NationStates Jolt Archive

You warned Stephistan for using the phrase "dumb it down" in this thread: (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396234)


That is not an insult. She did not call the person "dumb". It is simply an expression commonly used to mean "to simplify". So why pick her out of the pack for a warning?


Especially given that the thread is total flamebait. The author singled out myself and steph and invited people to attack a position that he claimed WE had made. The problem is that we had not as I pointed out to him in post 13. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8153902&postcount=13) Since when is it allowable to do that? Especially when the other thread was still active? Surely if we HAD put forward what he claimed and people were interested they could have refuted us in the other thread? IT was an invitation to attack two members done under either false pretense or due to a missunderstanding of what we said - which was why Steph felt compelled to "simplify" it for him. I wasn't going to complain about that to Moderation as I felt it was handled within the thread, but under the circumstances your choice of who to single out is odd. If we had to "dumb down" to him why he was misrepresenting us - well we had to get that point across as he was putting forth a false position that he was attributing to us in order to shoot it down.

And given what went on without ANY warning in the thread that he split this thread off from (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396207) - it seems VERY strange that you singled out Steph - AGAIN.


So
a) IS the term "dumb it down" now verbotten on NS? If so please make the announcement as I have sure seen it used a lot.

and b) please explain why Steph got singled out with the only warning in that whole discussion across both threads. Because frankly I think that would seem very, very odd to any unbiased person who might read them.


-Z-

Question was directed to scolo. Solo will answer it when he gets back. If you are not scolo, the person who the question was directed to, please do not post. Your input as a non-scolo entity is not needed.

Edit: We are able to process stuff much faster when there are not all these extraneous posts in every topic. Think about that before posting here please.

Oh Zep, hun, I know why I was singled out, Trez already gave me the answer. He went to #themodcave and asked if he could flamebait me, apparently according to him, Sirocco told him to go for it. Nice.

It went some thing like this.

The Queen of General is suddenly facing civil war. No longer worshipped universally as the Goddess of Debate, she instead stooped to attack a patriotic post made by a military veteran from an unpopular conflict. In the end she has successfully shifted the focus of the topic away from the soldier awarded the Medal of Honor onto her own political views of the conflict that inspired it. Because as we all know, every German who fought against the Allied Forces in World War II was a war criminal just as much as the ones who ran the concentration camps.

If that wasn't a silly thing to do, I don't know what is.

Please allow me to bow in recognition of Steph and her loyal puppets. You continually reinforce my opinion of you with every post.

Which was followed up by our dear Trez with this..

You're right. I expect more from me than flaming, too. That's why I got an official opinion from the Mods. Nope, not flaming. It's possibly flamebaiting but not quite. So overall, I'm pleased.

So basically what he's saying is he went and checked to see if it was ok with the mods to flamebait me. Which he claims was fine by them!

So, Scolo's warning comes really as no surprise to me. But don't call it nepotism, they have an answer for just about all of that argument, makes one wonder how many hours they spend in the Lair working out that one.

Question was directed to scolo. Solo will answer it when he gets back. If you are not scolo, the person who the question was directed to, please do not post. Your input as a non-scolo entity is not needed.

Edit: We are able to process stuff much faster when there are not all these extraneous posts in every topic. Think about that before posting here please.


Well Karm - YOU'RE a mod. Can you please examine the two threads in question and explain it to me?

Why - out of all that - was Steph the only one warned?

And why was Trez specifically allowed to engage in "flame-bait lite" while Steph was slapped down for this statement?

And here is one you can certainly answer: is the term "dumb it down" now forbidden?



And wow! Where did everyone elses posts go? Is discussion not permitted in this instance?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Where did everyone elses posts go? Is discussion not permitted in this instance?

I addressed Sandpit directly, but somebody else already beat me to the punch, so, it was redundant.

As steph can tell you, we try not to make counter rulings on issues before discussing them with the mod that made them. When scolo gets back, we will discuss the situation, the context, and other factors and come to a decision. Until then, we will not comment. Discussion is not needed here because you asked a question directly to a mod. He will answer it upon his return.

Since I'm being invoked, I'll only post once. The thread is still there for all to see, but still.

I posted my challenge to Steph in the General forums for the way she hijacked the thread away from its original intent (to honour a modern-day Medal of Honor winner). In her response to me, she accused me of flaming. I therefore went to #themodcave and requested an official ruling on my post. It was declared to be "Not flaming, but quasiflamebait. Watch what you say." I will let the Mods decide if they want to announce who served that ruling.

