The clear difference is that one post still has a meaningful point if you remove the part that says fuck off. “You’re wrong, this is why you’re wrong, so fuck off” is a different post from “fuck off” and the latter has historically been modded harder on this forum.
1 Like
to be fair, you’ve already demonstrated you don’t care about our written rules.
1 Like
I’m not sure if that’s a helpful distinction. You can post something abusive and then add on something of substance and it becomes okay? Would rather if the poster just skipped ahead to the substantive part.
I am taking this as a challenge to come up with some clever play on words.
If you can work out a “fuck off” acrostic into a post, I’ll probably give it a heart.
Do we have to do this here?
It’s a useful distinction. Concentrating on the fuck off part is like conservatives concern trolling about a lack of decorum in order to avoid having a substantive debate on the merits of an argument.
People should mostly ignore the profanity and decide if there’s still something there worth replying to and otherwise ignore it. Apparently, swearing is just normal conversation for some people and they type like they talk.
1 Like
This is my own personal ethos but I feel like your posting behavior should adjust when you serve your mod term. Trolling (however minor) or constantly getting into disputes with others over non moderation issues should not be done as a mod. If you can’t set that aside for 6 months (or however long I signed up to be stuck in this torture chamber) then you shouldn’t have volunteered. This is a general statement not a condemnation of anyone.
13 Likes
I think perhaps I unfairly wrote you off too soon. My apologies.
1 Like
You have a point that context does matter. At the same time, it seems like a few “bright-line” rules are helpful. Keed seems to agree with the general guideline, so I’m good here.
Ah, so:
- Asking someone to “please be kind or stop responding to my posts”. — PROBLEMATIC, MUST BE MODERATED; but
- Telling someone to “Fuck Off.” —A-OK!
Discuss Keed’s new moderation rule wherein you can’t be asked to knock off the trolling, and can’t be asked to “please be kind or not respond to my posts,” in “About Moderation?” Seems like the appropriate place to me.
1 Like
Fine.
Doesn’t it fall under the “no trolling” rule, or the “Bad Faith!” rule since Jal’s question to CW was clearly not unkind? When you play the fainting couch game, sometimes you get got. But perhaps Keeed should have just been more clear and just simply asked CW to stop trolling.
Now if CW doesn’t want any interaction with Jal at all, he should simply ignore or mute him. Easy game.
And yet, it wasn’t.
Well since his comment drew a rebuke from a non-involved moderator who asked frezi to stop needling CW, it sure seems like clearly is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
Very true, no one does. I was just saying based on forum precedent that rule does not exist. Whereas the rule of wishing death onto other posters does exist. Even though there is no written rule for that specific problematic post.
Let’s ask that moderator what was so unkind about Jal’s question then. Who was it?
Def, you critic. Shock - no payoff, chief.
Last letter, not first
1 Like
I was kinda of encumbered there both by the shortness of the phrase and the lack of words ending in “U” and “O”. The punctuation is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.