I was invited to ask the question so I will.

 

What was the deal with the moderation in that thread? It was the most bizarre sequence of post, response, escalation (by a moderator) and moderation I have ever seen on this board.

 

The original point was made, fair (and accurate imo) challenges to the point were subsequently posted and then it escalated into a discussion of intent of original poster vs. a response to what was literally posted.

 

I understand wanting to protect some people, but the original point was made by a frequent poster, said poster seems capable of defending themself.

 

So why did the responses to the responses escalate to saying the original responders were questioning intent of the poster rather than just challenging the original point made? Why this thread specifically? Is this going to be a common method of moderation going forward?

 

(And for the record, I accept my penalty. I broke a rule that should be an automatic, no exception discipline)

As the first moderator to step in concerning that thread, let me take a crack at it.

 

A poster wrote, "I think this type of stat twisting could make anyone (maybe not Gibson) look 'effective'."

 

The phrase stat-twisting goes beyond discussing the merits of the actual topic and turns the focus onto the other poster. Moreover, it suggests less than an honest approach to the debate.

 

Since the topic of Meyer is known to be a hot button for some people, and bickering had begun, I posted a moderator's note asking that things be taken down a notch.

 

Coincidentally, the poster who was accused of stat-twisting posted a followup explanation while I was typing.

 

Up to that point, there was no thought of taking any disciplinary action.

 

Afterward, the bickering shifted from parsing the difference between "shaky" versus "effective" to "invective" versus "analysis". At which point, another moderator rightly stepped in.

 

As a moderator, I don't like to interrupt the flow of baseball discussion if I can help it; but for others to turn the discussion toward moderation really compounds the problem, and we take a pretty firm stance on it.

 

You weren't involved in the post that drew my initial in-thread warning, so it's unfortunate you got involved in the resulting off-topic tangent.