Moderator Pedanticalness

[Spacey]

and the wink either tells me that you are joking, or this is an example of what you were talking about.

Which would lead me to clarify what I meant.

What I mean is that you have a unique perspective, and that maybe someone who was never a mod would be more suited at giving the other perspective.

May I ask as to why you are ignoring my replies?

~Neph

This is interesting.

You suggest that I am ignoring your replies when I was the first person to reply to you. I am an active participant in this discussion. It would seems that your interpretation of my participation is not accurate.

Acronon has posted the most since inception, and I was responding to his posts. If someone replies before I can type, I can't do anything about that but finish my post.

[Spacey]

The moderators, or at least the vast majority of them, are only human at the end of the day. And all humans are at least slightly bias, whether they care to admit it or not. Much of what they do requires them to make normative, rather than empirical, judgements. Which is why it's a good idea to have multiple moderators involved in making big decisions like suspensions/bans. Multiple points of view, and all that.

It really has nothing to do with bias at all.

Ignoring parts, or indeed entire portions of a post is what I am talking about.

To suggest that a moderator is being pedantic because of reading something 'as it is on paper' then suggests that the moderator should consider every single possibility that may exist in all of the meaning that exist for every culture or viewpoint (is that practical?), rather than interpret the post for what they see.

Not at all. The moderator is being Pedantic because they are only taking PART of what is written "as it is on paper".

The moderator shoudl NOT interpret a post as they see it, they should interpret it as it is WRITTEN.

~Neph

System Lord Nephthys, when I say as a mod sees it I mean with their eyes. I don't mean it as how they interpret it. I explained this when I said 'as it is on paper'.

And as I explained, SOME mods choose only to see some of what is on paper.

~Neph

An open question to everyone:

If someone says,
"Sorry, I lied. I don't use this, it was a force of habit."

What does that mean? I predict that people will give different interpretations.

[System Lord Nephthys]

and the wink either tells me that you are joking, or this is an example of what you were talking about.

Which would lead me to clarify what I meant.

What I mean is that you have a unique perspective, and that maybe someone who was never a mod would be more suited at giving the other perspective.

May I ask as to why you are ignoring my replies?

~Neph

This is interesting.

You suggest that I am ignoring your replies when I was the first person to reply to you. I am an active participant in this discussion. It would seems that your interpretation of my participation is not accurate.

Acronon has posted the most since inception, and I was responding to his posts. If someone replies before I can type, I can't do anything about that but finish my post.

As you well know, I was refering to subsequent post.

The moderators, or at least the vast majority of them, are only human at the end of the day. And all humans are at least slightly bias, whether they care to admit it or not. Much of what they do requires them to make normative, rather than empirical, judgements. Which is why it's a good idea to have multiple moderators involved in making big decisions like suspensions/bans. Multiple points of view, and all that.

It really has nothing to do with bias at all.

Ignoring parts, or indeed entire portions of a post is what I am talking about.

To suggest that a moderator is being pedantic because of reading something 'as it is on paper' then suggests that the moderator should consider every single possibility that may exist in all of the meaning that exist for every culture or viewpoint (is that practical?), rather than interpret the post for what they see.

Not at all. The moderator is being Pedantic because they are only taking PART of what is written "as it is on paper".

The moderator shoudl NOT interpret a post as they see it, they should interpret it as it is WRITTEN.

~Neph

System Lord Nephthys, when I say as a mod sees it I mean with their eyes. I don't mean it as how they interpret it. I explained this when I said 'as it is on paper'.

And as I explained, SOME mods choose only to see some of what is on paper.

~Neph

An open question to everyone:

If someone says,
"Sorry, I lied. I don't use this, it was a force of habit."

What does that mean? I predict that people will give different interpretations.

That particular sentence makes no sense.

However,

If one was to say:

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken) it is in fact 'this', I said that because of a force of habit (which with typing is often the case).

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic, and only choosin to read or indeed interpret a slight part of the entire phrase.

~Neph

[Spacey]

and the wink either tells me that you are joking, or this is an example of what you were talking about.

Which would lead me to clarify what I meant.

What I mean is that you have a unique perspective, and that maybe someone who was never a mod would be more suited at giving the other perspective.

May I ask as to why you are ignoring my replies?

~Neph

This is interesting.

You suggest that I am ignoring your replies when I was the first person to reply to you. I am an active participant in this discussion. It would seems that your interpretation of my participation is not accurate.

