If it were a major(read=warning], I would agree with you. As is is, I, as a mod, don’t see it as a big deal. I understand the concern of posters. I really do. But, this isn’t an earth-shaking deal. It’s a minor kerfuffle.
Surely, there have be be better hills to die on. We, as mods/Admins, make this kind of decision every week. We really do.
Sometimes, you just keep on with life. If it were a major life-changing thing, I’d be with you, toe to toe.
So basically, we should just completely ignore that particular mod note and get on with our lives?
Oh, I have no stake in this particular issue. I just happened to notice that mod rhymes with God, thus opening the door for an uproarious pun.
No need to thank me.
Why ignore it when it would be so simple for it to be retracted? It’s not just the posters who are dieing on this hill, it’s the mods, too.
Completely ignore? Not, not “completely.” It would be ill-advised for someoone start a thread on the racist topic mentioned.
Different mods have different backgrounds and personalities, and different items that cause them to issue “friendly reminders” or “notes” to cool things down or to move tangents back to main topic, etc. This was one of many situations where different mods might have reacted in different ways. The desire for mods-as-robots, to administer everything with absolute consistency based on some sort of pre-programmed notion of what words or phrases are acceptable and which are insults (for instance) would be far worse (IMHO) than the occasional disagreement amongst mods as to what merits a “friendly reminder.” Example: I personally have a cousin who is severely autistic, and the term “retard” is a bee in my metaphorical bonnet. Spectre of Pithecanthropus is sensitive to racist comments, and stepped in to try and tone it down in the forum he moderates.
No rule was broken. No warning was issued. No new rule was made.
I think the staff adequately understands your position on the issue, and we hope that you understand ours. S
Speaking as poster, not admin: Can we drop it now?
And yet no-one involved ever had the slightest intention of actually doing that. You do understand that, don’t you? It hasn’t been completely lost on you in all your tortuous rationalizations?
When was the last time you cautioned someone against using the word when no rules were being broken?
It was not a racist comment. It was a hypothetical thread topic employed to make a point.
It’s like the difference between calling a black person a nigger, on the one hand, and discussing Mark Twain’s use of the word nigger in Huckleberry Finn, on the other. Using the word in the first instance is racist; using it in the second is not.
Again, the fact that you and Spectre fail to understand this type of distinction is amazing to me.
Every other post on the subject in this thread, and more than one PM in my inbox, says otherwise. So, why do you think everyone else got it and you didn’t? Could it be related to the reason that the *only *people in this thread who don’t get why this note is wrong are SDMB staff?
Seriously. Read back through this thread. The fact that *everyone in this thread who is not a moderator or an admin *thinks that this Note was *completely inexplicable *should be telling you something.
Go back and read again. A person suggested a hypothetical racist thread topic *specifically because *the topic would be abhorrent. The entire scenario falls apart if the person doesn’t think that the topic is wrong and bad and disgusting. There are no racist undertones. Zip. Zero. Zilch. In fact, the hypothetical posted is by its very nature ESPOUSING THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the proposed thread.
Quite. I just wish he’d figure out that backscrambling in an attempt to save face results in a *loss *of respect.
It is a major deal, because the note, as written, establishes a new precedent, a new rule. Well, two potential new rules, depending on which explanation of Spectre’s you believe.
1.) We shouldn’t use objectionable hypotheticals, even when the point of the hypotheticals is that they’re objectionable.
2.) We shouldn’t post anything that can be taken out of context in a Google search, no matter how obvious the meaning is in context.
Those are both **HUGE **changes. Huge. #1 would mean that, say, everybody who compares the new immigration law in Arizona to Nazi Germany is at risk of being banned; #2 would mean that most people in this thread, including a lot of staff, would be at that same risk.
But the note had nothing to do with that whatsoever. **Spectre **himself *never once *cited anyone starting that thread as a point of concern. Here, I’ll quote the original note for you again:
“AClockWorkMelon, you should know better than to use such obviously inflammatory language, even if if it isn’t your intent to inflame. If it is a joke I’m still not seeing how anything that’s gone on before it in the thread could possibly have created a context in which this is acceptable.”
ACM was cautioned specifically for the hypothetical he chose. A hypothetical which was chosen *because *it was wrong and disgusting, which would force **BigT **to reconsider his assertion that people who start threads on controversial topics should be able to insist that only people who agree with the premise of the thread should be allowed to post.
I don’t want mods to be robots. I do want them to consider their actions carefully in the context of the positions they hold and their implications for the members of this community. And when it’s pointed out to them that they may have missed the point, I want them to be mature and admit that they’ve screwed up instead of grasping at straws in a desperate attempt not to be wrong.
There were no racist comments. If I say “thinking Black people suck is a deeply stupid position that no sensible person would agree with,” is that a racist comment? Of course it’s not. And that’s *EXACTLY WHAT **ACM *SAID, albeit phrased as a hypothetical. He was given a moderator Note that told him that saying that a lot of people would disagree with the idea that Black people suck was inflammatory. You see how backwards that is?
If no rule was broken and no new rule was made, why was **ACM **given a note to stop what he was doing? Unless the mod in question was overstepping his authority, in which case all he needs to do is say, “I misunderstood–ignore what I said.”
No, I don’t think you do understand. If there was no rule broken and no new rule made, **ACM **should not have gotten a Note from **Spectre **with his mod hat on. This topic will *not *be through until:
1.) It is explained how ACM broke an existing rule (he was *not *using “inflammatory language” unless taken completely out of context);
2.) A new rule is clarified and posted, to be enforced going forward; or
3.) Someone on the SDMB staff says that the original note was in error and we can safely ignore it.
