My understanding is that no such rule has been established, or is even under consideration. However, there may be times when someone wants to create a poll and is not interested in comments or debate. Such a poster might do as bucketybuck did, and ask that all discussion be taken to another thread, but we saw what happened when a Mod tried to enforce the request. Another option might be to create a poll and just not read all the posts it generates, as I believe one poster has already says he does. Of course, there is a risk that whatever goes on in the thread might get it locked before the OP has gotten all the responses he is likely to get. So TPTB are apparently looking into whether it is possible to create a poll that can’t be posted to, only voted in. I don’t know just how much interest there actually is in having such a type of poll available, but I think it would be only an option, not a requirement.
I don’t think that a new rule has been established either. I think that the consensus led to a little bit of face saving for some poor decision making.
We can speculate all day, but that wasn’t what I asked for. I want to know if these are having any effect right now. Are any of these four posters being moderated right now? Getting their posting situation reviewed?
I’m not saying they would have no weight, just that the weight will be minor. See below.
This is just not correct. The mods have said multiple times that in general no one Warning is the tipping point. It takes a string of Warnings to get you under consideration for banning. They are looking for a pattern of behavior or a pattern of unwillingness to try to comply with the rules. And older warnings carry less weight, unless they are for the same thing.
As I see it (and this is a WAG), unless one of you continues to gather warnings for failure to heed moderator instructions, these will be negligible in no time even if you later do something to get banned.
[QUOTE=Red Barchetta]
For me, Czarscasm’s intent was never in question, as his actions after the Mod Note revealed. What is in question is the violation of the mod note pertaining to how he wrote it, which I did not violate. But since **Czarscasm **was enforcing something he didn’t say, I got warned.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I meant by his intent. He interpreted your action differently than you do. His instruction was not clear to what he wanted.
I recall two polls–one about computer OS and one about the paranormal–in which a Mod had virtually no trouble with enforcing the respective OP’s request to refrain from debating.
That’s because everybody knows Mac is better for UFO tracking but this was contentious. 
I never said it wasn’t. You’re the one who said that the moderators repsonded to me - heck, you even capitalized it. But they didn’t, and your statement was incorrect.
Sounds like speculation to me…
Whew, FINALLY a mod weighs in on this issue…
oh, wait…
No, your interpretation was incorrect. I was referring to the collective “you,” and not you specifically. You can disagree all you want, but that IS the way it was intended.
OK. I’ll take your word for it - only you know what was in your head. But that wasn’t how it looked when I read it.
I would just add one thing. The reason I was so surprised that you thought the mods responded to me was that
a) I never asked them anything; and
b) I’m pretty sure all of their posts were made before I commented
So the fact that you thought they responded to me seemed really strange.
Just to clarify, I never asked for nor wanted a comment free thread. I simply didn’t want four or five people to post repeatedly with the same arguments trying to browbeat people into voting one way or another. Thats what I meant by “debate”.
There should never have been a problem with any poster making a post to state their vote and their reason for voting a particular way. Thats the worst thing about those bullshit warnings, even if there were some rule against debate in IMHO none of the posts in question actually violated it. One post does not a debate make.
Its my opinion that all of these threads and posts in ATMB kinda miss the point. There is no need for clarifying rules about debate in IMHO, or for changing v-bulletin and implementing comment free polls, thats all needless. The question for me is completely about why a moderator felt that the best way to moderate a thread was to arbitrarily hand out stupid warnings? It strikes right to the heart of what moderators are actually there for, as there was no need whatsoever for that thread and for those warnings to develop as they did. Why was the original mod note so non-descript? No bolding, no post title indicating mod action, just a simple one line of un-highlighted lower case typing, easily missed. With so many posters in such a short time violating the (supposed) mod note, why not a second note as a final warning, clarifying what was needed and ensuring everybody saw it?
It reminded me of nothing so much as a Traffic cop sitting just behind a blind corner with a speed gun, catching people speeding as they came round the corner. Sure, he is catching speeders and giving out tickets, but his job isnt to give out tickets, its to promote less speeding on the roads, a job better served by sitting visibly out in the open and getting people to slow down.
The dog on the street knows that Czarcasm acted as he did because he was involved in the overall discussion itself, and it suited his position to shut down all discussion. I have no doubt whatsoever that had Czarcasm been absent that day, and another mod had dropped by to read the thread, that not a single mod note or warning would have been issued. I am 100% certain of that. So its very hard not to believe that Czarcasm is using his mod authority as a crutch for his own personal agendas, rather than simply as a tool for helping the board operate. Is that what this board wants its moderators to be doing?
I have made it clear in the past that I think the moderators should have a lot of leeway to do as they see fit, and they certainly should not be answerable to the likes of me. But the moderating in that thread was appalling, and I hope that behind the scenes somebody with the gall to put Administrator in their title will actually do do some administrating on the issue.
That is very well put, buckety, and I agree completely.
Truly a crying shame, for all of us who await your golden words of wisdom in each of your brilliant, insightful missives…
It seems to me that if the warnings are truly “NOT a big hairy deal”, then it wouldn’t be “a big hairy deal” to rescind them.
???
The fact that they’re not a “big hairy deal” doesn’t mean that they’re handed out via lottery.
They’re given out for a reason. This isn’t a democracy. Someone has to be given the charge to be cat-herder, and a mod warning isn’t a de facto reason to stomp your feet and hold your virtual breath.
Take the wrist slap and move on…
I posted opinion in that thread after the warning. Nothing happened.
I demand equal treatment.
“Be careful what your wish for…” is always a useful motto to remember.
Its all a good fucking laugh isnt it.
Very well said. (I like how most everyone so far has been able to say it better than I could have…) **Czarcasm **was in no way unbiased on the matter and was unfit to moderate, as hindsight has confirmed.
And the answer to your second paragraph is “So the fuck what?” Yeah, life is unfair. You know what moral people do? They try to fix that. Throwing up your hands and crying that the world is unfair doesn’t solve problems. Imagine if that was the only way we ever dealt with things. The world wouldn’t exist.
As for your third paragraph, why do you hand out warnings if they have no meaning? Oh, wait, they do. Because of my warnings, two or three of which are invalid, I now know that any mistake I make will be used against me and I will get suspended,without even giving me the chance to explain. I already was told this with my third warning.*
Of course, the idea that something is little, so it’s wrong to try to deal with it is completely silly in the first place. Sure, sometimes you have to pick your battles. But there’s nothing wrong with picking a battle that someone else wouldn’t. And as you’ll see further down, picking these battles does work.
And let’s not forget that you are the one who got all bent out of shape because a moderator responded slightly snarkily to an obvious insult in an ATMB thread. So the idea that you think life is unfair and you just have to deal with it is proven false. If it were no big deal, why did you think it was worth chastising all the mods for not being fair in your eyes?
Sure, I said I would no longer deal with Czarcasm, but I will respond to people who try to use ignorance to fight for him. It’s simple. He did wrong. And you guys are refusing to fix the problem, which means you also did wrong. Of course you are going to come up with whatever you can to ease your conscience. But don’t expect us to buy it.
You want to be able to skate by by claiming the world is unfair, then expect a lot of people saying crap to you that you have to read. People want the world to be fair. If you don’t strive to do it, then someone else will do it for you.
*Funny how I was nice with my response to that one, and got no response. (Same with my fourth, that was obviously just to claim fairness to the person who actually did break the rules.) Face it. Being mean is the only way to get you guys to respond. When a tactic works, don’t expect it to disappear.