Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. The fact that you fail to comprehend this is pretty sad.
I’m not seeing how this is relevant. Yes, it was a Note. That means that continued behavior along the same lines will result in a Warning, right? The question in the OP still remains. Is such behavior against the rules?
It was a *Note *from a moderator, acting in that official capacity. If **Spectre **had been posting as a private citizen to say that *he personally *wished that people wouldn’t use offensively hyperbolic examples, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Any Notes or Warnings from SDMB staff are the Rule of Law and should be considered by all posters to apply universally. Otherwise, if we can pick and choose which Notes and Warnings we will pay attention to, the board will cease to function. Accordingly, they should either reflect an existing rule or establish a new one. They should not be inconsistent or capricious. So, either this Note is establishing a new rule (which should be fleshed out and published so that we can be sure to follow it) or it was a mistake (and it should be retracted).
But thank you for coming to weigh in. Hopefully you’ll continue to engage in discussion. As silly as it may seem to be talking about a single mild note, I think it’s important.
I have to agree with the bulk of this thread. The original incident was puzzling. The justifications are idiotic.
I realize the incident in question was a simple Mod Note and doesn’t have much effect on Shot From Guns, but the question is not about one specific poster, the question concerns the general principle. Is this now against the rules? Where is that stated?
The whole point was to pick an example that would trigger moral outrage. It’s absolutely clear that ACM was not advocating that position. Since when is “things could be taken out of context” a justification for anything?
I don’t understand your use of “apply universally.” They apply universally in the sense that ANY individual receiving such a note or warning should take heed. You ignore them at your peril. However, “friendly reminders” or “notes” are not “Rule of Law” – they are early alerts that you MAY be headed for an infraction if you continue along that line. They are situational,and apply to to one individual in one individual circumstance.
Kinda like, those little electronic signs at the side of the road that say, “Speed Limit is 30, you are going 43.” If the person next to me gets such an alert, that doesn’t mean that I (going 32) need to slow down. It doesn’t apply “universally.” It only applies to that one car, going 39. It’s a friendly reminders that that car might be headed for a problem if they persist. And it’s NOT the same as a ticket.
In this case, the existing rule is that racist threads are not allowed. The threat to open such a thread (whether a joke is irrelevant) was deemed to warrant a reminder. Not all mods would have done so, but some mods would have. Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. HAD such a thread been opened, all mods would have reacted in the same way: that’s a rules violation.
The warning didn’t come as a caution not to open such a thread; it came specifically for the language in which the hypothetical was posed. Quite a different thing.
To be clear, my mod note was in response to A Clockwork Melon’s post, not anything that Shot From Guns has said. But it is the latter who decided to pick up this torch and run with it.
But they always apply to how a user is potentially coming afoul of a rule of the board. They’re a means of clarifying the rules or creating new ones. They do not exist in a vacuum.
I say they “apply universally” because they are indicators of how we should all behave. If somebody else gets a note or a warning for behavior, and a mod knows that I see that note or warning, and then I engage in the same behavior, I’m liable to be treated more harshly, correct? For instance, if a couple of posters are engaged in some off-topic sniping and a mod tells them to quit it or take it elsewhere, then threatens to hand out a warning to the next person to post on the topic, I can be given a warning even if I wasn’t one of the original set of off-topic posters. Because I should know better. So while a Note or a Warning given to someone else doesn’t affect me in the sense that it doesn’t go down on my record, it does affect me in the sense that it serves as a guide for my future behavior.
Notes and Warnings also “apply universally” because they should exhibit a consistent enforcement of the rules: i.e., any other poster exibiting similar behavior should also garner a Note or a Warning. So, the question is, what sort of universal rule is **Spectre **seeking to create or enforce with this Note? He has given two explanations:
1.) He doesn’t approve of tasteless hypberbole.
2.) We shouldn’t say anything that could be taken out of context in a Google search.
So, I ask you: do you plan to enforce either of these rules going forward? And if not, why was **ACM **officially reprimanded for using an (albeit hamhanded) rhetorical tool that other people have been using here for a decade or more?
Everybody knows what the speed limit is. For instance, one of the “speed limits” of the SDMB is not using racial slurs. But this was not a case of anything that broke an established rule.
