Pretty much what he said. But also note that one comment was posted in yet another mod-bashing bitchfest, and the other was posted in a thread about someone’s mother dying. I didn’t much care for Dex’s comment in that thread either, but the context alone puts deevee’s waaaaaaaay out of the bounds of civilized human behavior. Dex was being a dick, and deserved the shit he got for it in that thread, but his post simply does not compare to deevee’s.
While I’m at it, I’ll add that Revenant Threshold was acting like a fucking putz for going on and on and on about it in the other thread. Save your mod hard-on for your own threads, and keep it out of threads about dying relatives, m’kay?
Assuming i’m allowed to say this, yes, I do think what deevee said was trolling, but not because it was suggested on the other board. All that fact does is help point out the trollish motivation to the rest of us; if that suggestion hadn’t been made, deevee’s response would still have been trolling. And as all suggestion from the other board does is help us understand deevee’s motivation, and since following advice from another board is not breaking a rule, then it’s not a difference that should have any effect on making C K’s post fine and deevee’s or SOAP’s not. It’s relevant only as to their motivation, not to making it any more jerkish.
Question; at what point does that additional content make the initial tldr acceptable? Is there any difference if I make that comment and then follow it up with praises for the OP, or insults? What if I break a seperate rule, would I only be warned for the second offense?
That would be understandable, I agree. But C K’s post was not a case of “Please forgive me for not reading the thread, but I would like to address this one issue, please”. It was “I haven’t read this thread and a I don’t intend to”; I see no admission that that may be a bad thing to do that’s present in your example. And his further content certainly doesn’t make it seem like he’s at all sorry about not reading the thread.
Yep, that was about the catsix episode.
No, you don’t need to read 108 items of choice vitriol to get a clue what’s going on; but if you want to say everyone in that thread on one side of an issue is a vitriolic idiot, you’d damn well better read the thread and make sure. To point out that you have not, and that you don’t intend to, but still continue to make claims based on specifics in that thread? Seems a mite unpleasant, to me.
Quite so. I just feel that mods should have to abide by the same rules as posters, where that does not interfere with their duties. Can a member get a warning taken away by pleading provocation, or being in a mood? Yes, but it’s not going to be rescinded. So mods should be given a similar treatment.
Again, I don’t feel that what i’m asking for is the world; just that mods and posters abide by the same rules, unless that constricts their duties. If Jen (which mod is Jen, anyway?) breaks a rule and offers a bad mood due to harsh treatment as her defense, I’d like her to be treated exactly the same as a member who does the same thing.
I disagree; where does it say he’s read the OP?
I did attack it on it’s own merits, in that thread. This is a seperate issue.
Tried that in the original thread,** C K** didn’t respond. Perhaps you should grow up, find a brain, and actually read the thread? I find your assumption that i’m attacking C K because I didn’t like that post to be distasteful myself; true, I didn’t like it. But he’s perfectly within his rights to say that in the Pit. This is a rule issue.
So, thanks for calling me a trolling biased moron; I suppose at least I have the ability to fall back on my position of actually reading the threads in question, so i’m not an uninformed biased moron like yourself.
Well, to go with what the mods so far have said, context doesn’t change the rulebreaking nature of saying tldr. I may be wrong in this, but that’s what i’m reading from their responses. So while deevee and SOAP were definetly being more dickish, it doesn’t have an effect on whether or not they were breaking a rule.
True, that was stupid of me. I honestly didn’t think about starting another thread, or emailing a mod, and I apologise for that to** Sampiro** and everyone else who was insulted or annoyed by my idiotic hijacking of the thread.
If you’re gonna comment or moderate or administrate, you should at least know what the fuck it is you’re commenting or moderating or administrating on. Seems not many agree with me. Many are wrong, though.
I have no problem with the warning. I had a big problem with it’s lack of honesty. If you had made this explaination in the first place I wouldn’t have given it a second thought.
It’s not a “lack of honesty”. It was a simple mistake. Impugning the moderator’s personal integrity seems like a step way overboard. I’m not sure what she was thinking when she posted the warning - it was crystal-clear why the post deserved a warning, and yet the warning didn’t seem to address the obvious issue at all. But she has since clarified what she meant. She expressed herself badly, the issue has been resolved.
I don’t know why you imply that she was dishonest. If she was deliberately lying, what would she gain by it? You think she was rubbing her hands together and cackling with glee? Was it all part of an evil plot?
Some of the moderators here engage in seriously problematic conduct. Calling this “dishonest” just hurts the credibility of those with legitimate complaints.
I actually don’t know if TVeblen knew about the situation with the other board when she gave deevee the warning. I’m giving the whole story here to counter Revenant’s “aw shucks, are all acronyms illegal now?!” stupidity. Otherwise, I’d have just let it drop, secure in the knowledge that Veb’s warning was doubly right.
Uhm, actually it’s been my position that deevee and SOAP were wrong, and deserved their admonishments, and i’ve said so. SOAP’s and C K’s replies weren’t even acronyms. I’m very confused as to where this characterisation has come from.
