How on Earth is this post "trolling?"

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Joe, Inks, take it to Moderator's Corner.  This isn't the place.

I'm defending myself in the public arena.  Countless times I have told Joe that public discussion of stuff like this is inappropriate, but he ignores that and continues to criticize my moderating style in public.  I'm merely defending myself in public, something I think I'm entitled to if he's going to publicly insult me and my moderating style.

[Joe Republic]

You didn't find the picture disturbing.  I get that.  It's one of those issues where subjectivity overrules objectivity.  Other moderators disagreed that it wasn't disgusting, including one of our colleagues who honored the request to remove the picture.  I didn't even ask anybody to infract the post, but you jumped to that conclusion anyway.  I reacted to your behavior as it deserved.

And it's Captain Profanity, not "Camptain Profanity".  At least quote me accurately.

[Senator Napoleon]

I would de-mod all of you yesterday. Sheesh. This is embarrassing.

Speaking of bad mods, can we get rid of Bushie's report system?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

You didn't find the picture disturbing.  I get that.  It's one of those issues where subjectivity overrules objectivity.  Other moderators disagreed that it wasn't disgusting, including one of our colleagues who honored the request to remove the picture.  I didn't even ask anybody to infract the post, but you jumped to that conclusion anyway.  I reacted to your behavior as it deserved.

When you report something, the implication is that you think it deserves an infraction.  You didn't say otherwise.

You refer to me as "Captain Profanity", and I let it slide, but I call you out on being thin-skinned against a potentially disgusting picture and you got all upset.  I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy and I'm not going to stand for you calling me "Captain Profanity".  If you don't like me pointing out your disgust at cooked raccoons, don't call me out for upholding the terms of service of the website.  I'm sure if I started calling you "Captain Coon" you wouldn't be as accepting of it as I've been to "Captain Profanity".

[Senator Napoleon]

The raccoon thing isn't as bad as the BIG BLACK COCK a moderator gave us.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The raccoon thing isn't as bad as the BIG BLACK COCK a moderator gave us.

No, the raccoon thing certainly isn't as bad as bringing pornographic images to the forum.

I merely pointed out flipping out about the raccoon was hypocritical.  The porn thing was worthy of being demodded over (if not banned), but Dave never addressed that thread.

[Joe Republic]

Whichever moderator did that was given 10 infraction points (the accepted standard for posting porn), as I recall.  How many points were issued (or expected) for the raccoon, again?  So yes, Napoleon is correct that one was worse than the other.

Inks, you may call me a hypocrite all you want.  You may well be right.  All I will say further about your general approach to moderation is that you consistently fail to see the forest due to all of those tall green and brown things in the way.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I wouldn't say the "accepted standard" for posting porn is 10 infraction points.  Had Dave actually paid attention to that, I'd be willing to bet the existence of my account here that he would've banned you.

Like I said, you may have disagreements with my moderation style.  That's fine.  But when you call me out on those disagreements in public, and I respond, don't throw a hissy fit when I call you out on disagreements with you.

[Joe Republic]

Telling you to fuck off is hardly a hissy fit.  Unlike hissy fits, it requires the exact amount of effort it deserves.

And 10 points for "nudity" is what you proposed, genius.

[shua]

The nickname is vulgar and distracting.  But given it's usage, if you're going to infract it , you ought to post a warning that it will be treated as such.  5 points is too much in any case.  If you don't mind me saying so, 5 trolling points should be reserved for things like this:

Not all mods agree with Captain Profanity's standpoint, I'm keen to point out.

Ironic coming from the moderator who threw a temper tantrum over a picture of a cooked raccoon.

How the hell is that trolling when Joe goes around calling me "Camptain Profanity"?  What I said there was 100% true.  Joe complained that jmfcst posted a picture of a cooked raccoon.  I refused to infract the post.  Joe got pissy, and I later called him out on it (I'll admit, not as gracefully as I should've), and he responded by saying, "F--- you".  He threw a temper tantrum because I wouldn't infract a picture of a cooked raccoon.  You explain to me how the hell me saying that is trolling.

I  guess I'm just sensitive to that sort of thing. I'm glad I was able to avoid seeing that picture. And I've never found accusing someone of having a "temper tantrum" to be especially useful.  You're a good moderator Inks, and honestly if some else had said it, it wouldn't have bugged me as much. Not fair, I know.

I didn't know you objected to that name, but I can see how it might get old.  
 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Telling you to  off is hardly a hissy fit.  Unlike hissy fits, it requires the exact amount of effort it deserves.

And 10 points for "nudity" is what you proposed, genius.

I proposed that as the least that we would do.  I never said that nudity should be restricted to 10 points, but certainly, if something is worthy of a 10 point infraction, it's nudity.  Just because I said 10 points should be reserved for stuff like nudity doesn't mean I think that's all that should happen.  And especially when it comes from a moderator...