4.) Someone explains to me why I can’t transport clowns.
Shot From Guns said:
I went back and forth about a dozen times whether to include that line, and basically left it in over grayness of what constitutes a retraction and because something seemed clumsy without it there.
C K Dexter Haven said:
The driving with a clown analogy is perfect. If you think it is irrelevant, that suggests you are not understanding the point that Shot From Guns and the rest of us are making, the clarification we are seeking.
ACM made a hypothetical thread title that would be inflammatory specifically to make a point (BigT was arguing that if the OP says “only people who agree should post” that we should be constrained to comply; the inflammatory title was to show BigT a thread he would feel morally compelled to post in opposition to even if the OP tried to limit posting to only those who agree. The point was to show BigT how his proposed rule would trap him and why that rule is a dud. It worked.)
Spectre posted a Mod Note that the suggestion of that thread title was an inflammatory remark, and that it was not warranted in the thread. He did not say anything about actually starting a thread with that title - he was condemning the statement coming up in that thread itself. His complaint was the words “black people suck” should not be said because they are inflammatory. He later tried to justify it based upon someone potentially google searching “black people suck”, finding that thread, and thus that person deciding merely from reading the google search results that the SDMB was a hotbed of racist supporters (or something).
Mods have been trying to argue the flexibility of mods to make a judgement call based upon the individual context rather than have hard and fast rules for every possible variation. Fine: then look at the specific case we are citing, and see that the specific case does not need a Mod Note, because ACM did nothing near violating board rules. All he did was use the words “black people suck”. Note that me repeating those words at no time indicates that I support that position. Note that ACM’s specific use of those words at no time advocated that position. In the context of his post, the only sensible understanding would be to conclude he is in dire opposition to that position.
He got a Mod Note not to post an inflammatory remark, but the only people who would be inflamed by ACM’s post would be people who advocate that black people suck.
Oh please. Now that is a preposterous analogy. It is not illegal to have a clown in the passenger seat. It is illegal to have anyone (including non-clowns) shooting an uzi out the window. The illegal act is the uzi shooting, not the being dressed as a clown. The clownness is completely incidental and unrelated to the illegality.
Read again more closely. ACM did not actually propose starting a racist thread. Spectre did not remind him that starting such a thread would be illegal.
About the closest you could get was interpreting Spectre’s remark to mean “Racism is a sensitive and potentially inflammatory topic. Perhaps you should consider more carefully your hypothetical topics in the future.”
And if that’s the end of the mod note, and if the response is “Well, I considered it carefully and felt racism (or some inflammatory topic) was important to the point I was making”, and the go forward is that the next time someone needs to make a hypothetical thread topic to make a point and uses some variation on a racist remark as a rhetorical tool, and the mods ignore it, then we’re fine. But the question is can we make a racist phrased remark as a rhetorical tool or summary of some position, or will that lead to eventual Warnings for being a jerk? Not advocating the position, merely phrasing something like “The KKK thinks black people suck”.
C K Dexter Haven said:
Read the note again. It says nothing about starting a thread with that title or topic. All it says is using those words in that thread was inflammatory.
So going by your apparent take on the situation, if we ALL agree to interpret Spectre of Pithecanthropus’s remark to mean “don’t start any threads with inflammatory titles like the one you hypothetically suggested”, and we all agree that going forward nobody is proposing to start a thread titled like that, everybody is cool and the issue is over?
Munch said:
That falls under the rule of dangerous weapons that are banned in 13 states. Clowns can drive one to madness. 
Well, if nothing else, it solved the very useful purpose of getting me to clarify what *I *meant.
No, the clown is passenging, not driving.
Seriously, I can’t believe that the admins/mods are really not understanding the point; I’d rather hope they’re just trolling you now. The hypothetical was so freaking obvious, but apparently it’s like trying to explain quantum physics to a two year old. The next time someone mentions this place being one of the smartest places on the web, I know what thread to link to to refute that.
Still politely and patiently waiting for a response here. If the delay is because you’re discussing this amongst yourselves, an update to that effect would be appreciated.
Or did you misspeak when you said (emphasis added):
Still waiting. Over 3,000 views on this thread, by the way, and still *not one poster *has stepped up to defend the staff point of view here.
I’m sure that a mod or admin will be in shortly, perhaps with a rolleyes emoticon, to tell you that obviously the matter was discussed and that you’re intentionally trying to stir the pot here.
Well, to be fair, I *am *trying to stir the pot. But in an “I’m making a fuss because I think it’s important because I like this board a lot” kind of way. So I’m stirring the pot because it’s been sitting too long and stuff is starting to burn at the edges, and we don’t want any nasty little overcooked crusty bits.
Dude. I think it’s cashed.
Look, *I *passed it along after my turn. Not my fault the staff decided to Bogart the damn thing.
I know that this was in the BBQ Pit and different rules apply there, but here’s a recent quote from a moderator:
He’s using hyperbole in the exact same way that I did yet nobody seems to be afraid of how he’s making the SDMB look. If someone were to perform a questionable search this is what they’d see. Not to mention that the thread in which that quote takes place has the exact premise as the one I was using as a hypothetical and it’s remained open long enough for mods to come in and comment more than once.
I’m just sort of puzzled that the mods would rather say “let’s just forget about it” than “OK, note rescinded”. Is pride at stake or something?
Look again. He’s a Moperator. Unless I’m missing the point of your post. Maybe you have** p**yslexia? 
Oops. Pretend he’s a mod anyway! 