I think you’re on the right track. These sorts of complaints are not prohibited, but my experience is that they’re usually off-topic and intended to open the door for complaints about some incident that happened years ago. They’re discouraged in that sense.
I agree that many times complaints are used to dredge up old hat.
But this specific incident was a warning that was handed out for a comment made about “the Czarcasm rule” saying it was like cops not handing tickets out to their buddies’ wives. The warning stated it was for personal insults in ATMB.
It just seems odd to call that an insult, and the only way I can conceive it as a personal insult is to call it an insult to the moderators. But that comment has caused a lot of confusion, and there’s yet another thread on the topic because it still hasn’t been clearly explained.
I don’t recall the specific situation, and, sorry, but I don’t really have the time or inclination to dredge back. The thread had become a pile-on, and an ATMB thread was turning into a Pit thread. I asked Czarcasm NOT to participate in it (which already put it into the awkward situation that he can’t respond to accusations). A negative comment made at that time, at that point, was different from the same comment made in a different thread at a different time.
We’ve always been situational.
(bolding added)
With all due respect, the bolded is 100% wrong. I was previously instructed not to mention a certain sports team in a certain context, which I did not do in that thread or at all elsewhere for the past 2 years.
If someone writes a rude cursing message and then tags anything I say in return as “harassment!”, then… wow.
Okay, I did go back and review the situation, here.
Morgenstern posted
You replied
Morgenstern’s post was post 24, your reply was post 29, prior to Czarcasm’s participation in the thread and your post 58 mentioning asking Czarcasm to no longer participate.
I am mistaken, however, that a warning was not actually issued for the statement, so memories are murky all around.
The question that remains is how Morgenstern’s comment is a personal insult directed at another poster. I understand it’s in a thread with a lot of hostility toward Czarcasm as well as the perceived moderators’ attitude toward Czarcasm, but that particular comment doesn’t insult Czarcasm, and is substantially* not different than “the moderator’s give Czarcasm a free pass”, which also is not an insult to Czarcasm.
The thing is, that one remark is the basis for a bunch of still ongoing kurfluffle over how to point out in ATMB, politely or otherwise, that a poster seems to get a free pass without that remark being taken as an insult to that poster.
*Certainly different in tone, but not in content.
Dex, I’m stunned that you would say you can’t bother to go back and review a comment that has fueled, if not outright caused, days of commotion. You should take a close look at Irishman’s post.
I’ve also gone back to look at that thread and the many vague, confusing and contradictory comments. As far as I can tell, these questions remain unanswered. For your convenience, I’ve included the number of the posts that raised the questions. Perhaps you and/or TubaDiva could take a look and respond.
-
Is “nag” an insult that should be reserved for the pit? (post 5)
-
Are mods not allowed to tell posters to cool it when they are belligerent or annoying? (post 16, 83)
-
Is it junior modding to suggest a forum change or advise a poster to ignore another poster’s comments?
-
Is this – “I thought we all decided there was a Czarcasm exception to that rule? You know, like a cop not giving another cop’s wife a ticket for something that anyone else would have gotten a ticket for” – a personal insult toward (a) Czarcasm, (b) the moderators, © both or (d) neither? (post 29, 73)
-
“Your desire to win the nitpickery prize apparently blinded you to the actual claim…” – is that an insult or just saying something negative about a person? What is the difference? (post 71, 127)
-
Can someone address Shodan’s question? (Post 130)
-
Why was the thread not ATMB material? (post 150)
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Do any mods or admins care to address these questions?
As a point of clarification, if Blank Slate had posted that in ATMB would it have been acceptable or would it have been considered insulting and thus not acceptable for that forum?
Thanks for offering succinct questions, Clark K. Let me try to address them, one at a time.
As with almost everything else, it depends on the context, on what came before, and on how it’s being used. Generally speaking, an individual word is not necessarily an insult. “You’re a fuckin’ arrogant nag” is an insult, where “Don’t nag me” may not be.
Of course mods are allowed to tell posters to cool it. There are several different levels of telling posters to cool it, from “friendly reminder” to “mod note” to “Official Warning” to suspension. 
Usually not, but (again) it depends on the situation. A polite suggestion for forum change has never been considered junior modding. Telling someone to ignore another poster’s comment depends on the wording. “Ignore that asshole” is almost certainly an insult, where “Ignore X’s comments” probably not.
I took that to be an insult to Czarcasm (as I think I made clear); and after I had said, several times, NOT to pile on Czarcasm in this thread. It’s also worded in a way to be offensive to the mods. The question could be expresed objectively (as a question about whether an individual is given extra leniency) and thus an ATMB question. This isn’t expressed as a question but as a “we all decided” (who’s we?) and in a negative way. It’s not a question but a slam. I disagree with Irishman: it is a statement, not a question, and substantially different wording from “Do the mods give X a free-pass?”
I don’t think there is any difference.
Quote 130 isn’t by Shodan and doesn’t contain any question. So I’m not sure what you’re asking (or what Shodan was asking.)
