Not sure why this is. I’ve been talking to Marley in ATMB about yet more instances of his silly and overbearing moderation. Naturally he’s completely in the wrong, as he is almost always on these ticky-tack little fouls he dreams up, but I can’t even challenge him on it because criticizing the moderation as I have in that other thread is evidently “Warning” worthy.
Now, I don’t agree that referring to someone’s post as “priggish” is fodder for the Pit only. Or even calling someone a prig when characterizing a particular post is Pit worthy. And I certainly don’t think that telling someone to come down off his high horse is an insult worthy of moderation. Hell, or even an insult. But Marley has deemed these things so. To the tune of issuing me two Warnings.
So why can’t we Pit a Mod? I understand that we used to be able to. If they demonstrate poor judgement and post unsupportable bullshit, why shouldn’t they receive the treatment they’ve deserved?
We used to be able to. Then someone called Lynn a “c-word” and Ed decided that because of all the abuse and suffering that mods endure for all their hard work, they were now protected from pitting. They’re “beaten like a rented mule”(?) you see, so they’re off-limits.
To be fair, a lot of people wanted to allow discussions of mod actions in ATMB (I was one of them). IMO, this was a mistake. It destroyed a safety valve.
IMO the best solution would be “Insult mods and their decisions in the Pit all you want; but if you want a discussion about your concern, take it to ATMB and be polite.”
There’s also some sort of rarely-invoked exception whereby you can pit a mod for non-mod actions, but it gets fuzzy if Mod X does the “I insulted you as a poster but now I’m telling you to back off as a mod” thing. As I said, very infrequent, but the rule is there.
So, assuming that the point of your post is that you want to call Marley a p-word, I believe you can (if I understand correctly) find a post of his where he’s not wearing a mod-hat that meets those criteria and pit him for that. But you can’t Pit him for his posts in the Oakminister thread about “gun grabbers”.
I assume an actual mod will be in at some point to tell us if I’m even remotely remembering the current rules correctly.
Quoting from the announcement of these rules in early 2009. I mention the date because I’m emphasizing the pointlessness of arguing about this rule at this point. It’s not getting changed. Underlining is mine:
I didn’t warn you for criticizing the moderation. I warned you for personal insults: you mocked Left Hand of Dorkness for being up on his high horse and then called him “priggish” a couple of times (and said the same about me). I didn’t even warn you the first time. You kept doing it after I told you you needed to stop making insulting comments, and when you didn’t, you got a formal warning. To boot, you said that Left Hand of Dorkness and I were both prigs, which confirmed your choice of words was insulting despite your insistence that it isn’t. (I also showed you a dictionary definition to clear it up.) That was one warning. A little later you criticized Left Hand of Dorkness again by saying he had no sense of humor, and took himself too seriously. All of that is insulting, and since I’d told you a handful of times to stop it because this isn’t the Pit, I warned you again. Eventually I did tell you both to stop posting about this issue in the other thread because it was off-topic. I had to repeat that a couple of times, but I didn’t warn you for it.
It’s too late to do anything about this now because oversimplifying history is fun, but the rule was never about one insult of one mod. That’s how a few people chose to remember it. But yes, there was a notion that perhaps volunteering to moderate a message board is not an invitation for unlimited recreational abuse. If people have actual questions or problems with the way the board is modded, they can ask about it in this forum.
I think you’re quoting something TubaDiva said recently, not something Ed Zotti said about the change in Pit/ATMB rules in 2009.
That’s the conundrum I’m faced with if I criticize him in ATMB. The very words I would use to describe his moderation would, evidently get me Warned. Mind you, I’m not talking about invective or -MF this and M-F that. Just the pure characterization of his moderation of me in that thread and his moderation generally. Which often results in him trying to defend why he stuck his nose in and moderated things that don’t need his moderation and would have been been better for everyone if he just stayed out of it.
On reread I’d like to add that I think he finds himself in the position he does more than all other mods combined.
There was a time when discussion of mod action was restricted to the Pit. I think this was the original sin. There is a sense in the Pit (in general) that because it’s in the Pit, hostility needs to be included. Sure, not always, but there is a more-than-tongue-in-cheek invective that infests a lot of the snark there. Hence a subculture of mod-bashing became the norm.
There were a lot of people who never got over it, and still feel the need to call names. There is a large overlap with “the usual suspects.” I don’t get.
I still maintain I was not insulting. It really was just a “lighten up, wouldya?” IN fact, I thought the way I made the point was light and humorous. And what the hell is wrong in characterizing one’s opinion as being priggish anyway, when the word actually fits?
Go back and read what he wrote. Whether you agree with the point he was making or not, do you really think that pointing out that it may be priggish is an INSULT!!! One worthy of moderation? Actually, you probably do. And that is why you are tying yourself into knots trying to defend your overbearing moderation of Oakminster and why you find yourself in this exact same position again and again and again.