Acronon has posted the most since inception, and I was responding to his posts. If someone replies before I can type, I can't do anything about that but finish my post.

As you well know, I was refering to subsequent post.

~Neph

No, I don't know that. I don't know what you are thinking. I can only comment on 'what is on paper'. I was the first person to reply to you. To me that is not ignoring your posts.

[System Lord Nephthys]

and the wink either tells me that you are joking, or this is an example of what you were talking about.

Which would lead me to clarify what I meant.

What I mean is that you have a unique perspective, and that maybe someone who was never a mod would be more suited at giving the other perspective.

May I ask as to why you are ignoring my replies?

~Neph

This is interesting.

You suggest that I am ignoring your replies when I was the first person to reply to you. I am an active participant in this discussion. It would seems that your interpretation of my participation is not accurate.

Acronon has posted the most since inception, and I was responding to his posts. If someone replies before I can type, I can't do anything about that but finish my post.

As you well know, I was refering to subsequent post.

~Neph

No, I don't know that. I don't know what you are thinking. I can only comment on 'what is on paper'. I was the first person to reply to you. To me that is not ignoring your posts.

Mhm. Well you must have subconsiously ignored my post, which is even more worrying.

I edited my above post by the way - but in case you subconsiously ignore that:

An open question to everyone:

If someone says,
"Sorry, I lied. I don't use this, it was a force of habit."

What does that mean? I predict that people will give different interpretations.

That particular sentence makes no sense.

However,

If one was to say:

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken) it is in fact 'this', I said that because it was a force of habit (which is often the case with typing).

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic, and only choosin to read or indeed interpret a slight part of the entire phrase.

~Neph

~Neph

[Spacey]

That particular sentence makes no sense.

However,

If one was to say:

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken) it is in fact 'this'.

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic, and only choosin to read or indeed interpret a slight part of the entire phrase.

~Neph

If you don't like my example that's ok. To me it does make sense, but let's go with what you wrote.

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue

This implies that a moderator should know all of the expressions that exist over the entire planet, in each culture, for each unique individual.

Different ethnic groups, religions, and individuals have different ways of expressing themselves.

Do you think it is practical that a moderator should consider (or try to consider) all of the possible interpretation that exist across the entire planet?

pedantic - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedantic

If that is what you mean by pedantic... then let me be the first to admit that I am pedantic; that I only consider what I see (with my actual eyes) in front of me. I do not look at things from the looking glass of the Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea while considering how conservative Roman catholics in the US could interpret a post, for example.

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic

By saying 'then to' describes a succession of events.

X happened and y was done, then to...

Let's be clear on a possible order of events. What are the order of events that you suggest could happen?

Mhm. Well you must have subconsiously ignored my post, which is even more worrying.

Not at all. You interpretation of my perception of these posts is flawed. If I'm talking to someone I need to finish my thought.

[System Lord Nephthys]

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue

This implies that a moderator should know all of the expressions that exist over the entire planet, in each culture, for each unique individual.

Different ethnic groups, religions, and individuals have different ways of expressing themselves.

Do you think it is practical that a moderator should consider (or try to consider) all of the possible interpretation that exist across the entire planet?

Umm, if you are going to moderate a public forum you should have a basic understanding of different cultures yes.

pedantic - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedantic

If that is what you mean by pedantic... then let me be the first to admit that I am pedantic; that I only consider what I see (with my actual eyes) in front of me.

Yes it is, but you OBVIOUSLY do not, as you have just above demonstrated that you freely cut up sentences and interpret them out of context.

You quoted me as saying:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue"

This has a compltetly different meaning to what I ACTUALLY said, which was:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken)"

The brackets CLEARLY show that all contained within is to be treated as one, not to meantion teh entire sentence which sets the tone and context - something you seem to have difficulty with.

I do not look at things from the looking glass of the Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea while considering how conservative Roman catholics in the US could interpret a post, for example.

The expersion I used is not a expersion used my a remote or isolated tribe composed of 5 people, it is widley used.

Plus, as a moderator you should have a basic understanding of didfernt cultures, as stated above.

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic

By saying 'then to' describes a succession of events.

X happened and y was done, then to...

Let's be clear on a possible order of events. What are the order of events that you suggest could happen?

You have demonstrated that you interpret things that you see on paper yes?