I don’t quite understand what you’re asking, but Post 150 asks about the difference between “X is an ass” and “some say X is an ass.” In the past, we have had instances of people using “some say X is [insult]” as a non-subtle way of skirting the no-insult rules. (Similar to “we all decided” or “we all agree”.) In this particular case, I agreed that was not happening and I rescinded the warning (in Post #147)
I thought most of these were obvious, and have been board policies for a long time. I didn’t understand that there was confusion, or I would have answered earlier. 'Way back in Post #148, I said I was very confused about all the different topics getting mushed together (Post #148), so thank you for separating out into straightforward questions. I hope these answers help.
Thank you, Dex. I appreciate your answers.
Post 130 in the “Factual Junior Modding” thread is **Shodan **asking, “Could you explain how “Poster X gets a break because of special circumstance Y” is a personal insult directed at another poster?” I think you’ve answered that as well as it can be answered.
Post 150 was from TubaDiva. She said, “Whoa! This is definitely not About This Message Board material at this point.”
You mean the one where he referred to the moderators as “incompetent fucktards?”
No, that wouldn’t be allowed in ATMB.
Now you’re just being unreasonable.
Ah, sorry, those were in a different thread, that was my confusion (I thought you were referring to the same thread we were in, not to the closed prior thread.) The prior thread was no longer ATMB material because it had strayed into Pit-ishness, hence was closed.
I don’t believe Blank Slate could have opened that thread as it existed in ATMB, because it tried to do two things at once: Pit Czarcasm and Pit the moderators. I believe a Pit thread parodying Czarcasm’s behavior could be posted, but not if it delves into the moderation angle, which a thread like that is pretty much guaranteed to do, because the complaint isn’t so much Czarcasm’s behavior anymore, it’s the perceived lack of oversight. Also, a parody thread about the moderation of Czarcasm would be a dig at Czarcasm, so would not be acceptable in ATMB.
Thank you, Dex, for answering the question to clear up the confusion. I was having a hard time seeing how it could be an insult to Czarcasm, and thus my attempts for more explanation in this thread. It seems to be a case of invoking Czarcasm’s name in a negative manner. Normally, I wouldn’t see that wording as an insult to Czarcasm, certainly the way “insults” have been interpreted on this board historically, where “Irishman’s post sucks balls” would be acceptable and not an insult, because it addresses the post, not the person. “The Irishman Rule” doesn’t say anything about me per se. But I can see how the tone and approach were not acceptable for ATMB, and after already having dropped instructions to lay off Czarcasm, that comment was pushing the line.
The people asking those questions thought there were longstanding board policies, but moderator statements made in those threads did not seem consistent with previous practices, and thus the string of questions for clarification.
Is it now clear that everything WAS consistent with prior practice?
Actually, since you ask, the part about the the multiple cites I provided in the now-closed thread about (including Colibri on the exact same issue*) about how badgering/harassing a poster isn’t allowed but somehow Czarcasm doing it on a regular basis** in general and in that thread specifically where he goes several posts over the limit Colibri set when he made a mod-ruling (as well as over the Tomndebb limit and the Marley limit) isn’t clear to me at all.
*Note to pedants: no, no two issues are exactly the same but in normal human speech, “exact same” doesn’t mean “down to the sub-atomic level”. It means “as similar as is reasonably possible”
**I hope this doesn’t count as “piling on” but I don’t know another way to explain my concern.
I would like to know this as well. I brought it up earlier as well, but I never saw an answer.
No, that’s not what I asked. What I asked was whether there was still confusion about whether the mod statements were consistent with prior practice.
What you are doing is raising the initiating issue yet again. You have raised it several times, and been told many times that the moderator ruling was that Czarcasm may have been annoying but was NOT badgering or harassing. I understand that you disagree with that, but the ruling has been reviewed, and upheld. There are lots of posters who are annoying, that’s not a rules violation.
This is the last time this particular incident is to be brought up.
Repeating: This is the last time this particular incident is to be brought up.
Once more: This is the last time this particular incident is to be brought up.
EDIT: rsa, sorry, there was a simulpost. If you haven’t seen the answer before, you haven’t read my prior posts. It’s been answered, by me and by Colibiri, several times early in the thread.
I don’t recall the answer of the specific issue badgering/harrassing being brought up before, but regardless, you’ve certainly answered it now. I apologize if I missed it and I appreciate your answer. Consider the issue dropped by me.
Thanks.
I don’t know about anyone else, I would need to be shown an example of prior practice that would illustrate why the statement was an insult to Czarcasm, and not just to the mods. I get it as a Warning for violating mod instructions, but not as an insult.
I’m not saying I don’t get the distinction you are drawing, but I just don’t see evidence that such a distinction is not a new idea. Yes, it is an accusation rather than a question. But I don’t see how that turns it into a personal insult.
Plus, I have personal experience in the area, sorta. There has been at least one poster who has claimed that I was being moderated unfairly leniently. If they had said “There’s a special rule for BigT,” I would not have taken that as an insult. It’s just an accusation of bad moderating.
So, going forward, is a direct accusation that a particular poster is being shown favoritism in moderation going to be considered an insult of that poster? If not, could you change the reason for the Warning in question to “ignoring moderator instructions”?
I know you’ve discussed cracking down harder in ATMB, which is fine, but only if you tell everyone. Otherwise, you get exactly this sort of firestorm.