At the risk of tempting your too-quick fingers yet again, you really, REALLY need to lighten up. Seriously, dude. Sit back and think why you, way more than any other mod, is so often trying to defend why you wielded your MOd powers when you should have just read through and clicked on something else.
I already addressed all of this in the other thread: yes, “prig” is an insult. We don’t accept the “I insulted him but it was true!” defense. “Lighten up!” never causes anyone to lighten up- not when it’s coupled with insults, anyway. Maybe you should reread your own posts and think about how someone else would have understood them if they were just reading your words and didn’t know what you were thinking. You did not communicate what you say you meant to communicate. This is kind of academic anyway since there’s no non-insult way to read this:
You mean this?
Pretty obvious, isn’t it? If you were offended by that, how can you tell anybody that this:
Isn’t insulting, and calling him “priggish” and “prig” was not insulting?
You didn’t say it “may be priggish.” You sarcastically told him to get off his high horse, then called him priggish a couple of times. After I warned you, you found a way to express that point without the insults. That’s what you should have done first, and it confirms you could do it if you made the effort. Next time, do that first.
And yes, calling someone a prig or saying they are being priggish is insulting. I showed you the dictionary definition of the word to illustrate this.
Erm, yes, I do. Webster’s agrees it’s insulting, and I did think it was worthy of moderation- that’s why I moderated it. So what was the point of asking me with a bunch of caps and exclamation points?
I don’t think I have to defend my moderation more than any other mod. Even if that were true, that wouldn’t prove I’d done something wrong.
I’m actually still a bit surprised that we have the leeway we do to criticize the mods and board administration. Most boards would, I think, simply decide you (the general “you,” not magellan01) aren’t worth the hassle and would just ban you rather than endure incident after incident where a “settle down, class” or an “if you’re gonna roughhouse, take it outside” is blown up into the gravest of injustices, followed by wailing and gnashing of teeth and screams of J’ACCUSE! and empty threats to leave and devote one’s precious time to unspecified worthier pastimes.
Do you see no difference between these comments, magellan01?
The first two are rude and insulting. The third doesn’t insult anyone and acknowledges the other person has a point. You made insulting comments elsewhere in that post, of course, but this part is fine and nobody would complain about this part and nobody would moderate it. There was nothing stopping you from making that kind of comment in the first place. You just didn’t do it. Saying ‘gee, you’re up on your high horse!’ and ‘you’re being priggish (whatever that means)!’ and ‘sheez, lighten up!’ are insulting, snide, and don’t convince anyone to see things your way. Acknowledging that the other person has a valid point and that you’re having a difference of opinion can actually work. If you want to have more productive discussions in the future and avoid the mods to boot, try using that second tactic.
Well, of course it is. The fact that it was such an incompetently-rendered insult that I didn’t feel insulted may or may not have any bearing, but sure, you were certainly not giving sincere advice. You were being insulted.
There’s some expression about how much rope you’re getting here, you may want to see if you can dig it up. I kind of feel like you’re throwing rocks at me, and they keep bouncing off and hitting you in the forehead, and you’re getting madder and madder at physics.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you want someone to stop bothering you say “leave me alone” if you want to insult them in the process say “fuck off”.
Look up prigish (the insult) and express your displeasure with non insulting terms. I’ll do it for you…
*Marley, It’s my opinion that you are demonstrating an exaggerated propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant manner.
Sure. The first tone makes the point colloquially, using levity to downplay any perceived of the objection. This is the type of post that should be commended, not criticized. Anyone who has a problem with the way that point is made is overly sensitive and has no business debating anything on a message board.
The second one is a simple and snark-free explanation as to why the first comment was issued. The only thing remarkable is the fact that it had to be typed at all, in response to your moderation.
The third one is makes the same point, using different words. Nothing wrong with it, just as there is nothing wrong with the others. The point is not what is right with it, but that their is nothing wrong with the others.
I actually find that more insulting than what I wrote. And that’s the problem with Marley’s moderation and why he gets called on it so often. Even now with “gun grabbers”. Much better to moderate things that NEED to be moderated, not "“Well, it doesn’t really need moderation, and the poster is not really do anything against the rules, but my opinion is worth more than anyone else’s so I shall impose shades of my opinions on others and then use the Mod shield to protect me.”
If you were going for levity, you failed. Like I said, read the post as if you didn’t know your own intent. Regardless, you’ve missed the big distinction: the third makes your point without insults and without deriding the other poster. It simply makes the point and suggests the other side is valid but that you prefer one style to the other. Nothing about anybody being a prig or snark about riding so high on the horse you need oxygen. No commentary about the other poster at all, in fact. For the most part that’s what we want here. There are plenty of situations where it doesn’t apply - personal MPSIMS or IMHO threads, debates about an individual experience - but it’s a decent guideline.
