Can you explain why this deserves a warning as an insult?

About This Message Board
21

Yes, this board is great about “political jabs”. It’s terrible on other topics, misogyny, bullying, misgendering or asking out-of-line questions of trans gender posters… While some improvements have been made the moderation crew seems (in my opinion) to be hypersensitive to political things and oblivious to other forms of insult and abuse. It’s been a long-standing problem around here.

I complained for years about bullying but was gaslighted and told no, that’s not happening. I was just imaging it. No one else saw it. Not happening. Until I started getting PM’s and e-mails telling me to kill myself. Oh, wow, maybe I was right… So yeah, since then I have viewed the moderation on this board with a great deal of suspicion. And presumption of bias.

Nothing odd about it. If I stay here I have to play by the rules (assuming those are communicated) even if I don’t agree with all the rules. It’s no different that all those years Ed has restrictions on language in the Pit I considered absolutely absurd for that forum - I didn’t agree with them, but I did obey the rule as given.

I’ll just take pains to avoid anything political outside the Pit since it’s clear that any other path for me is likely to be hazardous.

And then I said I would have to live with it even if I still think it was capricious but, as I said, I don’t have to agree with the mods or their rulings.

This board has a three-strikes and your out policy, doesn’t it? Or did that get changed? Because that definitely was the rule when I signed up and if it’s changed I’m not aware of it. I do know that warnings are cumulative and never ever go away, so something I did 19 years ago could be used against me since it’s on my “permanent record”

And that’s what I mean - I have multiple warnings now so I’m one of the “defective” posters. No matter how far in the past those never go away so basically I’m screwed. Going forward the mods are going to look, say, oh, she’s got multiple warnings, she’s a bad person, and react to that. So yes, I’m expecting to get more and more because of bias and eventually be booted out.

I mean, I had the exact same post in one thread moderated TWICE. Two separate moderators called me out on that. What’s next, getting two official warnings for each transgression?

The one and only time I deliberately insulted a poster outside the Pit was the warning I got for insulting curlcoat which I owned up to. Every other time I really really did not intend to transgress. But according to you I should have known better so… what’s the conclusion here? I’m stupid? I’m deliberately seeking warnings? What?

I don’t usually participate in these threads because I realize what the mods say is reality here and what I say is unlikely to have any impact. Why I’m doing it now I’m not entirely sure. I guess I just need to finally say something even if that gets me another scolding.

And - just to wrap this up - if a warning IS reversed why does it stay on a poster’s record at all? That doesn’t make sense. If they didn’t do anything wrong why does the stain remain?

22

No. We don’t have any three-strikes policy. We take every case individually. Some people get banned with no warnings at all. Some rack up huge numbers of warnings and don’t get banned.

What you do after the warnings makes a huge difference. If you keep doing the same thing that got you warned, then you will likely continue to be warned and may end up banned from it. On the other hand, if you stop doing the behavior that got you warned, those older warnings become less of an issue.

Because that’s the way the board software works. If we reverse a warning, it still shows up on your infractions tab on your profile, but it shows that it has been reversed. Note that only you and moderators/admins can see it.

Reversed warnings aren’t counted against you in any way and we ignore them in moderator discussions. It’s not really a stain on your record at that point. A reversed warning isn’t a warning.

23

What’s odd is that they suddenly were able to comply with the rules even though they complained that they were impossible to understand.

It wasn’t the rule when you joined up, and has never, ever been the rule. And I don’t know how you could have been around so long without learning that, as we have repeatedly said, warnings become less significant the longer in the past they are. No, something you did 19 years ago would not be held against you.

If a poster amasses a certain number of warnings in a short period of time (six months to a year, generally) then they are likely to find their posting privileges discussed in the mod loop. There is no fixed number of warnings that results in a suspension or banning. We take into account the frequency and severity of the offenses, and whether a poster seems to be learning from their mistakes or just ignoring us.

I’m not sure why you are continuing to play the martyr when I’ve already explained to you that one recent warning is not going to put you at risk of banning. You are seriously overreacting. I looked at your {few} warnings and concluded you were not a “bad person,” or at risk of banning. That’s unlikely to change unless you greatly change your behavior in the future.

