So my ATMB thread asking for some feedback and discussion on why Beckdawrek wasn’t moderated for (admitted) trolling in the FQ bear thread was closed. I’m really not sure how you’re supposed to question and discuss whether moderation is correct and impartial if an ATMB thread is just going to be immediately closed and you can’t discuss moderation in the Pit.
Um, maybe you misunderstood? She was admittedly making a joke in FQ after the question had been answered. Not trolling. I mean, she brought up bigfoot, didn’t she?
I have seen her make inappropriate comments in FQ, mostly where she is seriously making IMHO comments when the question is still open. And I thought she went too far regarding the porn stuff. But she made a stupid joke, in an FQ thread that had already gotten a solid answer. That’s allowed. Yeah, she could have told you it was a joke faster, when you obviously didn’t get it. And she shouldn’t have called you “booboo”. But you went off the rails. I usually respect you, but not in that thread. Yikes. You were an ass to her.
Full confession, I’ve made exactly the same joke, only about red and gray foxes. And it probably wasn’t super funny when I made it, either.
I’m sorry? How, exactly? I asked if she was serious, posted more factual information. But instead of just saying “I wasn’t serious”, she continued doubling down. Yes I started to get a bit annoyed at the slippery ambiguous statements and misinformation. Because the only two possibilities were that she was badly misinformed and ignoring all the cites that had been posted, or that she was trolling. She then made clear (peppered with an insult and a “lighten up”) that it was trolling.
You were condescending as hell. Go back and look at your tone.
Of course I was. Because trolling FQ and posting misinformation and ignoring cites deserves that response. All I did was contribute factual information and ask her to clarify what she meant, and she is the victim here?
I guess you have answered the question about whether we can expect the privileged moderation of this poster to be restricted to MPSIMS.
Yes, after several trolling intervening posts. Believe it or not, I am not such an idiot that if her immediate next post had been about Bigfoot I would not have taken it as a joke.
I’m not sure exactly what you are saying here. I thought you were complaining that you thought she was getting privileged moderation outside of MPSIMS? But fwiw
- I do my best to moderate according to the rules, for everyone
- Beck’s style, while often problematic in FQ, is usually fine in MPSIMS.
To throw in my 2 cents, I really didn’t find it all that clear that Beck was joking about the bear thing.
I mean, she brought up bigfoot, but she also brought up the ivory billed woodpecker, and the obvious analogy there would be to a relict population of brown bears living in Arkansas, since that’s what people propose for the woodpeckers.
That is what he is saying. He is saying that based on Beck getting what he views as special treatment in the bear thread we can conclude that toleration for her “style” will not be limited to MPSIMS.
The mods decided that clickbait thread titles for her personal blog posts in MPSIMS were acceptable for this specific poster for… reasons… with the fig leaf that the rule about informative thread titles does not apply in MPSIMS.
What I’m questioning is whether the same special treatment is being extended outside that forum. Trolling in FQ is okay because we’re all supposed to know it’s just good old harmless Beck, it’s just her folksy way?
Incidentally, if it’s going to be continuing Board policy that personal blogs are allowed in MPSIMS, even when a blogging poster holds reprehensible transphobic, misogynistic and misandrist views and is not shy of expressing them, I’d like to ask the mods to give serious consideration to moving breaking news stories out of that forum, to allow posters to completely ignore the MPSIMS forum if they feel that policy is not in the spirit of what SDMB is supposed to be about.
Same here. I really thought she was saying something along the line that, yeah, all the knowledgeable folk say I didn’t see what I said I saw but I saw it with mine own two eyes. It’s not clear, and it could have been made clear very quickly, but we got into an anecdote about a spider which, to me, made it sound like, “well, they said a grand-daddy spider couldn’t bite me, but it did (as per my observations), ergo, this was a brown bear.” At least that’s how it read to me.
I’m not sure what thread you are referring to. I often edit titles, even in MPSIMS, to make them vaguely informative.
The Monday morning threads are all basically blogs. I don’t think Beck’s stories about what she’s up to are out of line in MPSIMS, and I don’t think that’s “special treatment”.
But you keep saying “trolling” when I think you are just upset that you failed to see a pretty obvious joke.
A lot of people seem to agree with me that it was not an “obvious” joke. And whether you may think it was obvious is irrelevant, when I simply asked her to clarify. Her response to the request for clarification was trolling.
Anyway, I see that a lot of people didn’t realize it was a joke.
And yes, she should have been explicit about that a few posts sooner. She did get moderated for being snarky to others.
The pattern:
- Post something ambiguous/misleading.
- When asked to clarify, continue posting numerous times with a mixture of more slippery ambiguity and deliberate disinformation.
- When pressed (it’s FQ, and she was endorsing a common misconception) insult people and tell them to “lighten up”.
- Make the excuse that “it was a joke”.
…is pretty much the definition of trolling (and an admission of trolling), not just “being snarky”.
Right. And given how this poster typically behaves, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the bigfoot thing was a post-hoc attempt to make it appear like she was joking all along, when in fact she was serious and will bring up her brown bear in Kansas anecdote the next time the topic comes up as if none of this brouhaha ever happened.
You say it’s an obvious joke that you have made before. Can you explain it to me? Because, I don’t see the joke. What’s the joke in “Everyone says there are no brown bears in Arkansas, but I saw a ‘brown’ bear!” Or was it in the other parts?
Edit: was it Kansas or Arkansas?
I also did not see it as joking. It looked exactly like she was repeatedly saying “I don’t care what the experts say, I saw it, it happened.” Otherwise why bring up the anecdote about the spider?
Even in my first reading of that post, I didn’t take you to be wishing that harm would occur. I took you to be meaning that the harm might already have occured.