Sure. Will have a look at the guidelines and appreciate the pointer, as well as the job you have to do.
>The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon.
But, I don't appreciate the additional editorializing and don't believe your attempt to ridicule me here stands up to your own guidelines. Add to that the fact that you are a moderator, and the standard to which you hold yourself should be even higher.
And, that speaks only to the style you chose here. On the substance, of course we know that my pointing to what I noted as an observable pattern vs merely "something I dislike online" are two entirely different matters. We also know that such things as trolls and shills continue to exist, even if some too readily make the claim that they are present. As for me, you will very rarely find those claims in my history here and, where I have applied it, you might even be surprised at the patterns were you to look more closely. Or not. I could certainly be wrong.
But, as it is, you've restated my position so as to trivialize it, then ridiculed it. In so doing, you've moved it from "hey, please don't do that here, as it's a violation" to "here's my opinion of your comment".
If you want to be part of the discussion to make some additional point about what you think of people who, say, display an "internet reflex" you disdain, then perhaps use a throwaway. But, as it is, I would have difficulty seeing how your comment doesn't "further a flamewar", apart from your position as a moderator precluding members from engaging with you in such.