Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
By "do you mean," do you mean "my knowledge of semantics is better than yours?"
The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
- Status
By "do you mean," do you mean "my knowledge of semantics is better than yours?"
Hopper
Banned
You're probably right, Eric, but I'll wait for Colton's official word on it. It doesn't really seem like the "backseat moderating" rule he is citing is designed to cover that. If it were, this rule, which immedately follows the backseat moderating rule, would seemingly never have been written:
Rules said:
I've always kinda understood "backseat moderating" to be trying to act like you're a moderator yourself, by telling other posters what to do, or how to do it.
It's not a rule until it's a rule. Right now it's not a rule, so it's not a rule. Is that really so complicated?
Yes, you're right. I had in mind more of the "Arguing with moderators" rule than the "backseat moderating".
It's not a rule until it's a rule. Right now it's not a rule, so it's not a rule. Is that really so complicated?
So, should myself, Hopper, or anyone choose to use quotation marks instead of quote tags, even after we have been asked not to, there will be no warnings or infractions based on that alone?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
If it falls under unreadable posting, why wouldn't it?
Depends whether you are doing it to troll, I suppose. That would necessarily be a judgment call of the moderators. I could easily see a situation where you, or Hopper, or someone else, would format their post in a completely bizarre way in order to thumb their noses at the moderators. That would likely result in a warning or infraction. On the other hand, if it was not a deliberate nose-thumbing, I doubt the moderators would call it trolling.
to shed some additional light on this saga, I'm sharing a few PM's that Hopper and I exchanged back in July, regarding rules, infractions and issues of that nature:
a PM sent by me to Hopper on 7/21/10
Hopper was wondering if it's possible to know which posts get infractions
And note that I made special mention of this:
Hopper and I had several private messages back and forth regarding these various issues. For the most part, the content of these messages was shared with the other mods so everyone had the same information and could work from the same base.
a PM sent by me to Hopper on 7/21/10
Hopper was wondering if it's possible to know which posts get infractions
moevillini said:
And note that I made special mention of this:
Hopper and I had several private messages back and forth regarding these various issues. For the most part, the content of these messages was shared with the other mods so everyone had the same information and could work from the same base.
Hopper
Banned
Thanks for that clarification, Colton. Could I ask one more question about "trolling?" The rule, as written, clearly limits what is considered to be trolling to DELIBERATE attempts to disrupt, etc.:
Rules said:
As I have understood some moderators in the past, this part of the rule is to be ignored, so that, in effect, anything a moderator doesn't like is "trolling," deliberate, or not. If I understood Mo correctly, at one point she said she had undertaken to have the rule rewritten, so as to eliminate any consideration of a poster's intent. Apparently the rule has not been rewritten, as of yet, anyway. Yet, from her comments, I get the feeling that she feels it has been, somehow. Can you clarify this situation?
Last edited:
HOPPER - The rules cannot explain every situation and contingency. They provide a guideline. That is part of the reason a warning may often be given for a first time offense - to clarify the rule in general, and/or to clarify how it applies to a particular situation.
In addition, as I stated in my post immediately above this last one of yours, I provided you with rules from other forums that would most likely apply as well on this forum. I advised you to review those rules and to follow them.
In addition, as I stated in my post immediately above this last one of yours, I provided you with rules from other forums that would most likely apply as well on this forum. I advised you to review those rules and to follow them.
At one point Moe did argue that the word "deliberate" should be taken out, so that it was less ambiguous. ("Deliberate" involves the moderators attempting to judge intent.) If I recall correctly not enough of the moderators felt strongly enough about her proposal for a change to be made. So yes, the moderators should judge whether something was deliberate or not, when thinking about issuing an infraction for trolling.
Hopper
Banned
Mo, although I appreciated your attempt to help, I didn't feel like it would do me any good to go around to various messages boards to see what THEIR rules were, at least if I was not planning on joining that group. My concern is with what the rules are HERE, not THERE.
AS I STATED:Hopper said:
...it might be HELPFUL to you to review them and follow them because for the most part, I think they apply here as well. In particular, take note of #5) Stay on topic, do not be repetitive, limit your replies, use quotes correctly.
and I did say "I think they apply here as well" so that should have been a clue that you should try to follow them, or at least review them.
In addition, why is it that you seem to be the ONLY poster having such problems? The rules seem to be clear enough for the others.
I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you should write a blog, since you seem to have so much to say. You'd be in charge, and could make the rules. You could write whatever and as much as you wanted, use whatever format and slang you chose.
Hopper
Banned
Thank you especially for that clarification, Colton. I don't mean to be presumptous, but do you mind if I request that mods be formally notified of the proper interpretation of this rule? Like I said, there seems to be some confusion about this. Also, I would like to "suggest" that if intention to disrupt is an issue, the mods could as least ask the poster about what he was thinking. Not that they have to believe him, but again, what might seem "obvious" to a moderator might not be so obvious if they actually informed themselves about what the poster was thinking, rather than assuming they know, without inquiry.
Always a dead giveaway that the speaker is about to be extremely presumptuous.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Not true.
The one thing I really hate is when a poster finds a thread with their name in the title, and actually has the nerve to post it it.
Thank you for altering your signature, BTW.
- Status