Supermoderator threatening bans and abusing power in a subforum they don't even manage

Automotive Forum.

Moderators: Joseph, Danny Z., Fishkal

The Supermoderator Charles Fox10 is refusing to acknowledge my perspective and is actually threatening to abuse his authority by slapping me with a ban in a subforum he doesn't even oversee.

Charles Fox10 said:Don't try to play me or anyone else for a fool, because if you keep this up, I'm going to hit you with a multi-day ban.☕

Wrong address. I'm actually a supermoderator for this PDF, though I've stayed under the radar out of respect for my fellow mods. But if you keep trolling this thread until everyone's exhausted—which you've been doing for days now—there's a way to handle that.

In theory, the Supermoderators handle everything, though they also have specific subforums they oversee directly. What happens if there's a subforum where no single Supermoderator is actually assigned to take charge?
The subforums where you see Supermoderators listed are just the ones where they’re doing the regular moderator grunt work...

There is a fundamental distinction between having oversight responsibilities and exercising direct moderation authority. If an individual is marked as invisible on a specific subforum, they possess absolutely no right to step in and edit content there directly. That is how standard operations work on any functional forum, and thank God I’ve spent the last 25 years moderating them.

Quoting the law isn't trolling.

What constitutes trolling is the subjective and erroneous interpretation of the law. That particular thread was derailed by people who lack a basic grasp of the rules and can barely even master their own native language.

It is frankly quite brazen for someone to threaten sanctions based solely on their own SUBJECTIVE (and unfortunately incorrect) beliefs.

Jesse Sanchez4 said:There is a fundamental distinction between having oversight responsibilities and exercising direct moderation authority. If an individual is marked as invisible on a specific subforum, they possess absolutely no right to step in and edit content there directly. That is how standard operations work on any functional forum, and thank God I’ve spent the last 25 years moderating them.

Quoting the law isn't trolling.

What constitutes trolling is the subjective and erroneous interpretation of the law. That particular thread was derailed by people who lack a basic grasp of the rules and can barely even master their own native language.

It is frankly quite brazen for someone to threaten sanctions based solely on their own SUBJECTIVE (and unfortunately incorrect) beliefs.

Twisting legal articles, omitting full text, and then interpreting those sections to claim things they don't actually say... that isn't my subjective impression. It's a fact, and several colleagues have pointed it out to you over the last few days.

Don't worry about my authority; I'm just letting you know what won't be tolerated anymore. The rest is up to you.

Please lock this thread. I've said everything I have to say and I don't intend to say more.

As someone who actually understands the nuances of the American language, I am stating quite clearly and responsibly that the law says exactly what I have been claiming all along, regardless of how a certain group of "colleagues" chooses to twist the words and read between the lines.

Threatening me with a ban simply because MY interpretation (which is objectively correct, as Old Iggy has already proven) differs from YOURS (which is demonstrably wrong, also per Old Iggy) is hardly how a moderator should conduct themselves. This marks the second time you've come at me based on nothing more than your own subjective biases—biases that have already been debunked. I will say it again: it is a proven fact, and it goes beyond just what is written in the law to discuss.

Look, if the Law explicitly and undeniably states "X is Y," and I quote that exact sentence without adding a single bit of fluff (!), but then a "colleague" decides to claim, "No, you're trolling, X is actually Z and involves yellow ants and Italian sausage factories!!!", and you decide to back that colleague up by threatening me, then we clearly have a serious issue here. It’s as if we've suddenly slipped into some kind of totalitarian regime where those in power just purge anyone they find inconvenient...

I have made my position perfectly clear. I am willing to step away from this discussion if necessary.

You might have had your say, but I certainly had mine.

Sure, if you say so.

Whatever you need, I'm on it