And die for our country.
It’s not an echo chamber.
- We disagree way too much for that sort of thing, and
- Echo chambers are noisy.
I’m sure not going to go into detail, nor provide any transcript. I think that would take unanimous approval of the entire staff but you can bet it goes something like this:
- Warning is issued.
- For whatever reason mod checks the posters infraction list. NOTE: This does not always happen. But we generally know which posters consistently get in trouble in our own fora. The issue can become unclear if a poster is racking up a warning here and there in different fora without establishing a pattern.
- If there’s a sufficient number of warnings, mod may or may not bring it up with the mod loop. If brought up, it’d go something like this.
Imagine each line comes from a different moderator. Trust me on that one.
“Hey guys, I just gave poster X his fifth warning this year. Anyone know what’s up with him?”
“No, but I warned him once. He’s been on a tear.”
“Has he been suspended?”
“No”
“Should he be?”
“Maybe?”
“I think it’d be a good idea. Maybe a week.”
“Should it be a month?”
“We generally give a month.”
“Yeah, but I’m feeling a week.”
“A week sounds good to me.”
“Yeah, a week.”
THIS CAN GO ON FOR A WHILE. LONGER THAN YOU THINK. LIKELY LONGER THAN THAT, TOO.
“OK, I call the question. Sound off on a week.”
Then we sound off. If a majority of mods votes yes - and no mod strenuously objects - someone will pull the plug on that poster. The process can takes days sometimes as we kick nuances and possibilities around.
Note: Some posters seem to operate under the impression that the moderator who pulls the plug and posts the announcement thread is also the one who led the charge for the suspension/banning. This is sometimes true, but sometimes not. Sometimes the person who pulls the plug et al is just the person who was in place to do it conveniently.
I understand perfectly. You don’t have a case.
I’m sure you read the quote that I posted by Ed. Explain how one can get a warning for behavior explicitly allowed by an admin. That’s incontrovertible evidence of bias. Not only bias but a complete disregard of explicit and clear precedent written by the admin of the board.
You think your assertion that I have no case is stronger than the evidence of bias that I have presented? It’s factual there is bias. It’s not opinion. Address why explicitly allowed behavior received a warning if there is no bias. You can’t. 
OK – I picked you but this goes to all the Mods who have been in this thread; as messy as it gets at times ------
my thanks for a clear (as clear as possible without violating our own principles) look and better understanding of how the process works. This hasn’t been a pretty thread but it has been one of the more educational.
That quote does suggest that Shodan’s mockery of margin isn’t against the rules. I think that’s a terrible quote, because the daylight between “don’t be a jerk” and “don’t make a dick move” just ain’t there. Given the boards Prime Directive, it’s a terrible idea to suggest that a dick move isn’t against the rules.
And since we’re not a court of law, if an ex-admin makes a terrible call, it can safely be ignored, even if someone theoretically relied on its protection when making a dick move.
Jealousy is not a great look
Do you see Ed around here anywhere nowadays?
Nowhere in the quote from Ed does it say that the ability to use someone’s personal info against them is absolute.
Behavior maybe allowed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also constrained by the larger board rules.
What a ridiculous technicality. So when something is said in the words written as clearly as:
These words don’t mean what they say because they don’t also include your requirement of ‘absolutely?’ That’s absurd and would be laughed straight out of ATMB by all the mods if someone tried to use that line of argument.
Of course, I was curious about the debate about invoking the so-called jerk rule as well and I specifically asked for clarification on that because being that this was raised from an insult in the Pit I thought it would be pretty bad if the Pit were modded by popular outcry, which does apparently happen now.
Clarification from Ed.
Well… I wanted a bit more clarification. Remember, folks here play the LONNNGGGG game with regards to moderator manipulation and I was worried that similar insults from different folks would be moderated differently based on that moderator manipulation and I just wanted to make sure.
All added emphasis mine.
There you have it. Clear English.
- Allowed behavior.
- Clarification of don’t be a jerk.
- Emphasis on clear and objective standards.
As I said to Colibri, if explicitly written in clear and unambiguous English of incontrovertible proof of allowed behavior combined with multiple posts of clarification of said explicitly written in clear and unambiguous English from the former administrator is sufficient to prove a point when the mods don’t want a point proven nothing less than 100% will ever be sufficient. Now, obviously mob pressure works… but when 100% proof is not sufficient asking for proof where it’s less clear cut is farcical.
I suppose if Ed had somehow slipped in ‘absolutely’ in those 4 posts the meaning would somehow be 100% different and would mean what it said. I have a feeling that the new standard at that point would have been super-duper absolutely.
Hate speech and doxxing are already prohibited in the Pit and can get you warned and banned, even if it’s based on info about a poster they themselves revealed. That specifically allowed categories of behavior can cross alone too far is surprising to you, well I don’t know what to say.
I’m not sure why this “ridiculous technicality”, is such a shocker to you, but now you know.
I’d also encourage you to look at the registration and rules sticky in this forum, updated just over a year ago
Not having crystal clear rules and lines is a feature, not a bug. This has been made clear again and again. Some don’t like it, but that’s just the way it is on this board.
Because doxxing and hate-speech are specifically against the rules.
Calling someone a nut even if they are a nut specifically wasn’t.
Doxxing, hate-speech, threats of violence, are of no relevance to this. The behavior that was modded was precisely the behavior that was explicitly allowed. Raising the issues of doxxing, etc is a straw man.
As I said, this is an awful idea for a messageboard, and the refusal to adhere to something an ex-admin said is a good thing. If you don’t like that, I’m cool with that.
This, however, I’m not cool with.
One other point about the mod e-mail discussions is that we’re in different timezones, and have lives outside of the board. Discussion about things like whether to ban someone can often stretch for days, not because there’s necessarily all that much discussion, but just because it can sometimes take a while for folks to see messages and get back to them.
So what else that is written with regards to the rules should be disregarded? Stuff that makes the mob howl?
Here’s a novel idea!!! If standards have changed, write them down. Especially if explicit permission exists to the contrary.
And what you personally are cool with is irrelevant.
Which I did. And which is why I posted the clarification of don’t be a jerk rule. I have a feeling folks are skimming over and not reading those quotes from Ed.
Don’t be a jerk is a rule- see the sticky I quoted from. It literally says that.
Just out of curiosity- the language you quote from Ed “clarifying” that it’s not a rule- where did that come from and when? I don’t recall it and I suspect it was from a board conversation rather than a rules sticky.
So you are saying what an administrator says in regards to a direct question on a rule has no bearing? If so, what is the point of ATMB if the answers don’t mean what they say?
Ask and get a meaningless answer? What a useful feature.
Depends if that answer gets superseded by a later answer… that’s why I asked when and where Ed’s quotes were from.