every Moderator Note needs to withstand Supreme Court review. Your expectations here are wildly out of perspective.
Preparing yourself for martyrdom in advance? Sorry, this sort of thing is so ridiculous it doesn’t even merit a substantive response. I’ve never issued you a warning, and I can’t recall giving you a moderator note either. Crying about how afraid you are that I might persecute you in the future is laughable.
Take offense quickly? You took a couple of gratuitous jabs at me in your first response in this thread two days ago. If I’ve got a hair-trigger, it must be jammed.
Here’s my helpful and patented humor analysis:
In the right context this could be pretty funny, but it needs the proper surrounding material.
This part seemed too serious, like you really have a problem with Jobs and his control etc., as opposed to being mostly apathetic about it but aware of it enough to poke some fun at it.
Something more subtle, less direct and obvious maybe.
I laughed at this part.
Again back to taking it all too seriously. The humor content drops because it seems you really care.
If you can eliminate the stuff that makes it seem like you care, and replace it with stuff that seems like you are poking fun at something in an observational or less passionate way, then you can use stronger language like “MacFag” and it will seem funny instead of a rant.
Here’s an attempt, off the top of my head, that may have worked better (or maybe not):
“I’m not a MacFag, so I don’t know if this will work for sure, but, take your iShit, plug it in using Steve Jobs patented iSuck cable, see if the iPower light comes on…”
Still a little raw, but at least feels like less of a rant about recent events.
Random Bonus: Bumper sticker I saw said “Earth First! We’ll log the other planets later”
Even then, it was just unprovoked. The OP was pretty neutral. It’s not like he was responding to an OP saying “Oh my Jobs, I just found an iPod! I love Apple but I could never afford one! I immediately threw out my old MP3 player because it looks like such a piece of crap compared to the Holy Grail, but I can’t seem to get it to work. Any help?”
No, but they are enamoured with Apple… much like Liza fanatics!
That is still pretty raw; I wasn’t asking for an editorial, I was just asking for advice for an iTouch found on the road.
This would have been funnier if it had read:
“Earth First! We’ll rape the other planets later”