That’s exactly what it is. It’s practically a textbook example. Skald got his feelings hurt, so he’s starting every thread with a middle finger extended in the direction of those who would shackle the mighty Skald with their picayune rules.
Fundamentally this is no different from billfish678’s “Go on, mods, ban me! I hear the wagons circling! Ban me, I dare ya!” shtick, which we heard every time he was admonished (until the moderators obliged him).
I can’t believe we’re doing this again.
Thank you to the mods for enforcing what we discussed last weekend.
Really? What you wanted was moderation of a snarky attitude?
Let’s not put words into other poster’s mouths.
Don’t. Be. A. Jerk.
What about the application of that to Skald’s unnecessary “disclaimer” don’t you understand?
He’s being cantankerous. He’s being petulant. He’s not being a jerk. A false disclaimer doesn’t actually hurt anyone. It doesn’t insult anyone. It doesn’t reveal spoilers. It doesn’t actually do anything to anyone. It’s a small, nominal, rebellion that doesn’t disturb the order of the board.
It’s unnecessarily authoritarian to extend “you must post a warning of explicit material to follow” to “you must not post an anti-warning that no explicit material will follow.”
The people who are reacting with “shut down his petulant rebellion!” are the ones being jerks about the whole thing.
“Rebellion.” Okay.
He’s being a child and a jerk, taking shots at people who called him out on his strangely fetishist posts that start off as innocuous and then go into rape/torture-porn territory, out of nowhere.
If you honestly feel that his disclaimers are all being made in good-faith, I highly anticipate all of your posts to include something of a similar nature.
Fine, what’s the goal here? What are we doing “again”?
Is the to warn people of explicit sexual content or is it to get a single poster to wrestle the snarky attitude of single poster—who otherwise is complying with that goal—into submission?
I don’t care whether all his disclaimers are being made in good faith or not, so long as he is giving adequate warning at the start of any of his “fetishist posts that start off as innocuous and then go into rape/torture-porn territory.”
Let the rest go. You’re escalating the issue beyond what’s needed.
He’s not complying, hence 2 mod notes and one warning. He has been counseled, noted, and warned. Why does he continue to do it?
He’s not complying with what? Are his graphic sexual posts not adequately labeled as such? If they are, then just forget about the rest. At this point, you’re just enforcing rules for enforcement’s sake. “He’s resisting arrest! He’s resisting arrest!” You want him not only to comply with a substantive rule, but also do it with a smile.
Mods, thanks for taking this seriously.
Is this really the hill upon which you want to die?
The mods made a rule that could apply to more people, but right now, it has been enacted to respond to a repeated instance by a single poster.
If your thread title is something akin to “Hey! Who likes puppies?” and then, midway through, you go into a graphic snuff-porn scene, then yeah, there should be some disclaimer at the top of the thread. And no, I’m not saying that Skald posts about snuff-porn, but since dealing in absolutes is the only way to reach certain people, here we are.
This post has nothing to do with anything I’ve written in this thread.
Last comment on this:
I would like the guy to stop being a jerk about this. He posted in a way that was upsetting to some of our members. We asked hm to put a warning about it- not even to stop posting. His response was to be petulant and passive-agressive, which made the board a less enjoyable place to be and is insulting to the people who had the complaint, and to the mods who reached out to him. I get it- you think his disclaimer on all his hypotheticals is innocent. To us, it absolutely is not.
I would like him to be held accountable like any other member, and abide by the request of the mods. If there isn’t a reasonable expectation that a mod can enforce a policy, then what are we doing volunteering for this position? The request is to put a disclaimer about graphic sexuality in a thread that it’s not clear you’d see it and now we are also asking he not put insincere disclaimers effectively expressing his displeasure at being asked to do the first.
You can disagree about the request to him- people can disagree in good faith. But once the mod ruling is out there, it is reasonable we’d want to be able to enforce it.
This post has nothing to do with anything I’ve written in this thread.
I have no problem with a rule that requires adequate labeling of explicit material.
I have no problem with a decision (as has been made with other posters before) that his habitual breaching of explicit material requires banning.
With this:
Underlining is mine as it directly answers your question.
Actually, I would respect him if he did that.
No, it doesn’t. Because he didn’t post a warning in the thread linked in the OP he said there’s NO rape in this thread. That’s not a warning so it doesn’t violate the rule you underlined.
Read last week’s thread. It’s not up to others to educate you. Even so, other people have been trying and you refuse to comprehend, and instead, twist our words to suit your narrative.
One more time: Skald is mocking the people who spoke out against him, and he’s refused repeated requests to knock it off. That’s all he has to do.
And we’ve yet to hear from Skald. Most people would apologize for how they may have negatively affected people. He chooses to mock. That’s not a person I’d defend.