So obviously, as I'm sure you do not need telling:

read -> interpret

~Neph

[Zeratul]

usually, if anyone quotes something, and interprets it incorrectly, it is fully accepted to say they interpreted it incorrectly...

[Spacey]

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue

This implies that a moderator should know all of the expressions that exist over the entire planet, in each culture, for each unique individual.

Different ethnic groups, religions, and individuals have different ways of expressing themselves.

Do you think it is practical that a moderator should consider (or try to consider) all of the possible interpretation that exist across the entire planet?

Umm, if you are going to moderate a public forum you should have a basic understanding of different cultures yes.

I have an understanding of culture, but I wasn't asking if a moderator should have an understanding of culture. I said:

should a moderator consider all of the possible interpretations that exist for every culture of person on the planet?

You have quoted me, but you did not answer my question. You answered something else.

pedantic - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedantic

If that is what you mean by pedantic... then let me be the first to admit that I am pedantic; that I only consider what I see (with my actual eyes) in front of me.

Yes it is, but you OBVIOUSLY do not, as you have just above demonstrated that you freely cut up sentences and interpret them out of context.

You quoted me as saying:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue"

This has a compltetly different meaning to what I ACTUALLY said, which was:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken)"

The brackets CLEARLY show that all contained within is to be treated as one, not to meantion teh entire sentence which sets the tone and context - something you seem to have difficulty with.

I can see how what I wrote could be confusing. I was asking about that with the next sentence about the order of events, but I didn't group them together. Sorry for the confusion.

When you write 'later to realize', it is in the same lines and the 'then to'. I was asking for a sequence of events.

I do not look at things from the looking glass of the Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea while considering how conservative Roman catholics in the US could interpret a post, for example.

The expersion I used is not a expersion used my a remote or isolated tribe composed of 5 people, it is widley used.

Plus, as a moderator you should have a basic understanding of didfernt cultures, as stated above.

Please see first reply, and I said for example.

You are doing the exact thing you say I do. I gave two examples one of the Etoro people and the other of Roman Catholics in the US, but you only commented on a tribal culture.

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic

By saying 'then to' describes a succession of events.

X happened and y was done, then to...

Let's be clear on a possible order of events. What are the order of events that you suggest could happen?

You have demonstrated that you interpret things that you see on paper yes?

So obviously, as I'm sure you do not need telling:

read -> interpret

~Neph

That isn't a sequence of events that I was hoping for. I was asking for somehting more like

(1) mods reads post
(2) mods does .....

and so on

========================

Should this even continue? I feel that we are moving far away from discussion.

[RepliJake]

It has come to my attention that certain moderators choose to interpret things in whatever way they seem fit. They pluck random sentances out of posts, take them out of context and then say that is breaking a rule.

They then proceed to justify this by saying that they can only take something at 'face value' or something similar.

Well my question to both the moderator team AND the users of this forum is this:

Is it correct to be able to have such a narrow view of the rules and to penalise users for something completly inocent, because a stand alone phrase could be concieved as a rule break?

***

I would also like to apologise to any member of the forum whom I have contridicted i cases similar to this (especially RepliJake). Having never experienced such behaviour I believed it to be simply an exajeration of the truth.

[Disclaimer: this is not directed at any individual mod and this thread is not meant to be a public challenge or flaming any individual mod, but mearly a serious discussion about the topic written above.]

~Neph

lol But there is no point since you can't change people apparently...

[System Lord Nephthys]

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue

This implies that a moderator should know all of the expressions that exist over the entire planet, in each culture, for each unique individual.

Different ethnic groups, religions, and individuals have different ways of expressing themselves.

Do you think it is practical that a moderator should consider (or try to consider) all of the possible interpretation that exist across the entire planet?

Umm, if you are going to moderate a public forum you should have a basic understanding of different cultures yes.

I have an understanding of culture, but I wasn't asking if a moderator should have an understanding of culture. I said:

should a moderator consider all of the possible interpretations that exist for every culture of person on the planet?

You have quoted me, but you did not answer my question. You answered something else.

Umm, I believe I did answer, my statement was not something used by only a select group of people it is used very widley, and thus only a basic understand of different cultures would suffice.

pedantic - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedantic

If that is what you mean by pedantic... then let me be the first to admit that I am pedantic; that I only consider what I see (with my actual eyes) in front of me.

