Psssst… The mods have a spy network that reports directly to them regarding any suspicious behavior or inappropriate activities. I can’t tell you any more than that or I might get my dog burned.
Demands to know why the mods aren’t responding to him. Gets a response from a mod, and accuses the mod of stalking him.
There’s no winning with some people.
Cite?
I never demanded to know why the mods don’t respond. I simply asserted that they don’t. When I was contradicted, I submitted evidence of a PM that went ignored. I’ve never requested any mod response in this thread.
I’ve made three assertions in this thread: that mods gang up on people, that the rules don’t apply to mods, and that they don’t respond to PMs. Excuses for this conduct do not disprove its existence. I am not seeking resolution of anything in this thread. I am merely submitting evidence when I feel a demonstrably false statement has been made.
So stop stalking me and claiming I asked you for a response when I obviously did not.
Dude, could you start your own thread, eh?
Moderator Note
You were already told not to hijack this thread with this. You are free to open a new thread to discuss it, if you so choose. Do not mention it again in this thread.
Trust me, it won’t make any difference at all.
NM
Mod note
I see **engineer_comp_geek **beat me to it, Grotonian, so I’ll merely amplify: when a mod “suggests” something to you, you need to listen. Any further failure to comply with Miller’s instruction upthread will result in your getting a warning.
That was the thread where you couldn’t tell the difference between threatening people with the intent to harm and stating that if you keep misbehaving you’ll be banned and claimed the mods were “threatening you” (with harm) by warning you about the consequences of your actions. Because you were really, embarrassingly wrong about the whole issue.
Was that really the thread you wanted to link to?
It wasn’t a complete waste of time. We all learned that while “trolling is against the rules”, the StraightDope forums do allow a certain amount of trolling.
And Mods are allowed to troll. So it’s all good.
Moderator Note
Again, this is not the topic of this thread. If you want to start your own topic in ATMB, feel free. Do not post about this again in this thread.
And just so that we’re all absolutely clear, this applies to everyone, not just Grotonian and FXMastermind.
As to the condoning part of the OP. People get banned for suggesting harm to another poster all the time. IIRC, a member was banned for a comment about taking a 2x4 to a thoughtless person who had parked in front of a fire hydrant that the fire department needed to fight a fire. (not sure who that was) Regardless of whether you have the ability or the means to complete an attack, making such a threat is a bus ticket to Banville.
So, as to the condoning part, I think the answer is definitely NO.
I wouldn’t say “all the time.” It’s against the rules, but I don’t think that many people have been banned for it. Some warnings, and lots and lots of mod notes, but we don’t generally ban people just for internet tough guy posturing, unless they’ve already got multiple warnings. We might go straight for an instaban if someone made a physical threat that was somehow credible, but I don’t think that situation has ever come up.
Zenster. Ha! I can’t believe I remembered that. And it was an ax handle. But it looks like he’d been a problem poster for a while before that happened, including multiple warnings for breaking that specific rule.
(This was well before I was a mod, so I’m just going off what I remember and can find in a Google search.)
Yeah except when the person being bullied is deceased. See recent thread bashing Opal.
We’ll institute a rule against bullying the dead as soon as we hear a complaint from one of the victims.
:rolleyes:
A dead person cannot be bullied, pretty much by way of being dead.
It’s pretty basic to the idea of “bullying” that the bullied person be available to be bullied. You can’t bully a corpse, it generally doesn’t care*
*Certain varieties of zombie/vampire/other undead aside.
While true, there is policy that we aren’t supposed to continue to talk about suspended or banned members due to their inability to defend themselves, and it would seem that the same logic would apply to those who can’t defend themselves for other reasons.
Of course, I’m pretty sure you’re one of those who has argued that the rule about banned people is stupid. I’m not arguing against that, just that it seems that the logic for both is identical, so they should be treated the same.
Plus it’s unseemly.
There is a minor difference between living and dead people. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what that difference is.