Posts 232,238,2442,254,261 are of interest. Also of interest are Bone’s and Colibri’s posts in that same thread that further support Ed’s clarifications.
I’m not making this up and this conversation has not been superseded.
I think you realize the difficulty of providing proof of any sort of bias when even these clearly written clarifications from moderators and the administrator are not sufficient. I’m just saying don’t act like it’s not obviously farcical.
I am surprised we haven’t received a proclamation from on high saying this whole line of conversation is forbidden and that there is no bias.
So he’s saying that rules were created to help define what being a jerk is, because that statement not itself a useful rule for enforcement. I do not see it as meaning it’s not, itself, a rule.
It was in response to a specific scenario about harassment, and I don’t see it as a universal statement about all board policy.
Later, Bone clarifies:
You said:
Finally, Ed responds to the comment you made
So, yes, being a jerk is enforceable, when the action is beyond the pale. You may disagree if this case merits that, but it’s not against previously stated policies, including our own agreement and rules FAQ, which to be clear has an edited by date after the quoted thread.
Wish that thread would’ve let me multiquote… or quote at all.
Yes, you are correct. But what Shodan was warned for was clarified as to be allowable. It was “being a dick, not being a jerk” to paraphrase.
Now, look, my whole point in bringing this up is two fold.
The no-warning then a warning due to popular pressure was handled very poorly.
It is evidence that requesting evidence is farcical. Because we cannot get anything more clear than that thread on explicitly allowable behavior which is using personal information but not doxxing as an insult in the Pit. That was incontrovertibly allowed. When something this cut and dried is not sufficient then NOTHING will be sufficient.
Now what does work is an organized group howling and threatening to leave. Because the no warning did get reversed into a warning after the protests.
Look, if that’s how thing work around here just be honest about it. But pretending what I read and posted from moderators and the administrator doesn’t mean what it says or just flat out ignoring that it exists doesn’t fool anyone.
I haven’t following this as granularly, no longer being a mod, but I don’t see that distinction you’re making.
His comment was jerkish enough to be beyond the pale, in that it more resembles hate speech than allowable insults (not saying it was hate speech). A middle category the rules didn’t bright-line foresee, an unusual case, worthy of invoking the jerk rule. Nothing new about mods handling that without needing bright line rules.
Ok, the whole thread I linked was about Morgenstern making a crack about someone’s personal problems and whether or not that was unacceptable in the Pit.
Ed says, which I’ve quoted several times now that yes it’s acceptable.
Shodan makes a comment similar to Morgenstern’s. No warning. After outcry warning.
That may come from me. I consider sealioning a form of trolling, since it’s a form of insincerity that tries to get under people’s skin. So I’ve referred to his Warning/suspension where such was mentioned as a Warning for trolling.
For curiosity’s sake, what did that officially count under? Being a jerk? Refusal to follow mod instructions?
No, the charge was harassment, not just making a “crack”. Ed explicitly states that his actions don’t rise to the level of harassment “as we understand it” (ie stalking from thread to thread). That was the specific case alluded to.
I’m not going to try to quote it again, it s a pain, but it’s all there in Ed’s comments and my earlier post with all the quotes.
There’s a different way of describing what happened: “What does work is making persuasive arguments to moderators about why certain behaviors shouldn’t be allowed.”
You’re welcome to characterize “making persuasive arguments” as “howling” (or, as you have in the past, as “mob rule” or “hive mind” or other stuff), but those are offensively stupid characterizations of what’s actually happened, and it’d behoove you to characterize what happened accurately.
Well, if we are going by what Ed said is allowable…
*1. Insults are allowed in the Pit. Some of the insults are funny; some are vicious. It’s always been that way. If you don’t want to be insulted, don’t post in the Pit.
Be aware that information you post about yourself on this board may be used against you. Doing so may be a dick move. It’s not against our rules.*
Why cherry pick? This isn’t even debatable. Ed and the other mods clearly clarify that insulting someone in the pit based on personal information is explicitly allowed. There is no other reasonable reading of those quotes.
It was howling by a mob. A proper response would have been to change the rule to prevent future behavior. Not ignore explicit clarification and reverse a decision based on mob rule.
But anyways, even Ed’s clearly written language being disregarded is not sufficient to demonstrate inconsistency. Do you deny what is written exists? Do you deny it says what it clearly says? You may disagree with it all you want but it does exist. It is clear.
There is absolutely no point in ATMB if what is written by even an administrator means absolutely nothing. It’s a farce. Notice we had a mod quit in part because of this? Notice we have 4-5 stickies asking for how the board can improve including feedback on the Pit? You know what that implies? It implies that my point of view is privately accepted or least acknowledged as having more merit than let on.
I’ve answered everyone of your quotes and your assertions that this action went against board policy. I’ve showed how this action is completely consistent with board policies, that your quotes were misunderstandings, incomplete, taken out of context, or subject to judgement calls (as compared to not breaking internal policies).
It was literally not, and standing by this characterization is bizarre. If you’re determined to characterize things in a literally incorrect way, there’s no point in talking with you about things.
No you didn’t. Not one of the quotes I posted was out of context. The judgement calls were clarified with subsequent quotes. Ed wrote in clear english that using personal information was explicitly allowed in the Pit. You did not demonstrate otherwise.
That’s a very powerful accusation to make. You are stating I personally want to behave in a certain manner.
MY clearly stated position is that demanding proof is farcical because even when incontrovertible proof is presented written by an administrator such proof is read to mean the opposite of what it says when it’s read at all. Therefore, any other situation in which bias is less obvious is even more impossible to demonstrate because if 100% proof isn’t sufficient less than 100% proof is also going to be insufficient.
What should be allowed in the Pit is completely irrelevant to what is/was explicitly allowed in the Pit or how I choose to use the Pit. There is a thread for that in the Pit by the way. But it’s irrelevant to Colibri’s demand for proof of bias and how asking for such proof is farcical.
Now, I don’t expect 0 bias. I really don’t. I don’t even expect each and every rule to be known or enforced each and every time. It’s almost like a game of Magic the Gathering in here. What I do expect is an honest reading of clear English.
Ed ALSO made it clear that any post that goes beyond the pale can be subject to the don’t be a jerk rule, when current rules are insufficient to deal with a situation. He said that in direct response to you.
If you don’t think you took things out of context, reread each of my explanations to you.
Yeah, if a current rule doesn’t exist you are correct…
However, since he clarified using personal information… let’s see if I can find that relevant quote somewhere… aha…is explicitly allowed then it follows that using the so-called jerk rule would not be applicable because it’s been explicitly allowed.
Bigging and graping mine.
Now obviously, once the pile on begins, I’m sure this will be shut down and I’ll be silenced sternly. But hey, when you can’t use reason and evidence use force.
