Warning for personal insults:rolleyes:
WTF, Bone? There is no rule against cautioning someone that trolling IRL is disrespectable. In fact, the warned response supports the board rule.
Be a little less quick on the trigger, cowboy.
The warning has been rescinded.
Elvis’s warning has been rescinded?
Sorry, I got confused. I didn’t realize there was more than one warning in that thread.
The rule is that accusations of trolling are not permitted. It seems your defense is that you weren’t actually accusing HD of trolling, merely offering a friendly word of caution. I don’t find this defense persuasive.
Consider the hypothetical:
“Being is no more respectable in the real adult world than on this board.”
That comment would merit a warning as well if would be an insult if directed to the person - there is no substantive difference between that statement and calling the other person . Similarly, there is no substantive difference between the statement you made and accusing HD of trolling.
Is ElvisL1ves’s warning been rescinded, or not? I can’t tell.
Regards,
Shodan
Are we strict constructionists now? Surely, in context, it’s obvious that this means an accusation that somebody is trolling the SDMB.
And I don’t find the rest of your argument persuasive in the least. If I told someone that I believe they are wrong to tell lies to their spouse in real life, would I be warned for calling them a liar?
That warning will not be rescinded.
Can one be generally a strict constructionist? If so, I lean that way, yes. Whether a violation of a rule has occurred is binary evaluation at step 1. What action to take at step 2 is discretionary. To be precise, the rule is “Do not accuse other posters of trolling or being a troll.”
I think this is context dependent. If someone made a statement and you responded, *“It would be wrong if you lied to your spouse like that” *- probably. If in a general thread about best practices with one’s spouse, you said “I think lying to you spouse is not a good idea, in general” - probably not. That being said, it’s hard to evaluate the spectrum of examples without context so generally I hesitate to give specifics.
Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Shodan
All I can say is that I think Bone’s interpretation is preposterous on its face. How about the rule that says don’t be a jerk? If I admit that I was a jerk to my dog this morning by hiding his favorite toy, do I get a warning?
Then you are interpreting the rules in a way that is completely with odds of how this message board is moderated. Your job as a mod is to continue the same moderation as before, not make up your own interpretations of how things should be done. It’s not your personal message board.
Seriously, this is a problem. We had rogue mods before, and we had to fight and fight until they were fired. I don’t want that to have to happen to you.
But if you switch to “strict constructionism” and refuse to try to figure out the actual meaning of the rules based on how they are actually enforced, then you’re only damaging the board. People won’t know which mod’s ideas they should listen to.
Before you were all about enforcing civility, which has no actual rules. That was good, and why I guessed you would be a great mod. But if you move to robotic interpretation of the rules, then you are completely at odds with how the board is moderated, and thus become actually bad for the board.
Counting the angels on this pin strikes me as silly; it was a jerkish comment to make, especially with the “real adult world” bit. Happy to see the warning stand.
No, that’s preposterous, because your dog isn’t a member here (I assume).
Also, stupid five minute edit window :
This statement should not get a warning, because it’s not actually accusing anyone of being a liar. It’s not the same thing as saying, “You are wrong for lying to your spouse.” I don’t even think that comment should be warnable if the other poster actually admitted to lying.
Just check if it’s left the building.
So, Ditka’s warning was rescinded?
Well, of course it’s preposterous. I was making a reductio ad absurdum argument. Since Bone seems unwilling to infer from context that the rules refer to trolling on the SDMB, or to accusing somebody of lying in what they write on the SDMB, he would presumably be equally unwilling to infer that the stricture is against being a jerk on the SDMB.
I disagree on a number of fronts. My interpretation is consistent with moderation thus far, at least as far as I can remember. My role (I don’t call it a job since I’m not really paid) is to moderate using my best judgment. As always, I strive for clarity so if something is unclear I’d be glad to discuss. I do agree it is not my personal message board.
It’s not a switch - as always rules will nearly always be context dependent. I happen to think a strict constructionist view of the rules is going to be fair since I think the rules are quite clear as written. Feel free to weigh in where you think there is lack of clarity. One thing I have found since coming on board is that one of my previous criticisms of the moderation was largely unfounded, or at least unworkable. I previously disagreed that different moderators in the same forum may apply or judge things differently. In reality, we are all different people with our own approaches. I respect every other moderator’s judgment even if at times we may disagree. In that vein, there will be times that some judgements seem inconsistent but that can’t be helped - we do make an active effort to be in sync with each other to the extent possible and often discuss action both before and after. I think that’s about as good as it’s going to get.
I don’t think I was ever primarily focused on enforcing civility. Being civil to one another is one of the rules of the board so I do try to steer things in that direction. I’ve ben a mod now for 4.5 months or so and I think my approach has been consistent throughout. Let me know if you think this is a radical departure from either the 4.5 month history or how the board has been moderated.
As always, feedback is always welcome so I thank you for yours. I’m comfortable with the current set of actions but understand that you or others may disagree.
This is great example of context being critical! Consider the hypothetical was in response to a specific statement a poster made, AND the “like that” component. That transforms the statement into a commentary about the previous statement.
I am aware the rules are referring to board activity. Here was from my first post in this thread: "The rule is that accusations of trolling [on this board] are not permitted. It seems your defense is that you weren’t actually accusing HD of trolling, merely offering a friendly word of caution. I don’t find this defense persuasive. "
I added the bracketed part just now for clarity if that helps, however that was how I was making the statement from the get go. My conclusion is unchanged. While trolling is a specific charge that is verboten, other invective in the same place would be treated similarly. If a person said “Being a stupid asshole is no more respectable in the real adult world than on this board.” in direct response to a comment from a poster, I’d warn for that just the same. It’s a transparent way to call a poster a stupid asshole, just as it is to call them a troll.
My recommendation would be to avoid trying to get close to the line of trollery accusations.
You wouldn’t be warned for calling yourself a jerk. The rule is specifically against insulting other members.
Do I have to worry about being warned every time I post the fact that decent people don’t use “illegal” as a noun?