You may find this self-serving belief comforting, but it is not based in reality.
We are not involved with a speed limit with or drug possession where there is a law with a specific limit set. (Even there, one would find rather few cases where police, prosecutors, courts or even the public would consider a microgram below the limit of drugs or driving to the exact the speed limit on icy roads “perfectly acceptable” even if did not happen to be prosecutable).
We are moderating behavior for the purpose of providing an atmosphere that encourages participation by a wide variety of posters. A poster from whom a majority of posts are criticisms of other posters or the staff and who delivers an overwhelming majority of posts in a snide tone is doing little to promote a decent atmosphere for discussion. Such behavior is recognized as detrimental by both other posters and the staff, so when that poster makes a point of participating in a thread that is displaying ever greater acrimony and posts in a way to add to the level of acrimony, it is appropriate to direct that poster to back off.
This has been the attitude of many posters who ended up being banned because they thought they knew exactly where the line was. Approaching posting with the idea that it’s some kind of game to see exactly how much you can get away with is not a long-term strategy for continued posting on this board.
I recall one former member whose entire interaction here consisted of shitposting in the BBQ pit. Individually the posts weren’t all that bad so he stuck around for a while. But he was eventually banned.
Part of the reason that bright lines are a bad idea is that they can be gamed. The board is guided by a cardinal rule for a reason.
This might look a little curt; please accept my apologies. I also understand that you may or may not be kidding. Anyway, here’s the quote for you, for emphasis, or for the enlightenment of others:
It’s totally cool. I only ask because Tom intimated in this thread that he considered that rule equivalent to the hate speech rule in that it’s vague and therefore unenforceable.
No… I did not. In response to a specific question (with an implied accusation), regarding my Modding of the Jerk rule, I asked when the questioner had seen me Mod it. At no time did I imply that I would not Mod it. That inference was drawn by others who had not actually read my post.
What interpretation of that exchange is there other than that you don’t enforce the rule? When Shodan asks you to clarify it, you proceeded to ignore him.
This is also the first time you’ve responded to me in this thread, so I’ll take this opportunity to ask you to answer my previous question to you:
Individual mods have the latitude to decide that certain portions of the SDMB rules need not be enforced. Is that correct?
And you know what? This is just you continuing to be insulting in this thread. I’ve addressed you several times and have been ignored until now. I don’t think I’m the one failing to read in this thread.
It’s possible you don’t understand the verb “to imply,” because this is laughable. But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and dig in. Without being vague or evasive, what exactly did you mean by that response about never having modded with the jerk rule? Someone says, well you seem ok with this rule that requires a judgment call, and your response is to point out that you’ve never modded using that rule. Why is that relevant? Please be explicit, because apparently we cannot be trusted to infer your point without completely misunderstanding you.
It’s also entirely plausible that he has never modded using the terms “you’re being a jerk” or under the “hate speech”- but has found other, more clear ways to mod the posts in question.
In other words - if you’re in fact being a jerk or using hate speach, there are probably countless otherways to mod the post/thread and take care of things as well.
Simply calling out “jerk” or “hate speech” is, as stated before, fairly well in the eye of the beholder.
For me, ‘hate speech’ is less of a “they should be shot” rhetoric and is instead trying to create a rally cry with like minded individuals that lead to actual violence - but that has nothing to do with the way the rules here read or how others might see/read “hate speech” - for me - I’d prefer we deal with it the way we are, by fighting the ignorance of the speaker or the casual reader until it is so over the top as its clear the poster of said non-sense cannot be reasoned with and is no longer posting/debating in ‘good faith’ - which then falls under the more general terms of “trolling”.
Exactly. Just as there have been a number of posts that others would identify as “hate speech” whereas I have Modded the same actions as trolling, pretty much any example of “being a jerk,” when it has occurred in Great Debates, I have Modded as an example of personal insults, trolling, or other rules violations.
I have, on occasion, Modded against “being a jerk.” Seeking those specific occasions would have provided Shodan with examples of how I made the distinction. Since “being a jerk” is rather vague, laying out rules to identify it is simply going to open the discussion to more “I disagree” exchanges whereas letting him seek out the actual examples would have provided him the sort of post that invoked that rule.
