This is strange but I can’t find the thread I started defending another poster when he was warned for saying the same thing in the Toddler vs Gorilla thread.
I was told by a mod that even though it was a figure of speech it was a warnable offense. In that case the poster said something to the effect of " I hope anyone…" in this current case the poster said, “I can only hope you…”
This is certainly a violation of the rules and such and it does not “come close” he is actively hoping that one of MY kids gets killed so I can experience it.
Even though your comments in that thread were disgustingly callous, I agree that muldoon’s response crossed a line that should have been addressed more firmly by the moderator.
The fact you’re getting all huffy about being on the receiving end of a behavior you, by your own admission, previously defended, is something else.
Looking at his Pit thread about BigT, Zeke appears to be pissy about a few things.
However, Zeke, you claim that he directly wished harm to your children. I understand that people can be very touchy about their kids, and what they perceive as threats to those children (I have none, so I will not say that I know exactly what that’s like).
But he didn’t directly wish harm. According to IDT, in the quote you posted, he came “very close” to doing so. We may be splitting hairs, but the moderator did step in before he directly wished harm. That may be a small but important distinction.
I truly wish I could find the thread that I referred to and that, in it’s absence, is being used to argue that this is “something else.” But I can’t. Other people with better skills than I may be able to. I admit my deficiency.
To think that this has anything to do with my pitting of Big T it lunacy.
I loathe Bit T for the reasons I gave and there are at least some others that feel the same way.
This is a simple case of if the rules are rules then they ought to be applied equally.
The truth is that I don’t truly care if there is a warning or not. I do care that one tike the figure of speech is used it is worthy of a warning and the next time it is worthy of a “you’re coming close.”
I like to know the rules so that I don’t break them, changing criteria makes that difficult.
I mentioned the Pit thread, but not to try to make a connection other than it seems to have been a rough week for you. I wasn’t trying to equivocate the subjects.
Are you serious? There is no such thing as a mod “comment” as opposed to a mod “note”. When a moderator tells you to “cut it out”, that’s a mod note.
At any rate, the post you quoted certainly could have been treated with a warning. But the moderators have a lot of discretion as to whether something gets noted or a warning. Good luck fighting this one.
Thank you very much I guess that’s why I couldn’t find it by looking at threads I’d started :smack: Memory is such a wonderful thing
So, having utterly destroyed what little credibility I had I forge on.
In Post 13 of this thread Moderator Loach said " If they used it on the board then they got modded. It’s not allowed and pretty clearly spelled out in the rules. The wording used is almost the same as the example in the rules. He might not literally hope that someone’s children be attacked by wild animals but that is what was posted and it is not allowed. <– emphasis added
In both cases there was an expressed desire for someone to feel the pain of a child being in the grips of a savage beast.
Asimovian in post 15 “… the point has already been made by others (and particularly the last comment in Loach’s post). It’s pretty plainly against the rules. Make your argument without expressing a wish for harm to come to the people you’re arguing with. I don’t think that’s a particularly difficult thing to avoid”
I only quoted the mods but there were a number of non-mod posters that agreed it violated the “don’t be a jerk” rule and the “don’t wish harm” rule.
Muldoonthief was very clear that he hoped I would get to experience having my kid taken by a wild animal.
As it turns out the two threads deal with substantively the same subject matter and, save for the word “jackass” the point of the post is the same. One got a warning and the other got a tone it down
That being said, at least 2 mods felt that wishing mauling by animals upon a poster’s children was in violation of at least one rule and many posters responding felt it was in violation of two rules I reiterate;
Zeke N. Destroi, I think you misunderstood what I meant by ‘‘this is something else.’’ I wasn’t saying they were two different situations, I was using it as slang for ‘‘weird’’ As in, it takes some nerve to complain about behavior that you previously defended.
In all fairness, now that I’ve read the thread in question, you wrote
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
Had he singled out a poster and said that the warning would be justified.
[/QUOTE]
You were in fact singled out by muldoonthief. So your complaint at least fits your own criterion. I would argue that you’re wrong about those other posters not being singled out, though. If you say ‘‘All people who have said X deserve Y’’ then all people who have said X are being singled out. So I would argue both cases deserved warnings.
Sorry man. I took “something else” as meaning “beyond the pale”. I apologize for my misinterpretation
I have a problem with rules being up to the discretion of whatever enforcer happens to come across it. I can accept a degree of ambiguity but for one mod to make a decision that flies in the face of statements made by two other mods in substantively the same situation bugs me.
In the end, I’m not mad, I’m not threatened and I don’t think MuldoonThief truly hoped for harm to come to me or my family.
I am concerned that a slip of the typing fingers may garner me a “psst, don’t do that” one day and a “you’ve been warned” another day.
I don’t need bright lines but when lines are too blurred it becomes difficult to know where to step.
I guess in the end it comes down to, “I don’t mind ambiguity; it is arbitrary that I have a problem with.”
My understanding is that anything said with a Mod Hat on and is not a Warning is a Mod Note.
While I guess I can see that it’s not 100% a direct wish of harm on the poster, it is still 100% a personal attack, and I agree that a Warning would make more sense for such.
That said, ITD is probably one of the more stingy ones with her Warnings, which is something I approve of in general. I’d rather have a mod err on the side of giving a note when I think a Warning would be better than the other way around. And if a Mod Note works, I can’t get too upset about it.
Zeke, you’ve been here long enough to know how things work on the board, and that different mods have different criteria for warnings and stuff. Shit, I was once SUSPENDED by Lynn for daring to post a joke thread in the BBQ Pit on NYE (wishing everyone a Very Fucking Happy New Year of all things). I’ve added it to my trophy shelf.
Just suck it up and let it go. Is it really important in the big scheme of things? Are you losing sleep over it? Do you still have an appetite, or is this grounds for getting a diagnosis from your GP for PTSD?