Considering you’ve known all along about deevee’s motivation for posting what he/she did, I find your dogged pursuit of “clarification” on this in both threads a bit disingenuous. It feels to me like you’re trying to create an issue out of something, not like you’re simply trying to understand the rules so you can be a happier, better poster.
The first quote; i’m asking what part of what deevee/SOAP said was jerkish, not questioning whether it was jerkish at all - hence the whole “just want to clarify exactly what deevee’s being warned for here”. I was looking for the rule broken.
Second; was in reply to Otto’s post suggesting the reason for the admonishment might be that deevee had replied solely with an acronym before; I pointed out how that wasn’t so. TVeblen later apologised for his/her post being unclear as to this.
Third; Not really seeing why you brought that one up, actually. Both SOAP’s and C K’s posts weren’t acronyms, so clearly i’m not shocked that only the acronym “tldr” is bad.
I’ll say it again (and hope this is ok to say); yes, I agree deevee was being trollish. Yes, I think that the suggestion on the other site was the motivation for their and probably SOAP’s posts. However, had they not had that motivation, they’d still be warned - right? Or wrong? I’m unsure.
I honestly am trying to find out what’s acceptable and what isn’t, here. So far, it seems that a post like this;
Yes, both still would have been warned. The link to the other site was just the icing on the jerk cake.
As for ‘tldr’ vs. ‘tldr, because it was boring’, we don’t have a quantitative, catchall rule for this, and we’re not going to – that’s why we have moderators. There are many cases where commenting solely on the length/readability of someone’s OP is fine (although I imagine we’ll always take a dim view of ‘tldr/lol/omg’-only responses). It depends on the thread and how you do it. In a thread about someone’s dying mother, we’re going to have a lot less patience for people coming in only to say “booooooorrrrrrrrring!” than in a thread about getting cut off in traffic. It’s not an issue of the number of characters or words in a post, it’s the message and the context. I’m not going to give you a magic rule for how to be an asshole and not get in trouble.
God damn it this is the second time I tried to submit this, last the hamsters ate it.
Rev you are a fucking moron. I have posted tldr since the warning and giraffe posted right after me and ignored it. Excalibre posted a “No u” and was not admonished.
Are you really so stupid you can’t figure out why devee and SOAP got in trouble. It has since been explained more than once.
Your “aw shucks, I just want to clarify” ain’t foolin anybody. You are being a whiny prick.
The last submission was more elequent and irate I promise, consider this an outline for my post that the hamsters ate.
For what it’s worth I think I jerked my knee a bit far there, sorry. I’m glad you can see the potential problem, but on reflection I see the mods point in this case and it was right, the posts were jerkish regardless of whether or not they were prompted from elsewhere.
As for the rest of the thread, I think various people have made their point and I doubt anyones opinions going to be changed by this but have at it. Just don’t make it too long – or I’ll not read it.
If the Mod in question were to say they didn’t know about the comments elsewhere I would have no reason to call them I liar. So far that hasn’t happened. The lack of honesty I sensed was not a lie and I never said it was. I meant a lack of honesty as in not telling the whole truth. I find it hard to believe that the comments on the other site had nothing to do with the warning. I have no problem with the warning but the entire reason should have been given. Quite frankly I thought it wouldn’t be addressed at all. I’m glad Giraffe came here and gave the entire truth.
I’ll have to take your word for it since TVeblen hasn’t come in here but I do appreciate your honesty. Case closed in my opinion. I’ll hand my bat off to someone else, I think this hind leg can be beaten a little more.
Apologies for my absence in this thread. I was out of town on vacation this week and didn’t have online access. Just got back tonight so I wasn’t deliberately ignoring you or this thread, Loach.
I did a lousy job of explaining my warning in that thread. I was rushed with last-minute packing, etc. and should have left it fluiddruid or Giraffe to field. The post was reported as a possible problem. When I read it, it seemed like a no-brainer. I rushed through the initial explanation but the acronym was just a symptom, not the core problem: barging into a thread just to stay it wasn’t worth reading is obnoxious behavior. Most posters skip threads that don’t interest them. It’s pointlessly nasty to hijack a thread just to announce, “Hey, lookit me, me, me! I didn’t read this because I knew I wouldn’t like it!” Annoying as hell for other posters, y’know?
Immediate feedback from posters made it clear that I hadn’t been clear so I zipped off an apology and a clarification. I didn’t figure out the dare-ya-to-troll thing until a poster alerted me about it. It was a bizarre little riff, but nothing more, and it came well after I’d already warned deevee.
Anyway, it was a valuable reminder to me to be clearer in explanations. The initial hijack seemed so obviously jerkish to me, even without knowing the extraneous stuff (and it was extraneous), that I didn’t take enough time to consider a hasty warning wouldn’t be equally clear to others. Clumsily done but not dire, supersecret prejudices or anything.*
*I am being facetious here, though it cracked me up to dump the whole mess in Giraffe’s lap with an equally hasty e-mail and a hearty “Good luck with THIS one!”