Lemmie wrote:And how did you “learn” this, if you don’t mind my asking?
Res Ipsa wrote:By spending literally hours and hours studying the rules, Shades' public comments on the rules, and Shades' actual moderation actions on the board. It's all stuff accessible to you if you wanted to spend hours and hours studying Shades' public comments and actions and if you weren't so eager to jump to conclusions.
Lemmie wrote:Well I was actually referring to this:
Res Ipsa wrote:Lemmie, just to pass along a couple of things I learned: When canpakes posted the string of posts, the thread was in Terrestrial.
That’s not something I could have learned by spending
“hours and hours studying Shades' public comments and actions,” nor does it have anything to do with your conclusion that I am
”so eager to jump to conclusions.”
I'm not a mind reader, Lemmie. I had no idea that your "this" referred only to that particular part of my post.
My reference to jumping to conclusions was to your claim that Shades was micro moderating canpakes in Telestial and to your description of what Shades posted to canpakes as a moderator warning. Shades has been explicit about the fact that official moderator actions are in red, but you jumped to the conclusions that Shades post in black, which began with a please and ended with a thank you, was moderator a warning. Even when Shades posts in red, you'll not he precedes his post with "[Moderator Note]" What I realize that you have no reason to understand is that moderator warning is a function of the phpBB software, and is delivered privately.
Lemmie wrote:That speaks more to your conclusions about our past history of exchanging comments, which pop out from you in snide little non sequitur statements like this every so often. It happens often enough that it influences my decision to exchange comments with you even on totally different matters, knowing that every so often you won’t be able to resist these completely unrelated little jabs. It’s not insulting, which I’m guessing is your intent, just tiresome.
No, what it speaks to is my observations of your history of jumping to conclusions about and mischaracterizing the actions of moderators here. I noticed you doing it with Shades and EAllusion before I ever became a moderator, I experienced it personally when I was a moderator, and I've observed it after I quit as moderator. I'm not a mind reader or a psychologist, so I have no idea why you do it. I just observe the conduct. I comment because I object to it -- I think it's unfair and rude to EAllusion and Shades, and it undermines the confidence in the moderation process. The effect of that is that people bypass the report function and resort to calling out in public, self-help, or retaliation.
I think your description of my interaction with you since I returned to civilian status is grossly unfair. If you think I've been lacing my interactions with you with snide non sequitur statements, please provide me with some examples and I'll be happy to either explain why I considered them "sequitur" or apologize. IMO, you and I have very different communication styles, and I think that has led both of us to mistakenly infer things about each other's intent. What you infer about my intent when I communicate with you is your responsibility. And vice versa.
Lemmie wrote:I am eager at other things, however, which is why I acknowledged my error and edited my post in question.
And that's good. But you also added this at the end:
Spamming by canpakes in Terrestrial is defined as posting questions in back to back multiple posts. Spamming by Smokey is defined as shilling for a product, which he never does. Go figure.
I think it would be fair to characterize that as a passive-aggressive swipe at Shades, based on your own uncharitable interpretation of his actions. More jumping to conclusions on your part.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
