My bold.
Let’s go to the **punch bowel **and pull Bo’s head out!
My bold.
Let’s go to the **punch bowel **and pull Bo’s head out!
Just because it’s been permitted doesn’t mean it’s approved of, or is viewed as innocuous behavior on his part. We allow a certain level of annoying behavior on the part of posters, mainly because it’s not worth policing at a this kind of petty level. That doesn’t mean that we want to see them doing it. As another example, even though we allow some level of rudeness and obnoxiousness in Great Debates, we would prefer it if posters don’t engage in such behavior.
Bo’s catchphrase is annoying to a lot of people - something that has been made abundantly clear to him - yet he persists in using it. (His excuse that he uses the catchphrase to replace “LOL” doesn’t hold a lot of water, since posting just “LOL” in itself is pretty annoying). This is the kind of thing that could possibly fall under the “don’t be a jerk” rule, but we’ve chosen not to invoke that in this case. We’d prefer that peer pressure get people stop such annoying behavior, but that hasn’t worked here (at least not yet). It’s always a bit of a mystery to me why some people insist on engaging in behavior that so negatively affects their reputation on the board, but there you have it.
So, this thread, which was ostensibly about a possible inconsistent application of Ed’s Rules for the Pit, is now officially another debate about Bo’s catchphrase. I’m not interested in that anymore, so adios. See you all in some other thread: one with hopefully consistent mod instructions.
…the thread isn’t about Bo: its about the words you used in response to Bo. So I take it the official line is that you are not moderating to the spirit of Ed Zotti’s change of pit rules, but to the letter? Out of interest what are Ed’s thoughts on the matter?
Wow. Do you really want to go there? Are you sure that you want to invite the same sort of colossal clusterfuck that arose the last time Ed took an active interest in what goes on around here?
Like the American colonists before the Revolution, i prefer a policy of salutary neglect on the part of our overlords. Things tend to work better that way.
…not really. But the thread has turned into a pile on on Bo and the mods are allowing it to happen: in fact they are joining in. They’ve admonished another poster for “going off topic” but they allow the pile on to continue. Heck: Colibri just piled on again!
I think that the change in pit rules are as stupid as everyone else: but if the mods are going to “work to rule” precisely so that they don’t have to moderate themselves then I think that Ed has a right to know about it and make a definitive ruling.
Bo has been the beneficiary of our not invoking a strict interpretation of the “don’t be a jerk” rule with regard to his persistent annoying behavior. His insistence on what he perceives to be a strict interpretation of other rules makes this behavior relevant in this context.
For the record, my post in the Pit thread was as a poster, not as a moderator. Both Pit moderators have given their views of the enforcement of the Pit rules above, and whether it was a violation of them. I refer you to their posts.
Piling on? I responded to another poster.
(underline mine)
“Ostensibly” is the key word here. Bo reported insults. Insults that were made towards Bo that Bo posted here under the guise of language restrictions. There are numerous examples posted everyday of that type of language restriction ‘insults’ that Bo doesn’t bitch about.
It’s pretty clear to most of us he is more concerned about the insults to himself than the pit language rules. And by extension (given that was what started the kerfuffle), his catch phrase.
See my ‘Reason for Editing’ remark.
…I’m not entirely sure why that is relevant in a thread where the question was asked did **you **break the rules. The question was “does go fuck a cactus” violate the revised pit rules? Bo “insistence” is really an example of someone who reads the rules differently to you. I read the rule the same way as Bo: your post looked like an infringement, or at least a line call. This is one of the purposes of this forum: to allow people to question the decisions of the moderating team. We can’t pit you guys anymore. Bo’s OP was respectful. His response to Miller was both respectful, polite, and raised valid points which still haven’t been answered three days later.
Regardless of this: once that question was answered, why was the hijack and veiled attacks on Bo allowed to continue considering they had zero relevance to the question that was asked?
When samclem said earlier:
“Keep it on track, or post your own thread.”
why was Knorf singled out? I’m assuming that samclem was not speaking as a moderator when he said this? Why didn’t you follow that instruction?
