“People like you are why racism can continue to exist.”
Why is it an insult to say that you are creating space for racists to continue to be racist?
And why is this deserving of a warning and a 1 month suspension?
"I am more than implying you are hypocritical. I am saying that the standards you apply to find discrimination against asians is significantly higher than the standard you apply to find discrimination against other groups.
What do you call a person who thinks that a low bar of evidence is sufficient to find racism against one group but requires a higher bar of evidence to establish racism against another group"
It seems pretty obvious to me why it’s an insult. “People like you are” is equivalent to “You are.” And saying “You are the reason that racists continue to exist” is an insult. The correct way to do that sentiment would be “Ideas like that are why racism continues to exist.” Attack the post, not the poster.
That said, when a slight change of wording that conveys the same information would not be an insult, then I do think it’s a bit overboard to make it a Warning–assuming this is the first time such a mixup has happened. That said, I don’t know your posting history. If you’ve done these “right up to the line” posts before, then I get getting a Warning.
BTW, I wrote all this before actually trying to read all the context so I could understand your argument. So none of this has anything to do with my opinion of said argument. Just in how you worded your objection.
I am attacking the standards he applies. I guess I am drawing a roadmap of why he is a hypocrite but I don’t actually call him a hypocrite. But drawing roadmaps are allowed.
The first one, “People like you are why racism can continue to exist.” is so clearly an insult that it’s almost insulting to the intelligence of the board and all it’s readers to say that it isn’t. I believed that and warned you for it.
Following the warning, you sent me a PM asking me to point out how you insulted him. You appeared to genuinely not understand how such a statement could be an insult. I pointed out that it was and you again disputed the fact by saying it was criticism and not insulting. Nonetheless, I didn’t walk back the warning.
The second one, which is actually for ‘Failure to Obey Moderator Instructions’, came 28 hours after the first one. In it you accused Ruken of being a hypocrite. Even with that, you say you’re doing MORE than pointing out that Ruken is a hypocrite.
You do not, regardless of circumstance, get to insult other posters. I really don’t understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Now, everyone on the moderation staff is accustomed to hearing the defense ‘It’s not an insult because it’s TRUE!’ from various posters. But I’ll tell you now, it’s not going to work.
Basic rules, repeated ad nauseum:
Your opinion of another poster is not a fact.
Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll.
You disliking another’s post does not give you license to abuse them.
I’m not saying this is a common problem, but if you start seeing a pattern of posters asking you to explain how something is an insult because they “[appear] to genuinely not understand how such a statement could be an insult” then maybe the problem isn’t the posters. If you’re standards are so strict that more and more people can no longer express themselves without being issued a warning then it’s time to take another look at the standards.
And yes, I’m still pissed off at being issued a warning for something I think didn’t warrant it, even if I’m just going to have to suck it up and live with it. Exact same situation: I still truly do not believe I did what I was accused of, but there’s no appeal so I expect I’ll be suspended or banned shortly myself. The only wonder is that it hasn’t happened yet.
Jonathan Chance just does not understand what a personal insult is. It’s been like that for years so basically if you post in a forum he moderates you pays your money and takes your chances.
If I see an acquaintance carrying $500 in his billfold I might say “People like you are why muggers continue to operate.” Such a response is an insult only in the trivial sense that any criticism can be considered an insult. I think most would view it instead as a round-about way of offering advice, not as an insult.
There are plenty of examples of a comment like that not being an insult. (So much so that the “clearly an insult … to say that it isn’t” seems peculiar.) The actual exchange that led to the Warning was a bit complicated, but I think it was very clear that Damuri Ajashi was NOT claiming Ruken to be racist. Moreover, I believe that Mr. Ajashi’s underlying message — that some forms of excuse-making incite some forms of racism — was quite correct.
Additional charges were eventually leveled against Mr. Ajashi and I won’t speak to those, but IMO the original allegation of insult was inappropriate.
DA, there’s a lot of racism on this board, even if I think you tend to misidentify it some of the times and perpetuate it other times. But I know the rules, and I’m super careful to phrase things in a way that’s as unambiguous as I can. I often reread what I’ve written and edit away pronouns and clauses to clarify that I’m saying that (for example) a post is sneering or foolish, not the poster.
The phrase “people like you”? Seriously? You think that’s on the side of attacking the post, not the poster?
This is a simple fix for you when you come back from your vacation. “Posts like that,” not “people like you.” “I am more than implying that there’s a double standard in your argument,” not, “I am more than implying you are hypocritical.”
You can do it.