So, to improve upon your analogy… I am driving down the highway, and I see an alert sign flash for the car next to me: WARNING–YOU ARE DRIVING WITH A CLOWN IN THE PASSENGER SEAT. There’s not a clown in *my *passenger seat, but I may have reason to transport a clown in the future. (Possibly to drown it in the river.) So I have reason to ascertain whether or not I am allowed to transport clowns–and if clown transportation *is *allowed, I have to wonder why someone else was cautioned for doing it.
There was no threat, not even a joking one. There was a hypothetical question about a parallel circumstance in order to force someone to reconsider a position. (Perhaps ironically, the juxtaposition again involved the necessity of universally applying standards.)
I’ll ignore this barely disguised insult hurled at my direction, partially because I literally am unable to respond in kind (since we’re in ATMB and all, remember?), and respond to the actual content. Absolute consistency in the enforcement of rules is *essential *for any community to function. If the members of the community have no idea from one day to the next, or from one enforcement officer to the next, what is allowed and what is not, there is no order. There is fear and frustration. Which is not to say that circumstances cannot be taken into account, but in general, *everyone *should be following the same set of rules, and exceptions should be made on the side of leniency–not by giving someone a note for something that the moderator personally doesn’t like, something that *is not *and *has never been *against the rules.
That should be obvious from my OP and the discussion in this thread. And yes, I *did *decide to “pick up this torch and run with it” (:rolleyes: thank you ever so for the dismissive language), because as a member of this board, it behooves me to understand what the rules are.
ETA: And if you were deliberately constructing that last sentence to avoid using pronouns, **ACM **is a he, and I’m a she.
Here’s a great example of how I thought this thread was going to go.
1.) **Vinyl Turnip **asked why **Guinastasia **got a note from **Miller **for using a phrase **VT **didn’t think was prohibited, and asked if the restriction was being widened.
2.) **Miller **confirmed that that the phrase was indeed allowed, apologized, and retracted the note.
Compare that to what happened here. **ACM **said something that was not against the board’s rules. **Spectre **gave him a note (i.e., an official injunction not to do it again, albeit without immediate consequences for ACM) and a reasoning in the thread that doesn’t make much sense, given the board’s current rules. I opened a thread here to get some clarification. At that point, I was expecting either (a) a new rule to be clarified and posted or (b) the note to be retracted. But instead, we get this bizarre song and dance, where **Spectre **(after avoiding the thread for a week) gives *more *inexplicable reasoning for his action (*still *nothing that’s a board rule, nor that I’d expect you’d want to *make *a board rule), and a couple of admins show up to tell me that I shouldn’t care because it’s *just *a note and it wasn’t directed at me.
C K Dexter Haven said:
They are reminders that X is off limits, and they apply universally in that if the next poster does the same action that this poster did, she will also likely be given a reminder that X is off limits. I was going to try to come up with a good example, but Shot For Guns did such an excellent job with the clown in the car example, I couldn’t possibly say it more clearly or more humorously.
But the Mod Note was not about opening a racist thread. There is nothing in that note about “racist threads are not allowed”. The specific note is for using inflammatory language and how nothing in the thread prior created context for using inflammatory wording. But it was inflammatory wording specifically to make the point that posting an inflammatory thread topic and then declaring only supporters should respond would be preposterous. Now if Spectre had said “Mod Note: I will remind you that racist threads are not allowed here on SDMB, do not start this thread” you would have a point. It would also be silly because it was a hypothetical not actual proposal, but at least you would have a valid point. There’s a rule that racist thread titles are not allowed. But that is not what happened, so it is puzzling to see this as a justification for the mod note that was given, i.e. hypothetical examples are apparently not allowed now because they might be taken out of context on a Google search and thereby encourage miscreants to think this board is racist, or some such drivel.
Shot From Guns said:
I will point out that Dex is referring a famous quote; I doubt an insult was intended, though I can see how some might be perceived.
Agreed. FYI the original quote was about “foolish consistency”, i.e. consistency for consistency’s sake in the face of actual reasons to deviate.
Shot From Guns said:
Noted for future reference (but probably will be forgotten).
I wouldn’t even go so far as to expect the Note retracted, merely an acknowledgement of an error in application. “Oh, I misread that, nevermind.”
Yeah, it’s a puzzling Note that leaves future possible posting situations less clear, and it doesn’t matter because it didn’t name you specifically?
I would also like to take this opportunity to explicitly state that in general, I believe **Spectre **is a good mod and that the moderation of this board is well conducted. However, in this one particular instance, there is a mod’s ruling that I would like clarification on, because I fail to understand how it applies under the current rules.
