“Son, as I said before, you can’t do that.”
“Why?”
“Well, because you can hurt yourself.”
“But whyyy…?”
“Because… it’s dangerous…?”
“But whyyy?”
“Uhm…”
“Whyyyyy…?”
“Could you just… not do that?”
“WHYYY? OH, WHYYY, WHYYY!?”
“Excuse me while I do some recreational surfing at the Straight Dope.”
Tap-tap-tap.
“Uhm, as I said before, you can’t do that.”
“Why?”
[Insert scary music from Twilight Zone.]
You may not insult the moderators and if you are of the opinion that a specific poster get special treatment they seem to be willing to discuss this if links are provided so there’s something to discuss. Perhaps you’re not satisfied but the answers you get, but seriously, this “whyyyy” is a bit silly considering the age of the posters. – There, I said it. Now I look forward to a reference to apples. [rolleyes]
I read the Pit thread and chuckled. I figured eventually it would be closed and the OP noted. Instead, I’m sitting here anticipating a warning once the mods realize I read the thread.
No mod input here for a bit, as wagons are circled. Prediction: OP warning remains, other warnings rescinded and some reformulation of rules, complete with footnotes, released.
Do you not know how this board is moderated? Because those exact types of posts have never been moderated in the Pit. It’s not a snarkboard thing at all.
That’s exactly why people are upset. Yes, there is an argument that the OP deserved a Warning. But that people who just said they found it funny are somehow breaking the rules? That’s just ridiculous.
I mean, it’s already a rule that is usually not Warnable. Usually, discussing moderation in the Pit is just a Mod Note and thread closing offense. Yes, you can make the argument that the OP of that thread went above and beyond the usual complaining in his thread, and thus deserved a Warning. But the others did not.
On reflection, I agree, I was wrong and I have rescinded the warning. My apologies. We’ve had cases of personal insults in the past where posters have used “Some people think…” as an evasion of the no-insult rule, and I read your post too quickly. My sincere apologies.
I suspect that it would be better to create separate threads for these, rather than to continue with them plodded together. Some posts, it’s hard to know which topic it’s about. I do see that there is connection between them, but I think that mussing them together leaves us with some fuzzy ideas.
The Mods are discussing (a) behind the scenes. This is not “circling the wagons”, this is simply trying to avoid “Mommy said no, so ask Daddy.” We’ll get back to you shortly.
Thank you, Dex, all of that is reasonable. I’m glad that that one warning was rescinded and that (a) is being reviewed. The rest of the list is not really relevant to yesterday’s events.
(f) moderation pushing the definition of “personal insult” to an extremely white shade of gray.
I honestly don’t understand the distinction you were trying to make between “Czarcasm gets away with X” and “some feel that Czarcasm gets away with X”. To me, there is absolutely no semblance of an insult in either statement. I would like to see the definition of “personal insult” return to something that is both personal and insulting. Specifically, I think there should at least be a derogatory word in it to even meet a threshold of insulting, or at least extremely heavy-handed snark or tone. Not only does it appear to make your jobs harder, but it’s starting to get really tedious to keep track of an ever-moving line.
There’s a certain Al Pacino movie which has a quote which is oh, so, very very apropro to paste in here (most of the movie buffs in this thread will instantly know which quote I am referring to), but since I don’t want 3 week’s probation for quoting it here (and a mod finally chimed in with a voice of reason), I must hereby hold my tongue…
Marley, I know you said you may take another look at this. I hope you will.
I agree that Blank Slate’s post was a deliberate attempt to complain about the moderators and moderation of the board in the Pit, that it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. I understand your desire to crack down hard on this and set an example. I think his warning was justified and appropriate.
What is less clear is the judgment that other posters were participating in complaining about the moderators/moderation. Yes, they seem aware of the original incident and making references to it, but it is ambiguous that their remarks were criticisms of the moderation.
GrandWino’s post was a comment on the “code” used to refer to TubaDiva. It could have been an appreciation for the wordplay, without being a cheer for the thread’s existence.
Fenris’s comments are directed at Czarcasm’s comments from the prior threads and Czarcasm’s behavior, and not comments about the moderation or the closing of the ATMB thread. It’s understandable that it feels like he’s participating in the complaint against moderation for the events in the ATMB thread, but his comments do not in any way comment on moderator actions or the ATMB thread. Rather, they harken back to the thread that spawned the ATMB thread.
Dallas Jones’s remark is a reference to the original incident. I suppose it feels like he’s cheering for the existence of the Pit thread, but observing the connection is not supporting the rules violation.
faithfool’s remark could be interpreted as participating in the rules violation by continuing the joke; however, riffing on a theme is board culture expectation.
Please consider rescinding those four warnings.
Respectfully, GrandWino had a complaint about moderation and he posted the thread in ATMB. While he does seem a bit dismissive of how the connections read as continuations of the rules violation, he has a valid criticism. I know it is tedious to deal with posters who like to rules lawyer every situation as a way to badger the staff, but this does not feel like that. I feels like to me that you were trying to set an example with respect to Blank Slate’s attempt to circumvent the rule, and you read other poster’s remarks through the harshest filter and then got heavy-handed with the punishments to make people pay attention. This situation has amped up frustration levels on both sides, and rather than serve to make the point in the strongest manner, your heavy-handedness just served to fuel the fire. GrandWino’s list of alternate explanations was done largely out of solidarity for feelings of injustice with respect to the moderation in that thread. Admittedly, his frustration leaves him less than respectful in that thread, which does make it challenging to read as sincere questioning of the incident rather than an excuse to berate.
I would hope that you can step back with a cooler head and rescind that warning as well.
Dex, a lot of people are confused over this warning. Where is the insult? Is this being interpreted as an insult against Czarcasm (how?) or an insult against the moderators (that they are showing favoritism and dereliction of duty?)?
And if the latter, how is one to try to point out a pattern one thinks he identifies in moderation bias? I’m not seeing that remark as being particularly disrespectful, unlike the comment in the ATMB thread where the “Czarcasm rule” was likened to cops letting their buddies slide.
I hope you will reconsider this warning, but some clarification would definitely be in order (as reading this thread should make abundantly clear).
Okay, perhaps this is part of the answer to my previous question. Bring up specific incidents so they can be evaluated, but don’t make unsupported blanket accusations of moderator bias because that can’t be easily rebutted and is, therefore, character assassination.
Banquet Bear, I don’t think this thread is the appropriate place to pursue this argument. I think you’re overreacting, but if you must pursue this, can you please not hijack this thread to pursue it?
I also don’t feel this topic is appropriate in this thread. While the complaints about Czarcasm’s behavior and the feeling of moderator bias spawned this chain of threads, I think that issue should be reserved for a different thread. The purpose of this thread is to question the moderator actions in the Pit thread and GrandWino’s attempt to question that moderation. Delving into the “back story” is irrelevant to those specific events, and will only serve to (a) hijack the topic of this thread so the moderation of those events will get buried, and (b) get people stirred up into a heated debate, thereby derailing the tone of this thread further. Thus, the result will only be to get this thread closed for either (a) going off topic for ATMB, or (b) turning into personal attacks. I’ve seen it happen too many times, please try to refrain from contributing to that effect.
I think that’s poorly stated. Any actual rules violation is always Warnable. The fact that the moderators often show leniency and resort to Mod Notes instead does not mean that they can’t drop a Warning on any specific incident.
Dammit, Dex, you had to go and post that while I was composing! Thank you.
Agreed wholeheartedly. I think people are dumping all their frustrations into one place rather than consider if the discussion should actually be in this thread.
Thank you.