Corrie Snell

+ Follow
since Feb 03, 2014
Merit badge: bb list bbv list
For More
Apples and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand First Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Corrie Snell

I would like to quickly point out that I have continued to stand firm on my belief and understanding that the politics and ethics of foie gras production is a topic to be discussed in the cider press forum.  This is the reason I will be clicking "!report" on Burra's above post.
Burra, the problem with your answer of 'never' is that 'never' force-feeding wouldn't produce foie gras.  Producing foie gras is the OP's goal, and his question asks if anyone here on Permies can help him reach that goal.  Instead, what your reply, and a couple of the other original replies in that thread, do is "should on" the OP.  I think Paul makes it pretty clear in this thread that "should-ing" doesn't comply with his overarching "be nice" rule, especially on a topic that, in my understanding of how this site works, is exactly the type of thing meant to be discussed only in The Cider Press.

The other day, after reading through the thread in question, I was moderately incensed (is that a thing?).  First off, the common practice on this site of welcoming the OP after his very first post to Permies, hadn't happened.  Then, as is being discussed, I felt as if he'd been smothered by the "should-ers."  It brought to mind the cartoon Paul posted at the top of the second page on the "permies publishing standards" thread (sorry, don't know how to link directly to a specific post), but instead of turning a boring gray color and melting into the group, the OP seems to have just dropped out of the conversation (at least that's my hope).  I felt determined to rectify the situation, as I saw it, by writing a good post with information useful to the OP.  I wrote my post, received an apple AND pie from Jocelyn Campbell, "Master Steward," for said post, but then later had my post put on probation by some other moderator.  Huh?

The Purple Mooseage I received explaining the probation said, "please remove the moderation comments and suggestions that moderators are mean."  Huh?

The line in question from my original post was: "Please let me know how it goes.  PM me if you feel more comfortable, but the moderators on this site WILL delete posts that are non-conforming to the publishing standards, so hopefully no one will get mean about what they think you "should" do.   "

Now, obviously I did not say that the moderators are mean.  But, my Purple Mooseage said otherwise.  At this point, I thought it was all a big misunderstanding, and that the gir bot had found the combination of the words "mean," and "moderators," and then made an ass out of "u" and me.  But, as it turns out, it was human error, and my post really was mis-read.

The other part, the "please remove moderation comments," was requested again in the above post by Joseph Lofthouse.  Throughout my years of using this site I have read and re-read what I consider to be the core three threads that Paul started, discussing how to behave on this site:
" publishing standards"
"Did you just 'should' on me?"
"be nice"

I understand what he's saying and respect his authority and have always done my best to make sure my posts here comply.  But, in reading those, I had never seen anything saying that, "Discussion about moderation is not allowed in posts."  I was super confused.  All I had meant to do was reassure the OP that the site's moderators would protect him (to put it in simpler terms).  And, I know I've seen moderation discussed in other threads.  So, I was still confused.  As we can see above, Paul has stepped in, explained this "rule" (for lack of a better term) AND deemed what I wrote to be "an exception," but...

Now fully understanding the situation, and not wanting to be the reason Paul has 2% more stomach ache, I removed the sentence discussing moderation.  I replaced it with links to the "publishing standards" and "should-ing" threads, which I feel accomplishes the same goal I initially had: gently reminding those responding to Marc (the OP) that they need to "be nice," and at the same time attempting to assuage the effect I imagine the two "should-ers" have had on Marc and his first experience here on this site.  

I also did click "!Report," for the two replies that I saw as violating the "should-ing" rule, and the Cider-Press-only-topic standards.  One has since been deleted.  The other one is still up. (I'm not at all saying that just because I clicked "!Report" that the moderators "should" do my bidding.). *****I'm probably going to get in biiiiiiig trouble for this***** The fact that the other one was left up, despite the fact that its content is discussing politics and ethics (CIDER PRESS!!!), makes me feel that the moderators whose ethics are being offended by the idea of a Permie producing foie gras, are abusing their power and playing God/Paul.  This thread has been on the site for two months.  It hasn't been deleted altogether.  If it had been, that would indicate that Paul Wheaton, the owner of this site, deems foie gras production a topic that he does not wish to see discussed here.  Instead, Jocelyn Campbell, Paul's co-"Master Steward," has actually participated in the thread in a positive and encouraging way!  (I see r ranson is also a Master Steward...seeing her reply as I'm still in the process of writing this post...)

Top all this off with the fact that my post is still on probation!

Burra, are you saying that my edits to remove discussion of moderation and replace it with links to the "should-ing" and "publication standards" threads are the reason?  Or, were you referring to the original version?
Thank you, Paul, sincerely, for taking the time to explain this to me.  It seems that you understand where I was coming from.  The OP had come to Permies with his very first post(!) to ask a question, and instead of responses addressing that question, a few of the first responders were more or less "should-ing on him!"  Could this be the reason that the OP has since gone silent in the thread?  I was merely trying to assure him that there are publishing standards, and that the hard-working moderators would uphold them.

I would be happy to edit my post, but I think that I will then have to click "Report!" on the "should-ing" replies...surely that element of this topic is meant to be discussed in the Cider Press???

Thanks again, Paul!

And, an especially big "THANK YOU!!!" to the Permies staff!

Yes, it is.  Is the rule Joseph mentions above about not discussing moderation, except in the tinkering forum, true?
Hello?  Anybody home?

I think this is interesting, and relevant:


I have not read the book, but did take the quiz.  I think the book explores ways to set one's self (oneself?) up for success, knowing one's own tendency, and how to best work with the other three tendencies.
6 years ago
My Purple Mooseage says, "please remove the moderation comments and suggestions that moderators are mean."  My post does not suggest that moderators are mean.  

I had no idea that "discussion about moderation is not allowed in posts," will you please provide the link to the thread mandating that?
Oh!  Please don't spank them!  It is a simple case of mis-reading what I wrote.  Yes, though, please examine the post, if that's what's required for it to be made public.  I have since gone in to edit for clarification, but no so much with regards to the sentence containing the words "mean," and "moderators."  Jocelyn gave me the pie!
After receiving both pie and an apple for my post regarding Muscovy ducks for foie gras, the "gir bot" detected the words "mean" and "moderators" in the same sentence, assumed I was calling the moderators mean, and put my post on probation.  Oops.

Hi, Jocelyn!  Hi, Paul!