(Also, you could maybe not post five times in a row when you respond to threads, but that’s a different topic.)
Yep. All my warnings are from him. Well, I guess my days are numbered. I suspect I’ll get banned pretty soon. I wish I could say i was sorry but this place is not what it used to be. The arguments have devolved into displays of tribalism and i’m sad for the loss.
This is quite incorrect. You have received warnings from two other mods, dating back to 2010. This has been persistent behavior on your part. You didn’t just start getting warnings when Jonathan Chance took over Great Debates.
I would suggest the best way to avoid being banned is to avoid the behavior that you get warned for, whether you agree with the warnings or not.
I don’t see evidence that “more and more posters are being issued warnings.” And posters claiming they don’t understand a warning is more a function of the poster than the mod who issued the warning. Posters who are more prone to insult other posters are more prone to “not understand” their warnings.
In GQ, on a number of occasions, I’ve issued a poster a series of notes about political jabs. When they persist in ignoring them, I’ll issue a warning. I’ll then sometimes get an irate PM, claiming that it’s impossible to understand what is a political jab, and that they can’t possibly comply with that rule, and how they’ll inevitably get banned, and on and on.
Oddly enough, once I issue a warning, by some mysterious process they suddenly no longer make the kind of posts that got them the warning, even though they swear they don’t understand how to avoid it.
If you weren’t making a personal attack on that poster and explicitly accusing him of being a paid Russian troll, then I don’t know what your post meant. Some of your remarks were clearly attacking the poster and not the post. You’ve been around plenty long enough to understand the distinction. Frankly, I don’t understand how you could fail to understand that that post was out of line.
(For the record, the constant accusations that another poster is a paid Russian/Republican troll are tiresome and ridiculous. Paying someone to spend a significant amount of time to troll this board would be one of the worst wastes of money I can imagine. I’ve investigated hundreds of socks and trolls, and I’ve yet to find evidence of a paid troll from Russia or anywhere else.)
Of course there’s an appeal, but I don’t see that you’ve made one. You’ve provided no evidence that you didn’t do what you were warned for, just said that you don’t understand it. And in my opinion as a mod, you did exactly what you were warned for. We have reversed warnings on occasions when on consultation in the mod loop we agreed that was the proper course. (In fact, the OP has a reversed warning on his record.)
Bemoaning the fact that “I’ll probably be banned soon” when you have only one recent warning is absurd. How long have you been around? You know things don’t work like that.
Despite the frequent claim of people who got warned that “it’s impossible to avoid warnings,” the vast majority of posters, even long-term and prolific ones, don’t have even a single warning. Somehow the rules are clear enough so that most people comply with them. And most people who receive warnings actually do change their behavior and don’t receive additional ones.
There’s something unseemly about handing out warnings, then in the very next post moving the thread to the Pit where it admittedly should have been all along.
If we allowed people to violate forum rules based on what forum they thought it should be in rather than where it is at the moment, that would allow people to force threads into the Pit simply by making inappropriate posts. You’re obligated to follow forum rules up until a thread is moved.
Yeah, I agree with this and agree with the moderation (although the month suspension was, IMHO, a bit harsh). It may seem like a trivial distinction to say “You are racist” versus “the post implies a racist belief” but that is what a healthy debate is about: being polite and as respectful as possible so that ideas are exchanged instead of having personal pissing matches.
And you see it in society and in marital arguments. When the argument starts with “you do this” and “you do that” then follow up is not going to be to anyone’s satisfaction because we have a natural tendency to be defensive. When the idea or the act is focused upon, e.g. “it hurts me when X happens because it makes me feel like you don’t respect me, even though I’m sure you do” the person is more likely to respond helpfully, and in debate, get to the core of the issue.
Think of it this way, you’re wife could say one of the two following, each really communicating the same message:
You fucking drunk! Why don’t you go get some help instead of pissing away all of our money on booze?
vs.
I really enjoy being around you when you are sober. I married you for a reason because you are the love of my life. When you are drinking, I don’t enjoy being around you as much because sometimes you are not you. I just wanted you to know how much better it is when you aren’t drinking.
Don’t you think #2 will get to the goal (i.e. the husband to stop/cut down on his drinking) waaaay better than #1? And it is because it is not a personal attack.
I should correct this. The OP misstated his sanction as a “suspension.” He was obviously not suspended, since he is still posting. Jonathan Chance instead banned him from posting in Great Debates and Politics and Elections for one month. That is the kind of sanction we have been looking at for posters most of whose offenses have been in few forums or on a few subjects.
