In this thread about dating websites, the OP states that he is 47 yrs old. He also links to another thread of his from only three weeks ago, where he is 45 yrs old. When I questioned the discrepancy, I got a mod note saying I was “following posters around” and “pretty close to harassment.”
How is it “following someone around” to click on a link he provided in his own OP? Does not compute.
Was my post perhaps a nitpick? Yes, but that’s one of the things this board is known for.
Not strange at all. The appearance of doing it is as unnerving as actually doing it. If you’re not “following around,” you shouldn’t make posts that give the appearance of “following around.” It’s creepy.
I’m having a heck of a time finding the thread. I figured it was probably IMHO or MPSIMS, but I don’t see anything similar. I even did a “dating web sites” board search and came up empty. Am I blind, dumb, or some combination of both?
EDIT: Never mind, it must be this one.
If you’re going to lodge a complaint, please at least link to the modnote and not waste other’s time.
In defense of DA, regarding stalking, the poster linked to the thread where they talked about being 45 in the OP of this new thread. It’s hardly stalking someone to follow a link in a thread they are directing you to read to provide context for the new thread.
I also don’t see that asking someone about a perceived age discrepancy as being an accusation of lying. We have two threads where a person is volunteering details of their life, including age. They included that information because they felt that disclosing their age was important for the story. So it doesn’t seem inappropriate to ask for clarification, since again, they volunteered the information.
I can’t see how it’s “creepy” when a person is inviting people in and giving all of this personal info. And Moonrise wasn’t offended, and explained, even apologizing for the confusion. I’m having trouble seeing what the problem is that required a mod note. If it’s creepy to discuss this kind of information, we shouldn’t allow personal threads in the first place.
(I do get that it’s just a note, so not a big deal, but I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same thing if I was similarly confused, and I’d like to know why that isn’t allowed.)
ETA: On re-reading, was the comment/implied question too blunt? Would if it have been better if DA had said, “Sorry but in the previous thread you linked to, you talked about being 45, I’m just trying to figure out if that was a typo or if there is something I’m missing here.” That might be how I would have asked for clarification. Is it just how it was said?
I’m not seeing it as stalking, either. The poster invited people to read those threads in the OP; no stalking was involved. Discrepancies stand out. It’s how Martin Hyde was unmasked as a troll.
That’s how it struck several of us in the mod loop, as well as the poster who flagged the post. Mods did discuss it.
I won’t speak for others, but to me, it was framed as a “gotcha!” If @D_Anconia had concerns the poster is a troll, he is always welcome to flag the post and point out the discrepancy. We’re happy to research it.
I can totally understand a mod note about being careful not to imply that a person is lying (outside of the Pit of course). That makes sense to me.
This is a relatively small board with a relatively small “population”. I don’t think it is weird at all to remember details that someone has posted in a different thread. What I think is weird is being expected to act like you don’t. Imagine if that was used in meatspace:
“Hey, a few minutes ago in the living room you said you were 45. Now in the kitchen you say you are 47. What gives?”
“Don’t bring up information from other rooms! Stalker!”
In meatspace, the correct response would be “lighten up, creep. Sometimes I round.”
I have no idea why anyone would want to defend someone trying to pull off a cheap and pointless “gotcha”.
DA’s only purpose to posting was to implicitly accuse the OP of lying, which gives the appearance of ‘following’ them.
So even if it isn’t harassment, it’s definitely threadshitting and it’s definitely calling somebody a liar outside the pit.
Seems pretty cut and dry.
It isn’t about that instance in particular, it is about the concept of “don’t bring up things mentioned in other threads” in general that I have encountered here.
This. He was not confused and asking for clarification. And the discrepancy wasn’t even enough to be relevant to the story. He was saying “gotcha!”
Yeah. If D_Anconia had actually had a contribution to make to the thread, and in passing had asked for clarification on the apparent two-year age discrepancy, I don’t think it would have been worth remarking.
But since he did attempt to make a “gotcha” out of it, it should be noted that in fact the problem was with his own reading comprehension, not Moonrise’s earlier post where he mentioned being 45:
D_Anconia, by my count “45” + “two and a half years” = “47”.
Yeah. I mean to be fair in the Pit people “stalk” and call out other posters constantly while troll-hunting.
“Twelve years ago you said you were a gay octogenarian with two cats, yet six years ago you suddenly morph into a 40-something married heterosexual with five dogs. What gives?”
If D_Anconia had posted his commnt in the Troll omnibus thread probably nobody would have blinked (ETA: well, Kimstu would have rightly called him out for bad math 
). So a mod note was perhaps warranted. Best thing is probably to just report the discrepancy to the mods to let them sort it out. But I think the accusation of stalking was kind of a bit much. D_Anconia could have easily remembered a post from a couple of weeks ago, no stalking necessary.
And again, the OP of the thread in question literally linked to the previous thread to provide background for the new thread.
I understand the reprimand for the attempted “gotcha”, and maybe a minor threadshit. But it’s not stalking. If it’s stalking to refer to a thread being linked to in the OP of another thread, maybe there’s a definition of that word I’m unaware of.
I totally get the mod note about the other part of it though. That makes sense.
As is often the case when i moderate reported posts, i didn’t read the entire thread, just a couple of nearby posts for context. Maybe, in the context of the entire thread, it wasn’t as creepy as it felt reading it cold.
It was still an accusation of lying. There was no other content, and it wasn’t a request for clarification. It was hostile, and didn’t belong in IMHO. I stand by mod-noting it.
Bottom line. I agree.
…I mean, I think that this post in this thread is more hostile than what D_Anconia posted.
It is certainly helpful for all to provide a link to the modnote in question. But it isn’t (as far as I’m aware, and I’ve checked the stickies) a rule. And if that tone is acceptable here in ATMB, I don’t see why that tone isn’t acceptable in IMHO.
To read D_Anconia’s tone as hostile, one needs to make assumptions about intent. But people notice these things all the time. I remember what happened to Kaitlyn, to Martin Hyde, to a number of different posters who outed themselves, not necessarily in the pit. This particular instance certainly wasn’t worth a pitting. So how best do you think discrepancies like this should be handled in the future? The situation here seemed to resolve itself before the thread got moderated. The question got asked, the question got answered. Did it need to go further?
I’m personally not a fan of mods moderating based on how a post feels to them. How we feel when reading something is based on so many other factors, e.g. how our day has been, how much stress we are under, our own personal history with certain words, etc. This is a bigger deal with posts that make the mods angry, but I think it also applies here.
That said, I agree the post was stated in an accusatory manner, and that such was out of line. And the poster in question has a history of bad posts, and thus there is a valid reason to give them less benefit of the doubt.