Yes it is, but you OBVIOUSLY do not, as you have just above demonstrated that you freely cut up sentences and interpret them out of context.

You quoted me as saying:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue"

This has a compltetly different meaning to what I ACTUALLY said, which was:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken)"

The brackets CLEARLY show that all contained within is to be treated as one, not to meantion teh entire sentence which sets the tone and context - something you seem to have difficulty with.

I can see how what I wrote could be confusing. I was asking about that with the next sentence about the order of events, but I didn't group them together. Sorry for the confusion.

When you write 'later to realize', it is in the same lines and the 'then to'. I was asking for a sequence of events.

Umm, it has nothing to do with order of sequence...

The expression is used when:

Something has been said taht the writer/speaker believes to be ture
They relise what has happened
They then use the expersion as a means of correcting themselves

I do not look at things from the looking glass of the Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea while considering how conservative Roman catholics in the US could interpret a post, for example.

The expersion I used is not a expersion used my a remote or isolated tribe composed of 5 people, it is widley used.

Plus, as a moderator you should have a basic understanding of didfernt cultures, as stated above.

Please see first reply, and I said for example.

You are doing the exact thing you say I do. I gave two examples one of the Etoro people and the other of Roman Catholics in the US, but you only commented on a tribal culture.

It was mearly an example to demonstrate that the term used was not used by a minority or a select group of people.

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic

By saying 'then to' describes a succession of events.

X happened and y was done, then to...

Let's be clear on a possible order of events. What are the order of events that you suggest could happen?

You have demonstrated that you interpret things that you see on paper yes?

So obviously, as I'm sure you do not need telling:

read -> interpret

~Neph

That isn't a sequence of events that I was hoping for. I was asking for somehting more like

(1) mods reads post
(2) mods does .....

and so on

Surely we are talking about interpretation NOT actions, the action taken is dependant on the interpretation therfore we nee donly discuss the interpretation.

========================

Should this even continue? I feel that we are moving far away from discussion.

Perhaps it is somewhat longwinded but to be perfectly honest, I am talking about the act of cutting up posts and interpreting them individually independant of each other, as you have continued to do throught this thread.

It has come to my attention that certain moderators choose to interpret things in whatever way they seem fit. They pluck random sentances out of posts, take them out of context and then say that is breaking a rule.

They then proceed to justify this by saying that they can only take something at 'face value' or something similar.

Well my question to both the moderator team AND the users of this forum is this:

Is it correct to be able to have such a narrow view of the rules and to penalise users for something completly inocent, because a stand alone phrase could be concieved as a rule break?

***

I would also like to apologise to any member of the forum whom I have contridicted i cases similar to this (especially RepliJake). Having never experienced such behaviour I believed it to be simply an exajeration of the truth.

[Disclaimer: this is not directed at any individual mod and this thread is not meant to be a public challenge or flaming any individual mod, but mearly a serious discussion about the topic written above.]

~Neph

lol But there is no point since you can't change people apparently...

I have no intention of changing anyone - This thread was more than anything an apology to those whom I have contradicted - And to try and put down my former views.

~Neph

[Spacey]

Sorry, I tell a lie (a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue

This implies that a moderator should know all of the expressions that exist over the entire planet, in each culture, for each unique individual.

Different ethnic groups, religions, and individuals have different ways of expressing themselves.

Do you think it is practical that a moderator should consider (or try to consider) all of the possible interpretation that exist across the entire planet?

Umm, if you are going to moderate a public forum you should have a basic understanding of different cultures yes.

I have an understanding of culture, but I wasn't asking if a moderator should have an understanding of culture. I said:

should a moderator consider all of the possible interpretations that exist for every culture of person on the planet?

You have quoted me, but you did not answer my question. You answered something else.

Umm, I believe I did answer, my statement was not something used by only a select group of people it is used very widley, and thus only a basic understand of different cultures would suffice.

OK. What I am getting at is that there is no real way to know how someone will interpret anything, and therefore considering something other than what you see, in black and white would lead to trouble. But it seems not doing that has lead to the same place...

pedantic - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedantic

If that is what you mean by pedantic... then let me be the first to admit that I am pedantic; that I only consider what I see (with my actual eyes) in front of me.

Yes it is, but you OBVIOUSLY do not, as you have just above demonstrated that you freely cut up sentences and interpret them out of context.

