There have been examples of moderators making posts in whcih they specifically state that they are posting in their role as a moderator and also state that they are not issuing a warning. So what exactly does that mean?
As an example, let’s say I don’t like President Obama and begin referring to him as Barry O’Bama every time I mention him.
Now a moderator comes along and posts:
What happens now if I disagree and decide to continue using Barry O’Bama in my posts?
If the moderator comes back and takes more substantial action, I’m going to be justifiably pissed off. I was specifically told that I was not receiving a warning of a rules violation. If I had been warned, I would have stopped doing it, regardless of whether or not I agreed with the decision. But absent a warning, I assumed what was said was just a matter of opinion which I was free to disagree with.
Or would the next step be an official warning, telling me to stop calling the President by funny names. If so, then isn’t a non-warning really just a preliminary warning? Essentially saying “I’m not officially warning you yet but if you do it again you will be officially warned” - and if so, why not just issue the official warning in the first place? It seems passive-aggressive to me to pretend the first statement wasn’t a warning under these circumstances.
Or is it, in fact, really just an expression of an opinion? The moderator was telling me he feels that Barry O’Bama is disrespectful - but I’m free to do it if I want to. In that case, why post it as a moderator statement at all? Why not just express it as an opinion in a regular post?