In my followup post I refuted Steph's claims of flaming and proceeded to redirect the conversation back to the original point of the thread. That part is missing from Steph's quote.

Karma, I ask that if you're going to delete every one's comments except for Zep & mine, that you don't give any favor to any one, including Trez. His comments are a matter of public record I can give the links. His hindsight is not needed is it? His posts are already in public domain.

He is involved in the situation, he has a right to post as much as you do.

Let's try this in reverse: let me dumb this down for you, Zepp. Does it feel good to have me suggest that you aren't bright enough to handle the topic on your own, but you instead need me to condenscend to you?

No, because that isn't nice.

Why? Because she was the only one I saw flaming in that thread and she should know better. It was even a nice "please don't do that" rather than the official telegram-style warning that she knows from experience.

No more, no less. Chill.

As for "getting the story straight," I have Ethics class from 1830 local time to 2100. I just got back. I really can't be "working out the story" with Karma if I'm in class learning about the ethical values of St. Augustine, now can I?

This is a joke!

Nuff said!

snip

Yet your post doesn't get deleted. How odd is that? We didn't need your context, your posts were a matter of public record. I could give the links. Public domain.

Funny how your post didn't get deleted but every one else's did. Doesn't look good, not one bit.

1) Wasn't paying attention in the 'cave when Trez did whatever it is he did. I've had more pressing matters to attend to today.

2) Was asked for an opinion by another moderator. Was echoed by a third (and no, Katganistan was nowhere near it. Bloat it into whatever conspiracy you wish).

3) If there's only one person in a thread who looks to be using condescending flames, I don't care who that person is, who they're married to, or who they were. Turn it into a conspiracy theory if you want; I just enforce the rules.

4) I know my own personal biases far, far better than you ever will. I also know when I am acting on them. This is not one of those times. The last thing I want to do is call someone onto the carpet who I've tied my professional honor to, who've I've supported as a friend in the past. Tiffs? Yes. Arguments? Sure. That does not change the fact that Steph was my comrade and I am very, very disappointed in this latest development. You want to malign my honor, quietly suggest that I have something in for someone who I worked alongside for 15 months? Don't go there.

As for "getting the story straight,"

Wow, that was fast, Nathi? Tez? Who told ya..lol wow it's so transparent. Are you people getting this?

Wow, that was fast, Nathi? Tez? Who told ya..lol wow it's so transparent. Are you people getting this?
1) I walk in the door from Ethics class.
2) Karma tells me "Do you want to step into it now?" I get an immediate situation report.
3) I go on IRC where things have been conveniently posted for when I got in; my open window's blinking like a Christmas Tree from the notices.
4) I read up on the situation and reply.

If you want to completely throw reality out the window, Steph, and turn this into a giant paranoid delusion conspiracy, that's not my problem. You've got two choices here: moderate your own actions or have us moderate them for you. You know how it goes because that's what you did for a year.

This is the exact same deal any other user gets. You're no different.

Let's try this in reverse: let me dumb this down for you, Zepp. Does it feel good to have me suggest that you aren't bright enough to handle the topic on your own, but you instead need me to condenscend to you?

No, because that isn't nice.

Why? Because she was the only one I saw flaming in that thread and she should know better. It was even a nice "please don't do that" rather than the official telegram-style warning that she knows from experience.

No more, no less. Chill.

As for "getting the story straight," I have Ethics class from 1830 local time to 2100. I just got back. I really can't be "working out the story" with Karma if I'm in class learning about the ethical values of St. Augustine, now can I?

So, you are saying that the phrase "dumb it down" is now considered a flame and is forbidden on the boards? And that you happened on this thread to pick out this egregious offense but completely missed the originating thread which included the comments:

You are a total idiot (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8152994&postcount=26)

you are a fucking idiot and a coward (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8153257&postcount=60)

Shut your pie hole steph. You and your hubby can stick your anti-Americanism where the sun doesn't shine. Tell him bald head look silly on white folks, it's a black thing! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8153460&postcount=90)

She just likes to feel important, much like Zepp, but the truth is they live in an impotent nation and just are cowardly in general. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8153554&postcount=104)

No, you're a retard. That's a fact. And the people who concurr obviously have an IQ much higher than the room-temperature one you possess.
(http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8157119&postcount=181)


Well OK then.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me.