You quoted me as saying:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue"

This has a compltetly different meaning to what I ACTUALLY said, which was:

"(a frequent expression used by people who have said something untrue - later to realise that they were infact mistaken)"

The brackets CLEARLY show that all contained within is to be treated as one, not to meantion teh entire sentence which sets the tone and context - something you seem to have difficulty with.

I can see how what I wrote could be confusing. I was asking about that with the next sentence about the order of events, but I didn't group them together. Sorry for the confusion.

When you write 'later to realize', it is in the same lines and the 'then to'. I was asking for a sequence of events.

Umm, it has nothing to do with order of sequence...

The expression is used when:

Something has been said taht the writer/speaker believes to be ture
They relise what has happened
They then use the expersion as a means of correcting themselves

This is what I'm talking about and wanted clarification on. The above paragraph is a sequence of events.

This thread is about trying to figure out of nature of mods, yes? and the possibility of being pedantic? By only including what a user does it doesn't factor in the group of interest: the mods.

I do not look at things from the looking glass of the Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea while considering how conservative Roman catholics in the US could interpret a post, for example.

The expersion I used is not a expersion used my a remote or isolated tribe composed of 5 people, it is widley used.

Plus, as a moderator you should have a basic understanding of didfernt cultures, as stated above.

Please see first reply, and I said for example.

You are doing the exact thing you say I do. I gave two examples one of the Etoro people and the other of Roman Catholics in the US, but you only commented on a tribal culture.

It was mearly an example to demonstrate that the term used was not used by a minority or a select group of people.

Commented in first paragraph.

Then to interpret it as a lie is being pedantic

By saying 'then to' describes a succession of events.

X happened and y was done, then to...

Let's be clear on a possible order of events. What are the order of events that you suggest could happen?

You have demonstrated that you interpret things that you see on paper yes?

So obviously, as I'm sure you do not need telling:

read -> interpret

~Neph

That isn't a sequence of events that I was hoping for. I was asking for somehting more like

(1) mods reads post
(2) mods does .....

and so on

Surely we are talking about interpretation NOT actions, the action taken is dependant on the interpretation therfore we nee donly discuss the interpretation.

You had originally described a sequence in the use of 'then to' I was just asking for clarification of the sequence.

========================

Should this even continue? I feel that we are moving far away from discussion.

Perhaps it is somewhat longwinded but to be perfectly honest, I am talking about the act of cutting up posts and interpreting them individually independant of each other, as you have continued to do throught this thread.[/quote]
I have been breaking apart posts for ease of replying. When you just straight quote someone it is very difficult to find what you are talking to.

I no longer think I'm doing any good here. I'm going to keep out.

[System Lord Nephthys]

OK. What I am getting at is that there is no real way to know how someone will interpret anything, and therefore considering something other than what you see, in black and white would lead to trouble. But it seems not doing that has lead to the same place...

Which is why I am talking about pedantic interpretations. In order to interpret:

Sorry, I tell a lie, thats wrong, force of habit.

As an admittance of deliberatly trying to mislead someone is being EXTREMLY pedantic.

This is what I'm talking about and wanted clarification on. The above paragraph is a sequence of events.

This thread is about trying to figure out of nature of mods, yes? and the possibility of being pedantic? By only including what a user does it doesn't factor in the group of interest: the mods.

I don't see how this realtes to what you quoted me on but, I was explaining the expression that a user would use, and a mdoerator would read and interpret.

Commented in first paragraph.

What?

You had originally described a sequence in the use of 'then to' I was just asking for clarification of the sequence.

What does the sequence in which the expresion was decided upon to be used have to do with how it was interpretted?

I have been breaking apart posts for ease of replying. When you just straight quote someone it is very difficult to find what you are talking to.

But you break them apart mid way through a sentence, completling distorting the meaning. Which happens to be my MAIN point.

~Neph

[Antius]

Jeeze
I see your point mate, but for crien out loud, Spacey is one of the best mods there are...

Just don't start on spelling errors while you're arguing about grammatical differences...

[System Lord Nephthys]

Jeeze
I see your point mate, but for crien out loud, Spacey is one of the best mods there are...

Just don't start on spelling errors while you're arguing about grammatical differences...

The best? If thats your opinion...But this really is irrelevant I am not talking about any moderator in particular - just the point.

I wasn't arguing about grammatical differences o.O

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph