I can’t believe I’m doing this. Sincere apologies to all, really.
But I don’t think this is a threat. Honestly, I think it was (terrible, homophobic attempt at) a joke. (Or at most, a poorly-phrased promise of rhetorical drubbing.)
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t feel his loss is a detriment to the board. And I admittedly know nothing about his prior suspension. Maybe there’s reason to assume he was actually threatening violence. It just feels that this is an iffy call.
I guess I’m just wondering if that’s the sort of zero-tolerance standard we’ve been using. Or if y’all agree that this was a metaphorical/rhetorical situation, but his past history was what pushed it into banhammer territory.
With abiding love and deepest appreciation for all you do,
If it was a joke I didn’t get it. Maybe he isn’t anti-gay as he wrote but threatening straight up violence on Miller was wrong. Especially after a suspension.
I agree with everything you said, andros. Well put. I just went and read the relevant part of that thread (could not stand to read it all, sorry) and that did not seem like a threat. Seemed like a poorly thought out smart alec remark. Like all of us are prone to make. I don’t know what billfish678 was previously suspended for either, but this didn’t seem like enough to push the ban button.
I’m guessing it was a “last straw” situation. He has a history of responding to mod notes and warnings with childish defiance. He’s also trolled the mods in ATMB and dared them to ban him.
I would still see it as a Warnable offense even if he was joking. Suggesting violence towards another poster is not something you should joke about.
And it’s similar to what he was suspended over, which was basically saying other jerkish things without a mental filter. So it’s essentially a Warning for a worse version of the same thing he was suspended for. That usually results in a banning, even without all the stuff afterwards.
Perhaps billfish intended it as a joke, perhaps not. I can’t say with certainty what is in another person’s mind. I know that for me, that’s not in any way close to how I would attempt humor. I’m comfortable drawing the line where saying that you’re going to assault someone who disagrees with you is on the side I am not on - the side of the line that is.
Typically after suspension we give much less leeway than we otherwise would. In this case, the previous suspension, the response to the warning, both in thread and via email, and the history of abusive responses factored in the group decision.
We are very anti threat directed at other posters. Imagine if this type of thing were not verboten. Responses could be peppered with variations of ‘if you said that to my face I’d punch you’ or ‘youre lucky I wasn’t there or else I’d have slapped you upside the head’ or ‘if you disagree with me I’ll beat some sense into you’, etc. When people engage in that level of discourse discussion breaks down.
If we look at the response in thread, if it were me and my intent were benign, I’d say it’s the opposite of how I’d react. Instead it’s antagonistic - and that’s being charitable. So when we weigh all those factors, the balance falls where it did.
Even if you don’t agree it was a threat, I think you would certainly agree it was being a jerk, as were the rest of his posts in the thread. So this is really just a nitpick over the stated reason for the banning.
Really? He was being a jerk in “the rest of his posts in that thread?” He posted quite a lot in that thread before he posted the “threat.” IIRC, there were moderators involved in the discussion. Why, one wonders, didn’t one of them note or warn such egregious jerkishness much earlier on?
I don’t support his banning either. That was obviously not a real threat. It was just an excuse to ban someone that has viewpoints that don’t fit in with most of the board. I don’t think that is a good thing.
I almost got nailed for the same thing. Someone accused me of a threat that I never intended. I simply said “this will not work out well for you”. I meant that to mean board moderation and deleted it as soon as I realized that it could be interpreted multiple ways but the hawks were already watching and reported it because there are a lot of people that want to see me BANNED too. All I have to do is step over the line even an inch and people are ready to pounce.
I went 17 years without a warning but then got three in rapid succession for calling Forrest Gump a retard (“hate speech” even though the movie itself uses it), a deleted threat that I never intended and an accusation that I started repeated misogynist threads against women that don’t exist. Check it yourself if you don’t believe me. Something has changed and it seems like “the purge” for those that aren’t hard-core left-wingers.
You may not like the opinions of billfish678 but it is ridiculous that he would be banned for something that is obviously not a real threat.
So, his three previous warnings and a suspension don’t count for anything? I won’t speak ill of the banned, but there is a pattern of rule-breaking behavior, and if he had said that in response to me, I would have reported him in a jiffy.
It wasn’t a threat though. That is a common phrase that doesn’t mean anything like real physical abuse. My bosses use it at work and they certainly don’t hit anyone. It is simply metaphorical.
“I’ll bitchslap you,” is hardly my go-to response to anyone here. I question the reasonableness of anyone saying that to me, either online, or in real life. It certainly would make me think less of you as a person. It is certainly not common in my experience. If someone said that to me, it would cause me to say, “Shut the fuck up.” It’s being a jerk, and billfish has a history of playing Internet Tough Guy® on these forums, which doesn’t further the course of sane and civilized discussion. I support his banning 100%. This forum is better off without people who (mis) behave like him.