Now see, this is progress. If more people need to get warned, fine; they shall be.

OK Scolo. All those comments I sourced occurred in the thread that trez posted his in after asking if what he was going to post would consititue flaming or flamebait. And no-one took a good look at that thread knowing what was going on in it? And of course the only one that came to your attention was in the companion flamebait thread? Who - pray tell - brought it to your attention? IT sounds like a setup, but hey - if you say it is all innocent then I'll take your word for it of course.



Incidentally - if Steph was flaming when she said "dumb it down" were you not then doing the same to me when you decided to "dumb it down" for me?

Is it a bit condescending? Yes. Is it flaming? I don't think so. But hey - it's your call... which is why I asked for clarification.


And to the other part of the question: was that thread in the manner in which it was made not flamebait and thus, under the circumstance, worthy of a bit of condescension? I.e., do you not take into consideration the circumstances around a marginal offense?


I mean - really - since when are people allowed to name another player in the title of a thread and call on all people to attack a position that the person never took?

Just curious, because I didn't think that was allowed.

And to the other part of the question: was that thread in the manner in which it was made not flamebait and thus, under the circumstance, worthy of a bit of condescension? I.e., do you not take into consideration the circumstances around a marginal offense.
No. Just because one thinks someone else is breaking the rules gives that one no right to break the rules themselves. Not you, not Steph, not all those other people.

As for my post, that was an example. That is why it was immediately qualified as being inappropriate. I think you're no more or less intelligent than most other posters on here and I have full faith that you are capable of getting over your own personal biases--because everyone has them--in order to come to some sort of reasonable conclusion.

I just wish that I was in on the conspiracy. I hate always being the last one in the loop.

Well, of course that is premised on the idea that anyone thought they were breaking the rules, which I don't think she did. The term "dumb" if you serach for it has many many hits in General.



However, I guess it is now official. The phrase "dumb it down" is now an official NS flame.





Thanks for clearing that up.

Ok, so instead of using the common term "Let me dumb it down for you".. I can say "Let me make this as simple as possible"? will that be okay?

Actually Scolo, the more I think about it the more I disagree with you. The phrase "dumbing it down" refers to the argument not the other person.

I mean, if that is flaming then Bozzy should also get warned for his reponse to Kat in that thread when he stated (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8156232&postcount=152)

So you suggest then that police, EMTs and firefighters are ineligible to be hero's because they choose a career where that is expected?

Gee, even in it's simplicity that is still stupid.


But he didn't.


He got a polite response clarifying her position instead. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8158409&postcount=193)


How is calling another person's arguments "stupid" materially any different than "let me dumb it down for you" which - according to you - similarly implies that simplicity is required for this person?




And how the hell are we - the players - supposed to toe a line regarding conduct when it so poorly defined and so inconsistently policed?

Actually Scolo, the more I think about it the more I disagree with you. The phrase "dumbing it down" refers to the argument not the other person.

I mean, if that is flaming then Bozzy should also get warned for his reponse to Kat in that thread when he stated (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8156232&postcount=152)



But he didn't.


He got a polite response clarifying her position instead. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8158409&postcount=193)


How is calling another person's arguments "stupid" materially any different than "let me dumb it down for you" which - according to you - similarly implies that simplicity is required for this person?




And how the hell are we - the players - supposed to toe a line regarding conduct when it so poorly defined and so inconsistently policed?
Perhaps said posters shouldn't toe the line in the first place, no?

*Edit: So there's no accusations of cowardice from a certain someone, this is Bers.

Seems to me, that the rules on some issues apply to some and yet not to others, as Zeppistan has just shown.

I would like one person to find me a thread in moderation like this one, where every body's comments got deleted except for the mods friend.. find me just one. I'll even say, in the last year, know what? you won't find it.

I expect to be treated equally. I don't think I'm asking that much.

Look at Zeppistan's last post. It's not okay for me, but Kat thinks it's okay for Bozzy? What's up with that?

I don't want any special treatment because I use to be a mod. I want equal treatment. That's it, that's all.

How is calling another person's arguments "stupid" materially any different than "let me dumb it down for you" which - according to you - similarly implies that simplicity is required for this person?


It is though:

Your argument is stupid: This only states that the proffered response is poorly thought out, invalid or something of the like. Highly intelligent people are just as capable of making poor arguments as less intelligent ones (whether through negelect or design). Thus saying this speaks nothing to the actual attributes of the poster in question.

Let me dumb it down for you: This states that the poster in question is intellectually incapable of understanding the relevant statement because of lack of mental capacity or some other facet of their being. In other words it speaks directly to the attributes of the poster in a negative fashion.

Clearly the two statements are not equivalent.

Edit: depending on the context "make this as simple as possible" could also be offensive. To wit: "I see I need to make this as simple as possible for you :rolleyes: "

For once, I have to disagree.

The phrase "Let me dumb it down for you" is an indication of simplifying said subject and getting to the bare bones. The usage of it between people of equal intellectual capacity is well established in literature going back about two hundred years. If she had said "Let me bring this down to your level," I can see that as a flame. But in this case, I see nothing in the history of the phrase that supports the interpretation used for the warning given as being the only, or even dominant, meaning.

You know Zep's pissed off, lol, he never complains... no one can touch him either, I've never seen him lose a debate. I'm biased, he's my hubby, but honestly, I don't think I've ever seen any one win a debate with him. That's a fact. I don't suspect this will be any different. :)

Anyone who is offended by the dumb it down comment is clearly a little oversensitive.

I'll say this: I am not taking sides in this issue. I'm just questioning the decision.

For once, I have to disagree.

The phrase "Let me dumb it down for you" is an indication of simplifying said subject and getting to the bare bones.

As you said, not getting involved in the rest of the discussion. However, I would take this phrase to have some negative connotation, at least most of the time. There is a suggestion of the other person not being able to understand the more complex argument and that the point is simplified for the benefit of the person rather than the discussion.

There are other, less ambiguous ways to denote reducing an argument to its essentials.

This is only addressing the phrase in the abstract though. I didn't even find the place where Stephistan was warned for using it (which is probably a link in the first post or something, but I wasn't terribly interested).

Ok, but if some one said to you, "Let me dumb it down for you" in a calm voice, because just maybe you were not getting what they said.. They are not calling you dumb, by no means, they are saying "Let me make this as simple as I can" it's in no way a flame. Nobody was called "dumb"

Much of the negative connotation comes from the slang uses of "dumb." The word was originally used to indicate people who are deaf or simple. The idea of people being simple equalling people being stupid is something I have to blame on educational elitism. In this case, the phrase does have a dictionary definition, posted below:

Main Entry: dumb down
Function: transitive verb
: to lower the level of difficulty and the intellectual content of (as a textbook)

Now, taking a look at their example (the textbook), one realizes that most of the difficulty of textbooks comes not from actual subject matter (most of it can be understood by your average person with 8th-grade reading skills) but from the overcomplication of phrasings and wordings. I actually dumb down quite a few of the scientific explanations I post because that overcomplication is unnecessary and mostly amounts to an intellectual form of verbal diarrhea. Hell, half of what makes science so damned difficult is most of the difficulty is overcomplication of wordings by what I can only explain as insecure people trying to show off their educations and make themselves seem superior to the average person and the other half is the method of teaching, which was outdated 25 years ago. To be honest, I have found people who have higher levels of verbal education than I do who are complete and utter morons by every definition of the word.

I find "dumbing down" is often a case of cutting out the excess garbage that is unneeded to actually get the idea across.

I find "dumbing down" is often a case of cutting out the excess garbage that is unneeded to actually get the idea across.

Obviously, I disagree. The differences in common usage and understanding probably mean it's not an ideal phrase to use, particularly in a heated discussion where people are fairly likely to want to jump on any percieved offence or slight.

Look at the examples Zeppistan put on the first page (might be pg.2) that were totally over looked to go after me for saying "Let me dumb it down for you"..

Then tell me I'm crazy..lol

Look at the examples Zeppistan put on the first page (might be pg.2) that were totally over looked to go after me for saying "Let me dumb it down for you"..

Then tell me I'm crazy..lol

I was never intending to discuss the fairness of the ruling or relative punishments of anyone involved, as I made clear above. I am simply discussing the meaning of that phrase because someone else posted an (also theoretical) interpretation a disagreed with.

If you want my opinion, the vitriol directed at you in the thread in question was well and truly over the top. It should not have been unexpected though, which excuses it not at all.

But I suspect nobody particularly wants my opinion about that thread in the first place. :)

Obviously, I disagree. The differences in common usage and understanding probably mean it's not an ideal phrase to use, particularly in a heated discussion where people are fairly likely to want to jump on any percieved offence or slight.

So we disagree on what the common usage is. I find the common usage is exactly what I stated: To get straight to the point and be simple about it. Merriam-Webster isn't the most reliable on word accuracy, and I've sent them corrections before.

So we disagree on what the common usage is.

Fair enough. Mainly I wanted to point out that at least some people could take it negatively. Could well be a phrase that has taken on different nuances in different places.

Everything has a negative connotation to someone. Hell, I personally would like to buy an assault rifle and assassinate the sun. But that's because I'm a cynic.

I don't want any special treatment because I use to be a mod. I want equal treatment. That's it, that's all.
Yup, you're just as much fair game as being told to 'chill out' when you're toeing the line as any other user. I simply enforce the rules.

I've never seen him lose a debate. I'm biased, he's my hubby, but honestly, I don't think I've ever seen any one win a debate with him.
Probably because he'll never concede defeat.

Look, think of me however makes you happy. Perhaps I'm part of the vast, moderator-wide right-wing conspiracy against you--whatever validates your existence in your own mind. Makes no difference to me. Just follow the rules and don't cross the line, and there won't be any problems. Cross the line, and I'll do my job. That goes to everyone posting in this thread, reading this thread, on this forum, or on these boards.

Probably because he'll never concede defeat.

Nah, he is just seriously smarter than any one I've ever had the pleasure of meeting on this site. Maybe he and Max could go toe to toe. Maybe not. Short of Max, I've yet in all my time here seen any one that even comes close to Zep in intelligence, maybe Max but I'm not even sure of that. Zep is a very smart dude. This site? Zep could of done it in a day. He just really is that brilliant. Plus he has age, thus gives him wisdom. He's my husband. I love him. But he really is quite brilliant. Would never of married him if he wasn't. Check out his post history... I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Actually Scolo, the more I think about it the more I disagree with you. The phrase "dumbing it down" refers to the argument not the other person.

I mean, if that is flaming then Bozzy should also get warned for his reponse to Kat in that thread when he stated (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8156232&postcount=152)



But he didn't.


He got a polite response clarifying her position instead. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8158409&postcount=193)


How is calling another person's arguments "stupid" materially any different than "let me dumb it down for you" which - according to you - similarly implies that simplicity is required for this person?




And how the hell are we - the players - supposed to toe a line regarding conduct when it so poorly defined and so inconsistently policed?

Actually, Zeppistan, the reason I responded to B0zzy the way I did was because I realized I had been unclear in the first place.

I do think that 'dumbing it down' was an unfortunate choice of words. The connotation of it is not particularly pleasant. Steph's offered alternative of "let me simplify this for you," is far superior in that it offers clarification and transmits the same information without calling another poster's intelligence into question.

Obviously, I disagree. The differences in common usage and understanding probably mean it's not an ideal phrase to use, particularly in a heated discussion where people are fairly likely to want to jump on any percieved offence or slight.


Well, if you read the thread in which it was used - the discussion was NOT particulary heated - indeed it was quite civil. However the person she was addressing it to had started the thread based on a clear misinterpretation of my (and Steph's) stated position and which we had both tried to correct him on. So obviously clarification was needed given that he was not backing off of his initial premise.

Is "dumb it down" the best phrase to use? Perhaps not. But is it worthy of the designation "flaming"? I don't think so either.

But hey, Scolo has already ruled on that.

But clearly it is now very difficult to tell somebody that you are going to clarify a statement to them as the mere suggestion that the person did not initially understand what you meant is some sort of personal slight.

I guess we will have to state: "look, I know that you are a really bright person, and I'm sure the fault is mine in that it seems that I'm not bright enough to express myself clearly, so here - let me reiterate my position in another was so that I hope that I can overcome my poor ability to make a cogent statement and present the material in a manner that is more clear".

Yup, you're just as much fair game as being told to 'chill out' when you're toeing the line as any other user. I simply enforce the rules.


Probably because he'll never concede defeat.

Look, think of me however makes you happy. Perhaps I'm part of the vast, moderator-wide right-wing conspiracy against you--whatever validates your existence in your own mind. Makes no difference to me. Just follow the rules and don't cross the line, and there won't be any problems. Cross the line, and I'll do my job. That goes to everyone posting in this thread, reading this thread, on this forum, or on these boards.


Wow.


"Dumbing it down" is a flame... but you can call into question my personal integrity and toss in a pointed barb at my wife?



Nice Scolo. Really nice. Frankly, I don't think I deserve that from you.



And you never did answer my other question. Was that thread legal? i.e. calling on the board to specifically attack two members? And doing so by presenting a supposed position of theirs that they had not expressed? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8153629&postcount=3)

He specifically put MY name in the title, and specifically claimed that I had made a statement on the legality of the war when - if you go back and read the other thread - the ONLY thing I said on the subject was to correct him when he stated that the US had not signed the Hague Conventions. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8153421&postcount=86)


So, once again, is that permitted under NS regulations?

Careful there, Steph. No need for insulting people.

Everyone, keep cool. Keep it just a polite debate.

First things first: a few things need to be made clear in case people have missed them in the morass that this thread keeps trying to descend into:

No one was given an official warning for anything
Everyone in the thread was told to watch their step and keep it cool


Now, the qustion is asked (paraphrased) "Why was Steph mentioned by name?" I should note that no offense is meant by any of this, simply a best effort to answer this question:

The beginning of the thread (prior to Steph's entry) basically consisted of two separate parts (with some small interaction between them): The primary discussion (Whispering Legs and Zepp, others later joined), and the side talking (pretty much everyone else). There was some interplay between these two parts. Now, the entire thread does have the potential for flamebait (especially by mentioning a player in the title), but both WL and Zepp handled this in a responsible manner leading to an interesting discussion. This is something that we like to see on NS.

When Steph entered the thread she did two things: She immediately entered the primary discussion (to be expected and there is (of course) nothing wrong with this), and she ended her post with a quasiflamebatish ending, "Are you able to keep up Whisper?". Whisper's post (in response to the Zepp's post) was a valid question asking for clarification, which Zepp then provided.

Steph's next post clarified just how she felt that the war in question was illegal (a good thing as this was clearly the primary matter of discussion and there was understandable confusion as to under just what areas she was claiming it was illegal). However, once again she chose to close it with a quasiflamebait ending "I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you."

I guess that you could summarize this part as "context". It wasn't the specific words (which no one has claimed were anything but mild) it was how they fit into the thread as a whole.

So basically, what I see is this:

While there was some general unpleasantness in the thread, most of it was related to the side discussion and thus did not directly impinge upon the purpose of the thread. This (along with some other general tensions) was addressed by "Everyone, keep cool. Keep it just a polite debate."
Steph, the two posts with which you entered the discussion both ended with sentances that appeared to may have the intent of insulting or "flaming" another. Thus, according to our standard policy, in a case such as this we may ask someone to watch themselves, nothing more. This was handled with "Careful there, Steph. No need for insulting people."
Finally, Steph, please understand our position. You are a former moderator, and for that reason alone (even discounting all others) you hold a position of respect and authority in these forums. This means that your words have added weight. It also means that what you do reflects on us, positively or negatively. Thus, while we try not to hold different players to different standards, you must sympathise with our frustration when we see a member of our team not holding themselves up as a standard to the other players.

I don't want any special treatment because I use to be a mod. I want equal treatment. That's it, that's all.

Good luck on that one, Steph. I'm one step removed from being forum-banned, apparently, btw.

At the end of the day, no biggy I suppose.

However I would like to know this; Trez said he went to #themodcave to ask to use your words "quasiflamebait" me. Was given permission. Now what he said to me was far more rude than any thing I said to any one. Yet, not only was he not warned for it, according to him he was given permission to do it.

I made it very clear in that thread, as I did in the first thread where the discussion started before WL opened a new thread directed specifically at Zep & I. That It was only my opinion. I never once attack the works of the soldier, my argument was one of policy, I said I didn't think you could have hero's in an illegal war and backed up my reason for believing it illegal, while always saying it was my understanding of international law. I at no time called this soldier a coward, in fact I believe all I said was "just following orders" and "just doing his job"

Whispering Legs didn't understand at all that the United States was even a signatory member to the Hague Conventions let alone understand in them what is considered by law to be a declaration of war. That my argument on the legality of the war itself had nothing to do with the Hague Conventions but rather only using them to show that a declaration of war was in fact made. My argument for the legality of the war was based on the fact that the United States last time I check was still a signatory member of the UN, this breaching UN protocol on the rules of war as they pertain to signatory members.

He just wasn't getting it, he kept going on about the Hague Conventions which was only to do with a small part of the argument that in fact under the rules of war the United States most certainly did make a declaration of war against Iraq when Bush gave Saddam and his son's an ultimatum, which is covered in the Hague Conventions as a declaration.

So that is why I said, "let me dumb this down for you as much as possible" or some thing to that effect. I was not calling him "dumb" I was trying to point out he was confusing the rules of declaration under Hague to say the war was legal, that is not the case. Yes, the United States did follow the rules of the Hague Conventions to declare war, however that was completely separate from the legality of the war. That's what he was not understanding.

Then he started a new thread with Zep's name in it and called me out in the thread as well and misrepresented what we were in fact trying to explain to him. This was surely flamebait in itself. Yet we kept trying to help the dude out in understanding that his assumptions of what we said, were wrong, that is not what we said. Of course many insults were flung at me personally and only when I asked late last night for Kat to take care of a post did any mod act at all against any one but me. By the way, thank you Kat.

That's what happened and I have seen the mods be far more rude to players than "let me dumb it down for you" If the mods (not all some) can use such phrases then why can't the players?

Must most of all, why the heck was Trez given permission to "quasiflamebait" me?

However I would like to know this; Trez said he went to #themodcave to ask to use your words "quasiflamebait" me. Was given permission.

[snip]

Must most of all, why the heck was Trez given permission to "quasiflamebait" me?

Look, I know that you are a really bright person, and I'm sure the fault is mine in that it seems that I'm not bright enough to express myself clearly, so here - let me reiterate my position in another was so that I hope that I can overcome my poor ability to make a cogent statement and present the material in a manner that is more clear.

In her response to me, she accused me of flaming. I therefore went to #themodcave and requested an official ruling on my post. It was declared to be "Not flaming, but quasiflamebait. Watch what you say."

In other words, after you accused me of flaming in the thread, I went and requested an official ruling. I was given one, which I then returned to you.

I did not "receive permission." That would imply I cleared the phrasing of the post before I posted it. I did not. I took the initiative to get an official ruling after the post; had the Moderators chosen to declare it a flame or even an unqualified flamebait, I would have therefore modified it and posted an apology. Instead, I was given an unofficial (not counting against my two strikes) warning, which I heeded.

Do you have any other concerns that I could help clarify?

Look, I know that you are a really bright person, and I'm sure the fault is mine in that it seems that I'm not bright enough to express myself clearly, so here - let me reiterate my position in another was so that I hope that I can overcome my poor ability to make a cogent statement and present the material in a manner that is more clear.



In other words, after you accused me of flaming in the thread, I went and requested an official ruling. I was given one, which I then returned to you.

I did not "receive permission." That would imply I cleared the phrasing of the post before I posted it. I did not. I took the initiative to get an official ruling after the post; had the Moderators chosen to declare it a flame or even an unqualified flamebait, I would have therefore modified it and posted an apology. Instead, I was given an unofficial (not counting against my two strikes) warning, which I heeded.

Do you have any other concerns that I could help clarify?

Sure you did, because you did flame me and you were told it was okay. When I was a mod, you would of got a warning, any player who said what you said would of at least got a warning for flamebaiting. I can only question why you didn't or haven't yet.

Sure you did, because you did flame me and you were told it was okay. When I was a mod, you would of got a warning, any player who said what you said would of at least got a warning for flamebaiting. I can only question why you didn't or haven't yet.Unfortunately, you're not a Moderator anymore. You don't get to make that call. I'm sorry that you disagree with the decision that was handed down, and you can certainly appeal it. This would probably be an appropriate time to ask for such a review. The relevant post is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8154131&postcount=132).

I'm sorry that you disagree with the decision that was handed down, and you can certainly appeal it. This would probably be an appropriate time to ask for such a review. The relevant post is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8154131&postcount=132).

Then the moderator in question made a bad call and will hopefully correct his error.

Good god, I've never seen such a huge squabble over such a small thing..

...Oh wait, that's right. I remember the Beanie Babies fad. It's kinda like that, fighting other people for a small plush toy.