I think this thread also demonstrates an unfortunate tendency among some of the SDMB staff to treat every question as an attack and react accordingly. Now, certainly, it is your site and you can make up whatever rules you desire, up to and including “the rules are whatever I decide they are at this moment.” However, if you wish to keep this community operational, it’s in your best interests to have published rules that are enforced consistently. And that means that if a member of your community has a question about how the rules are being applied, that it’s a good idea to (a) explain how a Note or Warning reflects an existing rule, (b) explain how a Note or Warning establishes a new rule, or (c) acknowledge that the Note or Warning was given in error and does not establish a new precedent.
And I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m getting a “you don’t know what you’re talking about, little girl” vibe from some of the posts here, so at the risk of sounding like a pompous ass: I have been in your shoes. I used to moderate a very large community–larger than this one, if I’m not mistaken, unless we’ve hit the 500k mark and I didn’t notice. So please give me credit that I have *some *experience with these things and I’m not just some nitpicking armchair quarterback who has no clue how things work in practice.
ETA:
That falls under the heading of what I’d call a retraction–anything so that we know that the note was reconsidered and doesn’t apply. I’m not looking for an engraved public apology and 90 days of sackcloth and ashes, if that’s the impression anyone was getting.
That’s quite possibly the best analogy I’ve ever seen for anything.
Thank you. At this rate, I might have to buy myself a custom title just so I can be Clown Transporter.
I’m sorry for being unclear: no insult was intended. [Philosophical tangent]My comment was directed at exactly your next sentence, that “absolute consistency” in rules enforcement is essential. I believe that “absolute consistency” in rules enforcement is NOT POSSIBLE. It may be a desirable goal, but each situation, each individual case is DIFFERENT. Every case has its own extenuating circumstances; what went before is not identical. “Absolute consistency” is not possible in (say) US law courts, where there are libraries of volumes of laws and cases. How could it be possible on a message board? [/tangent]
I think the driving with a clown analogy is irrelevant, not to say ridiculous. And I can think of lots of situations where driving with a clown in the passenger seat is indeed illegal. Say, if the clown were shooting an Uzi out the window at passers-by. Nonetheless, the lawyer would probably argue that riding with a clown [ material deleted ] is not illegal. In this case, there was no clown. A person made a comment (with significant racist undertone) about starting a racist thread; the mod reminded him not to say such things. “Don’t be a jerk” is not a new rule. Don’t start racist threads or make racist comments is not a new rule.
The thread about black women’s looks do not justify your response to ACM’s post. And truth be told, there was nothing inherently wrong about that thread. The problem with it was that it was treated like a Great Debate rather than an exchange of personally biased opinions. A “Would you hit that?” discussion does not belong in GD, even if there are a handful of posts that look kinda sorta like they might fit in GD if you squint hard enough (and I’m sure tom is pissed I’m still talking about it, but hey, Spectre brought it up).
ACM’s was only using a hypothetical about black people to make a point. That’s it. Although it was not the most original rhetorical device in the land, he wasn’t slamming black people nor validating such conduct under the guise of an intellectual discussion.
If you’re trying to be sensitive to polarizing race issues, I appreciate that, though.
While we’re using this standard, let’s talk about other threads that are searchable by google:
“Why hasn’t someone tried to assassinate Bush” But there it is, right on Google (fourth hit for key words “why hasn’t bush assassinated”). NSA and Secret Service probably loved checking out the thread. Do you really want people to find us that way?
Or
“fried sperm” brings up this thread. Pan-fried Semen - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board. (Weirdly it was like the 5th hit…four sites are more bizarre than us). Do you really want people to find us that way?
C’mon guys–this has never been a rule or even a guideline and the “Don’t be a jerk” thing doesn’t even come close to applying. It’s a perfectly acceptable hypothetical–he wasn’t trolling, he wasn’t being a jerk and it’s an unenforceably vague standard: “Don’t use hypotheticals that we might not like”? What?
Yeah, I’m sticking to my original theory, which (as I posted in the thread in question) is that Spectre got whooshed. Everything after the initial whoosh was just his effort to hide the fact that he got whooshed.
Also, this:
is just complete poppycock and balderdash, for reasons that are absolutely self-evident (including that ACM was not actually proposing to start a racist thread).
Let’s just write this one off to “mods are weird” and move on with our lives.
From your lips to …
…the mods’ ears?