I've been infracted for calling Torie a genius. For reals.

[Keystone Phil]

"Post Deleted for Personal Attack with 3 (out of 10) infraction points"

Sarcasm is now an infractable offense. Wow.

[Bacon King]

Yeah, that was me. I was away for the weekend and had a big test yesterday so I was just now able to wade through a huge backlog of reported posts from the 2012 board.

The post was deleted not because it was sarcasm, but because it was bitter, angry sarcasm directed at another poster.

Full context, for the record:

Everyone listen to the know-it-all. We all remember his very accurate predictions on Santorum's chances earlier this year. Torie, you are a real genius.

[Keystone Phil]

Ok? Here's a newsflash: it's a political discussion forum. People are going to be sarcastic is a not-so-pleasant way towards others.

I'm sure you went through and infracted everyone that said less than positive things about Santorum, too.

[Bacon King]

Ok? Here's a newsflash: it's a political discussion forum. People are going to be sarcastic is a not-so-pleasant way towards others.

And that's why we have moderators, no? If everyone got to be assholes to each other with impunity, it would pretty much ruin the forum for everyone.

I'm sure you went through and infracted everyone that said less than positive things about Santorum, too.

I deleted quite a few anti-Santorum posts, yes. If you see anything I missed that crosses the line, feel free to report it and I'll take care of it.

[Senator Napoleon]

Hey, I was given 8 points for suggesting Teddy should be banned for being unable to control his mental issues, right before he was banned for being unable to control his mental issues.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

"Post Deleted for Personal Attack with 3 (out of 10) infraction points"

Sarcasm is now an infractable offense. Wow.

I got infracted for merely saying you had a bad attitude. Apparently, just about anything can be infracted at this point.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Hey, I was given 8 points for suggesting Teddy should be banned for being unable to control his mental issues, right before he was banned for being unable to control his mental issues.

Haha, wow.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Hey, I was given 8 points for suggesting Teddy should be banned for being unable to control his mental issues, right before he was banned for being unable to control his mental issues.

Can you PM me that post.  Because I've looked through the records back to December 29th, and I'm not finding a single post of yours that received any points, so what's your definition of "right before"?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Sarcasm in and of itself is not an infractible offense; however, Dave has said that posts that degrade other posters and don't add to the quality of discourse on the forum should be infracted (in more or less words).  Ultimately, the forum is a place for civil discourse, and that was not civil discourse.  That is why it was infracted.

[Torie]

For the record, I did not report any of Phil's posts directed at me. I can take it, and deal with it (or not) in my own way, but I do get a bit concerned sometimes that it might make other posters uncomfortable.

[Lief]

Yes, this forum's moderators are, once again, completely out of control. I was infracted a full five points the other day for rightly pointing out that a certain poster had barged into a thread solely to attack opebo and me. My post was deleted as a "personal attack", while his original personal attack remained in that thread for another day or so before it was finally deleted.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Yes, this forum's moderators are, once again, completely out of control. I was infracted a full five points the other day for rightly pointing out that a certain poster had barged into a thread solely to attack opebo and me. My post was deleted as a "personal attack", while his original personal attack remained in that thread for another day or so before it was finally deleted.

There are cases where moderators wait for input from colleagues.  Your post was a clear personal attack, whereas I thought the other poster's post was near the border line, so I wanted more input.

[Vasall des Midas]

Excessive hyperbole. Infract away.

[Grumps]

Excessive hyperbole. Infract away.

Really?  You don't think Torie is a genius? 

[Keystone Phil]

I'm now fourteen points away from Moderator Review. My most recent infraction points are from my topic where I jokingly labeled Politico and Winfield as the Romney hacks that tore down Santorum signs.

This is now quite clearly an effort to push away supporters of a certain candidate. Truly a disgusting display.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I'm now fourteen points away from Moderator Review. My most recent infraction points are from my topic where I jokingly labeled Politico and Winfield as the Romney hacks that tore down Santorum signs.

This is now quite clearly an effort to push away supporters of a certain candidate. Truly a disgusting display.

No.  It's an effort to stop trolling.  The board is cluttered as it is; we don't need trolling threads like that cluttering it up even more.

[Keystone Phil]

I posted a legitimate story, Inks, and jokingly said Politico and Winfield are involved. But I know why this touched a nerve with you. $omeone knows who they're voting for in the Michigan primary next week...

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I posted a legitimate story, Inks, and jokingly said Politico and Winfield are involved. But I know why this touched a nerve with you. $omeone knows who they're voting for in the Michigan primary next week...

Someone who actually did their research would also know that I've said people removing the signs should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  My support for Romney plays no impact on how I moderate, and I find what the people did just as wrong as if they were Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul people removing the signs.

So before you make non-factual comments claiming that something touched my nevers, for the sake of your public image so you don't put your foot in your mouth again, I would encourage you to fact check your claims.

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, Ink$. How much does "supporting" a candidate go for these days, by the way?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Ok, Ink$. How much does "supporting" a candidate go for these days, by the way?

As usual, Phil, you ignore the facts I just posted to continue with some sarcastic trolling comments.  If it were directed toward anyone else, I'd report you for trolling, but I think posters should have the ability to criticize and question moderators' actions, even when those criticisms may be complete lies.

Seriously Phil, if you want to stay on the website, turn down the trolling.  There's no anti-Santorum bias, and certainly not from me when it comes to the removal of political signs.  To claim that I support the removal of Santorum signs is ignorantly laughable.

[Californian Tony]

What Phil said maybe wasn't very nice, but it wasn't infract-worthy either.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

What Phil said maybe wasn't very nice, but it wasn't infract-worthy either.

It's not worth a 1-point infraction for trolling if you link to a video saying that Winfield and Politico remove campaign signs?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

And are you actually saying I'm on payroll with the Romney campaign?

[Lief]

What Phil said maybe wasn't very nice, but it wasn't infract-worthy either.

It's not worth a 1-point infraction for trolling if you link to a video saying that Winfield and Politico remove campaign signs?

Of course it isn't...

[Jayhawker]

I'm now fourteen points away from Moderator Review. My most recent infraction points are from my topic where I jokingly labeled Politico and Winfield as the Romney hacks that tore down Santorum signs.

Nope, that was me.