Good god, I've never seen such a huge squabble over such a small thing..

...Oh wait, that's right. I remember the Beanie Babies fad. It's kinda like that, fighting other people for a small plush toy.

Yes, I agree it is small Melkor given I wasn't issued a formal warning, however there is a principle here that doesn't look too good as it stands. I get warned for flames for saying "Let me dumb it down for you" Yes, Scolo was very polite about it, then read what Trez said to me, he provide the direct link and was told it was fine. That's just crazy! IMNSHO!

The official position is put down, the mod and admin are not changing their mind. Beyond asking a couple of clarification questions, why would this still be going on?

Ok, but if some one said to you, "Let me dumb it down for you" in a calm voice, because just maybe you were not getting what they said.. They are not calling you dumb, by no means, they are saying "Let me make this as simple as I can" it's in no way a flame. Nobody was called "dumb"

With all due respect, I can see how "let me dumb it down for you" can be viewed as being condescending. Perhaps you didn't intend for it to be. Perhaps you did. But unless the person you said that to or typed that to happens to be in the same room with you or happens to hear the inflections of your voice, he has no way of knowing what your real intent is.

If someone said (and this is just an example) "shut the f*** up" IRL and was grinning ear to ear, it's possible that he said it as a way of saying "are you serious? That's unbelieveable!" If I typed that with a smile (or the big green toothy grin guy), there's a good chance that I'm trying to convey that sense. However, if I don't put that little smilie guy there and I intended it to be a jovial response to a statement I disbelieve, anyone seeing it could rightly think I was flaming.

I'm not saying that to defend anyone. I'm just giving you my take on the issue based on what I've read in this topic so far.

What is it you mods keep telling Kahta? Grow a skin. Perhaps anyone offended by the "dumb it down" comment should follow the mods advice. Petty as it may seem, I'd quite like to see a response as to why someone was granted permission to post 'quasiflamebait'.

What is it you mods keep telling Kahta? Grow a skin. Perhaps anyone offended by the "dumb it down" comment should follow the mods advice. Petty as it may seem, I'd quite like to see a response as to why someone was granted permission to post 'quasiflamebait'.

Here, here! Me too!

ummm, so are we going to get an answer on why Trez was told his flaming of me was "ok"? I think quite a few of us would love to hear the answer to that logic?

Trez came to the mods after he posted to ask if what he had done was wrong. The mod that answered him told him it was close to flamebait and to watch what he said. Pretty much the same as was told to you by scolo.

The official position is put down, the mod and admin are not changing their mind. Beyond asking a couple of clarification questions, why would this still be going on?
Honestly this does seem quite a bit of a commotion over a simple warning. I might not necessarily agree with it, but I've seen less quarrelling over IP bans. You'd think someone would accept their meager losses, despite whatever pasts the people involved might have.

Steph was in the unenviable position of making an unpopular argument in an unfriendly forum that was hostile to her. While I disagree with her opinion in every conceptual way, I find her behavior not objectionable and quite reasonable given the context. If someone can't handle being 'dumbed down' to then what are they doing here? (Hmm. upon review mayby that didn't come out quite right. Well, you know what I meant.)

I think Steph was OK even if I did say 'Burn the witch!'. (a monty python reference I used to illustrate the near bloodlust of the thread toward her)

Though she did turn me into a newt, I got better. :)

No comment on the deleted posts?

They were not appropriate until Scolopendra had clarified his position; since Zeppistan and Treznor were involved in the incident, theirs were the only posts necessary. Now that Scolopendra has clarified his position, others are, as you can see, posting.

This is not done on all moderation threads.

This is not done on all moderation threads.

It is done where appropriate.

I don't ever recall it being done before.

I don't ever recall it being done before.

It is done very rarely because normally players respect the requests of the moderators so there were no posts that had to be deleted.

There was no such request when I posted.

Look, the horse is dead. Honest. You can stop beating it now.

Whether you like it or not, Karma had a reason for requesting people hold off their posts and deleting the ones not immediately pertaining to the individuals in question. Multiple Moderators have read through the entire thread and have chosen not to take public issue with his action. Continued discussion is not going to change or solve anything. It is my understanding that Moderation is not an appropriate forum for extended debate.

I suggest that this thread be locked. Its purpose has been served and policy has been established.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. I will never be a Moderator. I do not claim to speak for them.