Based on the history of the poster to whom I was responding, I am sure that that poster has persuaded himself that what he posted was accurate, (therefore he was not lying), but his beliefs color his posts, so that it has been his choice to select the way he posted, which are not accurate and can be identified as such.
Accusations that one poster is ignoring information in other posts has never been Modded that I am aware.
Context remains an important aspect of any situation beyond outright name calling.
It adds NOTHING to the discussion for you to speculate on the mindset of another poster. If you cannot act as though others are posting in good faith, you should hie yourself to the pit.
That isn’t what you said. You said that he DELIBERATELY misread. If he did it deliberately, as you said, then he has not persuaded himself that it is accurate.
You said that he “deliberately ignore[s]” facts. You accuse him of suppressio veri, which is a form of lie in legal terms.
You said that he is “pretending.” If someone is pretending, they do not really believe what they are saying. If they don’t believe it, they are lying.
I ask again, explain the difference between “pretending” and “making these things up.”
Yeah, you’re good at that “Me? I’m just a humble poster…Oops…now I’m a mod! Mod-note! Surprise!” game. We all know it. It’s just that most people don’t think that’s something to be proud of.
You say this a lot, but it has never actually happened.
I have Modded threads in which I was posting, but I have never Modded a poster for simply disagreeing with me. Your “surprise!” element is not an actual event.
Your post is irrelevant to the actual discussion and your claim is bullshit. Of course, had you not deliberately distorted my comment, this sidetrack would have been unnecessary.
I never said you mod a poster for “simply disagreeing” with you. I said you tapdance back and forth across the mod line so nobody’s sure if you’re about to act as a mod at any moment.
I’m sure that in most of the heated discussions when you mod-note someone, you can find something --a tone, a nuance, a shading of speech-- that’s minor enough that someone probably wouldn’t normally be mod-noted for, but is technically more-or-less legit. Sorta.
It looks bad when you’re in a heated debate, throwing out totally inappropriate insults and accusations that just baaaaaaarely skate past the rules to then turn around, slap on your mod hat and mod-note someone who you’ve been attacking for also just baaaaaarely skated past the rules. This level of disingenuousness is absurd.
Edited to add: Also, your deleting your own words hours later to try to cover up what you said, rather than have to live with your words like every other poster does is a cowardly move.
I am duly chided for expressing an opinion based on this and many other instances of Moderator malfeasance. It is not hyperbole (the internet’s favourite word) to paraphrase an oft demonstrated attitude and course of action.
Read the Mod posts in this thread and tell me that my statement is not an accurate reflection of Mod behaviour when one of their own is held to account.
Jeepers! You were coerced to say that you personally “deleted the post”? Which mod or admin made you say that blatant falsehood? If I was you, I’d go directly to Ed and tell him you were being threatened or blackmailed in to lying about who deleted your post when you said you did it back in post 10.
Let me ask you a question: you left a note in the deleted post that you’d accept a Warning if issued for your prior comment. But did you report the post to alert the other mods to the offense?
Yes, mods may, from here on in, violate the rules at their leisure and then use their powers to cover up the offense and rely upon the deference of their colleagues to shield them from any meaningful repercussions.
What tom said is exactly the opposite of that. He made it clear that he’s not going to restore the post in question to its original, but that he won’t repeat that type of post modification again int he future.
I’ve always found it odd that Mods can insult people in the Pit. Even though that’s allowed in general in the Pit, it seems to me Mods calling someone all manner of stupid in a Pit thread brings up questions of bias when moderating the same poster elsewhere. I think no insults even in the Pit should just be one of the prices of being a Mod.
So maybe **he **won’t - but precedent has been set. It is, in fact, acceptable - as the complete and utter lack of sanction - or even meaningful criticism from other mods - demonstrates.
Him saying he won’t do it again (I don’t recall seeing that) is no different than my kids getting busted for something and saying the same thing in hopes of escaping the consequences. It is entirely possible that he is equally sincere.
See there are strict rules regarding the conduct of we lowly users but there is absolutely nothing similar for the mods. We are subject to their whims and interpretations of our thoughts and they are not only free from meaningful oversight (we’re nothing but playground kids bitching about the teacher) but protected from criticism outside the fairly rigid constraints of this forum.
Here’s a question - could Tom be pitted for his actions? He was posting as a user as opposed to a mod so his conduct would be acceptable fodder for the pit - but he is a mod and a major part of the upset relates to his action as a mod. He used his mod powers to cover-up a clear and self-admittedly warning worthy violation of the rules.
What tom said is exactly the opposite of that. He made it clear that he’s not going to restore the post in question to its original, but that he won’t repeat that type of post modification again int he future.