FWIW, I think the warning against Elvis should be rescinded for the same reason the warning against Ditka was rescinded. In each case, the warned post violates the rules when viewed in isolation but not when viewed in context: each was in response to a post which itself appears warnable. Elvis thought his complaint was proper because it responded to a post that itself was objectionable, and that had already been Mod-Noted. (5:11 Ditka posted, 5:38 Bone Mod-Notes Ditka’s post, 5:39 Elvis Notes Ditka’s post, Jonathan Mod-Warns Ditka’s post). At worst Elvis is guilty of “junior modding.”
I responded to the Warning against Ditka because I felt guilty — it was my stupid phrasing that provoked the problem in the first place. But now I realize that, like a combination shot in pocket billiards, my foible was also responsible for Elvis’ warning as well.
Please rescind the Warning against Elvis as well. His only offense was a minor case of “junior modding.” If anyone should have been Warned it was me. Let’s just make a fresh start in that thread.
And I will take care to avoid the objectionable word outside the Pit, with or without scare quotes, playfully or not.
Bone was applying the rule against accusations of trolling on the board. **ElvisLives **'s comment reads like an accusation of trolling. It’s not a mere statement about trolling being disapproved of, it’s a reference to a specific statement made on the board and describing that statement as trolling.
I agree that the stricture is against trolling on the board, i.e. making bad-faith statements intended principally to provoke other board members. I disagree with the rest of your interpretation.
HurricaneDitka’s statement was an honest description of his activities off the board, activities that might reasonably be construed as “real-life trolling” of liberals. Elvis did not accuse HurricaneDitka of trolling on the board (i.e. making bad-faith statements to provoke other board members), he commented that he disapproved of HurricaneDitka’s real-life trolling to provoke real-life liberals.
By analogy, the stricture against accusations of lying applies to alleged lies made in one’s statements on the board. Suppose, in a discussion of sexual politics, poster X states (honestly) that he lied to his wife about his infidelity. Poster Y is surely free to state that he believes that “lying to your wife in such circumstances is despicable”, without being warned for calling poster X a liar.
Say what? I do not see any list of activities by HurricaneDitka.
Here’s his post again:
He says he opposes the federal government funding a whole host of programs because funding those programs is “unconstitutional”. That’s the sum total of the list of things I see.
Show me again where HurricaneDitka said anything about IRL activities. How do you limit his sentence to be constrained to IRL, rather than mean he likes riling up liberals on the board?
If you read the whole thread, HurricaneDitka (although he doesn’t explicitly quote) is clearly referencing septimus at post #47:
This is a commentary on the real-life activities of Republicans (defunding NEA), and the effect it has on real-life “libtards”.
HurricaneDitka was continuing the discussion of the effect of defunding NEA, and its effect on real-life “libtards”; and Elvis commented on that.
In my opinion, this was a polarized but essentially good-faith discussion; nobody involved was trolling anyone on the board, nor did Elvis criticize HurricaneDitka for trolling “libtards” on the board.
Ok, I think I now finally understand what you are saying. You are saying that septimus listed in post 47 a string of possible motives of Republicans.
**HurricaneDitka ** responded by countering with his own proposed motive, then as an aside threw in the line about “poking libtards in the eye”, which was a callback to septimus’s remark. Basically, it wasn’t a motive, it was just a serendipitous benefit.
ElvisLives then replied to HurricaneDitka that the real life action of defunding the NEA is an act of Real Life trolling. “Poking libtards in the eye” = IRL trolling.
In that case, I see your point that EL wasn’t accusing anyone of trolling on the board.
Bone, does this influence your understanding of the incident in question?
…which really doesn’t address the issue, in my opinion. In #18 you make the inapt comparison to a generic insult, calling somebody a “stupid asshole”.
In this case, the discussion centered on the highly specific IRL activity of Republicans withdrawing NEA funding, and their motivations for doing so. Both septimus and HurricaneDitka had clearly commented (although without usually the actual word “troll”) that one Republican motivation (shared by HurricaneDitka) was to troll “libtards”. Elvis simply continued the discussion by stating his disapproval of this as a motivation for the withdrawal of NEA funding. Evidently, his bad luck was in being the first one in the discussion to use the actual word “troll” as a descriptor for this motivation.
If your view as a moderator is that any use of the word “troll” in any context is “too close to the line”, then surely the appropriate way to address that is a Note to tell people to tone things down.
I can’t see any way this warning was justified when Elvis’s comment is read in the context of the entire thread.
Riemann: Forget about the word “troll”, because that’s not the issue. The issue is insulting another poster. IOW: “Your action in real life makes you an unrespectable person”. That’s an insult, plain and simple. Whether those actions were trolling or killing puppies doesn’t matter. It’s the unrespectable part that matters.