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Keep in mind that I proposed that when Dave was the only one who could ban people.  Banning for single-post offenses was quite hard back then.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The nickname is vulgar and distracting.  But given it's usage, if you're going to infract it , you ought to post a warning that it will be treated as such.  5 points is too much in any case.  If you don't mind me saying so, 5 trolling points should be reserved for things like this:

Not all mods agree with Captain Profanity's standpoint, I'm keen to point out.

Ironic coming from the moderator who threw a temper tantrum over a picture of a cooked raccoon.

How the hell is that trolling when Joe goes around calling me "Camptain Profanity"?  What I said there was 100% true.  Joe complained that jmfcst posted a picture of a cooked raccoon.  I refused to infract the post.  Joe got pissy, and I later called him out on it (I'll admit, not as gracefully as I should've), and he responded by saying, "F--- you".  He threw a temper tantrum because I wouldn't infract a picture of a cooked raccoon.  You explain to me how the hell me saying that is trolling.

I  guess I'm just sensitive to that sort of thing. I'm glad I was able to avoid seeing that picture. And I've never found accusing someone of having a "temper tantrum" to be especially useful.  You're a good moderator Inks, and honestly if some else had said it, it wouldn't have bugged me as much. Not fair, I know.

I didn't know you objected to that name, but I can see how it might get old.  
 

I don't object to the name per se (even I've used it at times).  It's in the context that Joe uses it that I objecct to.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

The raccoon thing isn't as bad as the BIG BLACK COCK a moderator gave us.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

The "frothy" nickname is trolling.

I have seen that used tons of times. How is it trolling? Has anyone else but Wormy actually been infracted for it?

Only posters the moderators do not like get infracted for infractible behaviour. Posters they do like, they ignore it. Look at
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148047.msg3176520#msg3176520

I reported this post
The post quoted should also be infracted, AND, considering it's the instigator, so should the post quoted in the quote.

Of course, the mods like themselves, so again, they won't be infracting themselves. They only infract infractible behaviour when it comes from someone who pisses them off.


edit
ask yourself a simple question. Would wormy have been infracted if it had been HE who was swearing at inks?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I reported this post

AND before inks comes in to try to attack me for "absuing the report feature" I say look at what wormy posted and look at what joe posted. Both posted an "insulting nickname" but joe went one step further and swore - something banned at the atlas, evidenced by the fact that you can't do it without getting around the filter - so there is no way, no way at all, no way AT ALL, that wormy getting infracted coupled with my report shows that I was wrong to report, and if you want to 'argue' that, don't bother, just give me 10 infraction points; hell give me 40. I have done nothing wrong, but Inks and Joe have, and if the only way the moderators can respond to this is to infract me for pointing out the hypocrisy, I'll gladly take the 40 points.

[Mr. Morden]

Inks already reported Joe's post before you did Teddy.  Obviously Joe's going to be infracted for it (and presumably the post will be deleted), so there's no double standard there.  But only Nym has mod powers here, and he simply hasn't gotten to it yet.  You can't expect him to be here 24/7.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Obviously

I wish it was obvious, though its nice to hear there will be action. How about Inks' post that instigated this?

[Senator Napoleon]

Obviously

I wish it was obvious, though its nice to hear there will be action. How about Inks' post that instigated this?

It is obvious, he is even known around the forum as Camptain Profanity because of it.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I mean the fact that anyone except wormy and myself will get in trouble for anything said in the thread. I don't think that is 'obvious'.

[Bacon King]

Of all people, why would you be getting infracted here Teddo?

[Vosem]

Love this thread, reminds me of Gustaf and Einzige a while ago. Godwin's Law clearly states it won't be long until Joe accuses Inks of being Luftinkse Heinrinks. Or, alternative, Joewaffe Heinjoe.

Hope nobody gets de-modded (or banned, obviously), and that we continue to have things like this more often. We're really a special place, where two moderators can fight like this and have nothing happen to them.

That said, Joe is funnier, so I support him.

[Gustaf]

The "frothy" nickname is trolling.

I have seen that used tons of times. How is it trolling? Has anyone else but Wormy actually been infracted for it?

Only posters the moderators do not like get infracted for infractible behaviour. Posters they do like, they ignore it. Look at
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148047.msg3176520#msg3176520

I reported this post
The post quoted should also be infracted, AND, considering it's the instigator, so should the post quoted in the quote.

Of course, the mods like themselves, so again, they won't be infracting themselves. They only infract infractible behaviour when it comes from someone who pisses them off.


edit
ask yourself a simple question. Would wormy have been infracted if it had been HE who was swearing at inks?

This is amusingly self-defeating.

[Vasall des Midas]

Themselves, not each other.

I don't get this Joe-squeamish-about-cooked-raccoon bit - didn't see it. Guess it's a context thing too?

[© Tweed the Younger]

I love this thread too.  I love the popular outcry against the stop-at-nothing, and also selectively harebrained, moderators, who see Atlas as their own lump of Play-Doh, ready to be molded into any ball, cylinder, or, given their likely predilections, inverted penis, that they wish.

Joe, Inks, take it to Moderator's Corner.  This isn't the place.

must present a united front!  can't give the appearance of dissension within the ranks.  keep it secret, protect the sanctity of the veil.