Yeah: I’ve read them. Again: my question is “is it the official line is that you are not moderating to the spirit of Ed Zotti’s change of pit rules, but to the letter?” Because based on the ruling the mods are moderating to the letter of the rules and ignoring the context in which those rules were put in place. Miller’s response is at odds with Ed’s own words as quoted in this thread and appears to be at odds with the spirit with which the rule was enacted. Miller has only responded once in the thread and I’m sure can clarify more if he were to return.
And there are still questions. John Mace’s post 19 remains unanswered. Bo’s point in post 33 remains unanswered.
Yeah you piled on. Did you need to write what you wrote? Knorf is still correct. A simple “yeah its permitted but we don’t approve” would have made your point. But then you added the rest of your commentary that seems to be a blur between your personal opinion and moderator comment.
This is just whiney passive aggressive moaning that might be fine in a thread about Bo: but its just piling on in a thread about you.
Bo’s catchphrase annoys some people: but it doesn’t annoy everyone. It doesn’t annoy me and it doesn’t annoy many others. Your view is subjective. The thread was never about Bo: it was actually about the words that you and another chose to use and whether or not those words violated the rules. The mods determined that they weren’t: and then the thread descended into a prolonged commentary on Bo and his choice of catch phrase.
Are you offering your opinion as a poster or a moderator? Because lines like “This is the kind of thing that could possibly fall under the “don’t be a jerk” rule, but we’ve chosen not to invoke that in this case.” make it pretty clear you are posting as a moderator.
Knorf’s point is correct: Bo’s catchphrase is permitted. Despite your editorial moderator comment in an unrelated thread about how ‘annoying Bo’s behaviour is and he is only allowed to get away with it because of the grace of the moderators’, Bo’s catchphrase is permitted. If you don’t want him to use it then use the “jerk” card and ban it. If people want to discuss it then they should open a thread in ATMB. If they want to abuse Bo they should open a pit thread. But in the words of the poster upthread: “Keep it on track, or post your own thread.”
To rephrase the words of Richard Swainson, with regards to the democratic right of expressing an opinion without regards to constructiveness, critical reasoning or factual accuracy: to whine is not to argue; to whine is not to posit a better world or higher ideal; to whine is not to declare one’s principles. Whining is a simpler, more direct act, a pure registration of individual dislikes, a manifestation of character and taste and the absence of the same. Ditto for LOLs.
But that’s long-winded. So from now on whenever I say, “Let’s go to the punch bowel and pull Bo’s head out,” that’s what I mean.
Damn, I thought I was the only one. Since the police seem obsessed with ignoring the law though, I’ve been reporting it to the mods here.
Bo, I happen to like your contributions to this board. Except for your little catch phrase. And quite frankly, I think the only reason you think it’s funny now, is because you know it annoys the fuck out of people.
It’s almost as if you’ve been given a free license to troll and there
aint’ nothing the mods can do about it.
All this seems rather childish to me.
No, you don’t agree with me, because that’s not what I said.
I said I couldn’t see the difference between “fuck a cactus” and “fuck off”.
You tell us, weeaboo.
Oh, God damnit.
Banquet Bear, I think the mods are in a position where they don’t think that what Bo is doing is against the rules, and can’t use their moderating powers to stop him, but are all very annoyed by his actions. Thus they do the minimum required of them as mods.
My evidence: The fact that they didn’t respond back to Bo in an email or PM. I may annoy the mods sometimes, but I almost always get a response if I report something and they disagree with me.
Further evidence: Colibri knows full well that what he said could be interpreted as a variant of fuck off, but he also knows its a judgment call, not a strict rule. Thus he knows he can say it.
Now, yeah, I’d prefer the mods take it a step further and admonish the guy for trolling–which is against the rules no matter how innocuous you think the form is–but it seems they can’t justify that to themselves, even with him flat out posting “umadbro.”
This thread has about run its course, now it’s just bickering.
Which we’re going to ask you to take elsewhere.
Quarrel in the quarry!