No, the warning was specifically for violating the rule against accusations of trolling.
If you think Elvis’s comment violates some other board rule, that’s a separate discussion. As an insult, how does Elvis’s comment stack up against using the word “libtard”, for which a warning was rescinded?
I’ll try to address this in a different way. The rule against accusation of trolling is derived from the rule prohibiting personal insults. Now what constitutes a personal insult is probably wider than can be described, given the imagination of the Teeming Millions. To avoid the grey area there are some accusations that have been specifically identified as personal insults. Accusations of trolling is one of them - an accusation of trolling is a specific insult, but it is a personal insult none the less. It is specifically called out as an insult that is not allowed anywhere on the boards except in the Pit where insults are permitted. (As an unrelated aside, when issuing a warning there is a menu to choose from and accusation of trolling is not one of the selections so whenever that warning is given the checkbox I use is “personal insults”. There’s also a freeform dialogue box so things can get creative there.)
Generally it is no defense to say that an insult is directed toward off board activity when directed towards another poster. Consider the example, “On this board you are a perfectly polite person, but in real life you are an [derogatory insult]”. Or how about, “In real life you sure are an asshole, but on this board you’re fine”. Both of those would not be permitted because they are insults. The distinction you are trying to draw between board activity and off board activity is weak. Accusing someone of being a troll in real life or on this board can still fall under the umbrella of insults towards a poster on this board which is not permitted.
But even if I agreed with your thinking that this distinction is meaningful, it’s not controlling. Because the way I construe the comment is not based on descriptions of off board activity. I saw it as a means to accuse HD of trolling or being a troll on this board with a reference to IRL as a thin veneer.
I agree, a weak circumlocution cannot be a defense to simply insulting someone.
But I don’t accept that this is remotely what happened here. HurricaneDitka had said:
What can this comment possibly mean except: “In real life, I like the idea of [either myself of Republicans in general] trolling libtards.”
So Elvis was responding to this admission with disapproval, not conjuring an insult out of thin air.
If the broader basis of Elvis’ warning was “insulting another poster”, it seems unjust to me that HurricaneDitka’s warning for a far more insulting comment was rescinded while Elvis’ warning was allowed to stand. (Although I don’t think either should have been warned; a more general Note to tone things down would surely have been sufficient when the whole thread is read in context. It is, in my opinion, a good-faith but polarized discussion of IRL Republican activities, and I don’t think anyone involved had the intent of insulting other specific posters.)
Why would that matter?
If I say “I’m kind of a jerk in real life sometimes”, and another poster responds “Yeah, you are kind of a jerk”, that other poster hasn’t conjured the insult out of thin air, but he still has insulted me.
I’m surprised that you don’t see a difference.
Do you see a difference between these two exchanges?
Spontaneous insult:
Y: Hey, X, you’re just a troll IRL!
Responsive comment:
X: I approve of trolling IRL.
Y: I don’t think that’s something you should be proud of.
The second interaction is what actually happened in the case in question, albeit heavily paraphrased; you had to read the thread carefully to understand that.
Emphasis added. Not that I agree with that, but if that is the “excuse”, it’s a pretty weak one: “It’s not an insult if you read the whole thread very carefully”. But I also think you paraphrased the bulk of the insult out of the post. Here’s a better paraphrase:
*Trolling is unrespectable on this MB, and it’s the same when you childishly do it IRL. *
Well, yes, I do think it behooves the mods to read carefully and understand the context. As they certainly did when they reconsidered HurricaneDitka’s warning - it was in fact an uncited reference to a much earlier comment rather than a spontaneous insult.
In any event, here was the exact wording used:
Warning issued but rescinded.
Warning issued and sustained.
Do you really think that the second comment is more offensive than the first? In a heated discussion all round, it just seems strange and unfair to me that this turned out to be the one comment that was ultimately picked on for a warning.
Didn’t you notice the forum it’s posted in? Troll accusations are allowed in the Pit.