Again, you’re playing the martyr. It’s already been explained to you, by both me and ecg, that he issued a note against the same post I did because he didn’t see that I had already moderated it. It was a mistake; you weren’t being singled out.

I can’t explain why a poster of such long standing tells us that you don’t understand some basic rules. But the reason isn’t important, as long as you learn from your mistakes.

That’s just the software we use for the automatic warning system. It permits us to reverse a warning, but not to completely remove it. In any case, we document everything. We don’t even hard delete spam posts -they’re still in the system, just invisible.

24

Posters definitely have had more than three warnings and not been banned.

A mod can address this more definitely, but I’ve seen the explanation that recent warnings are looked at more carefully than ones from the distant past.

25

Maybe some people have that problem. I might *disagree *with a rule or policy around here, but disagreeing is not the same as “impossible to understand”.

Then I was wrong about that - it’s not like I spend a lot of time following what’s going on with banned posters or seeking a way to game the system. That’s actually a relief to know.

26

Which a mod had already addressed ::smack::

27

There have been times where I’ve seen something that was stated to be a personal insult that I didn’t think was. But this is not one of them. It’s pretty clear. If your statement is “You are [bad thing],” that is a personal insult. Changing it to “People like you,” which inherently includes “you,” doesn’t change that. So both statements are insults.

That said, I don’t think it does anyone any favors when a mod says that something is so obvious they won’t explain it. If something is obvious, that means it will be trivial to explain. You might as well spell it out, so that no one can then complain you’re being unfair.

Especially for mods in GD. In debates, claiming something is “obvious” without explaining how is a common rhetorical technique to try and get something non-obvious treated as fact. I think the mods when moderating should at least strive to avoid the same fallacies that would make for bad debates.

It’s part of a pattern that Broomstick mentions–of assuming people are violating the rules on purpose, when, 99% of the time, they just got heated or didn’t realize the full implications of what they said. I 100% believe, for example, that the OP didn’t understand why what he said was an insult. If the mods would spell it out, then the poster no longer has any excuse.

Reality is that, even if something is obvious to you, it isn’t always obvious to everyone else. I don’t know how many times that has bit me in the ass, which is why I tend to over-explain. I’d rather be seen as annoying pedantic or “stating the obvious” than be misunderstood due to not sharing the same mind as the other person.

As for the posts that aren’t actually personal insults? Those are when the poster clearly followed the rules and insulted the post, deliberately avoiding saying anything bad about the person, and the mod still treats it like a personal attack. If, for example, the OP had used my wording of “ideas like that are why racism continues to exist” and got a Warning for that, it wouldn’t matter that I completely disagree. I would be right there with them protesting the Warning.

But that didn’t happen.

And if you made it through that entire post, congrats. I know I’m long winded.

28

How does one get on the Russian troll payroll? I need to supplement my income, since the Pharma and Monsanto* $hillbuck checks keep getting delayed.

*actually it’s Bayer now, but they’re not sending me the promised money either. :frowning:

29

The mods are always saying that they back each other’s decisions, so my understanding is that if I can’t convince the original mod that I did not in fact break the rules the warning stands. Once a thread is moved to another forum how is there an appeal? The first mod says “the thread is moved, it’s not my problem anymore”. The second mod says “I’m not changing someone else’s moderation”. So… no one wants to discuss it, the decision is final, right?

Nevermind, I’m not pursuing it further because I understand that even if I disagree with the mods they’re the ones in charge and not me. If the positives of being here outweigh the negatives I’ll stay, if they don’t I’ll go. If a warning every half dozen years is not going to get me booted I’ll just put up with it.

30

There’s also the “ha-ha I was just kidding” problem.

Someone says something blatantly cruel and then says “just kidding”, “just joking”, “that was sarcasm”. Can’t get out of the penalty for a “political jab” with that but you can get out of wishing suffering and death on someone by doing that.

That’s what I mean by inconsistent moderation - calling someone a “republitard” or “democrap” is judged a greater offense than doing something extremely hurtful, or wishing direct harm on someone. The only place the “don’t be a jerk” guideline is followed seems to be the political threads.

Although I will say the most egregious example of absolute crap moderation was eventually dealt with… but I don’t know if I’m allowed to discuss something that wound up in the cornfield.

31

I know the second paragraph largely makes the first redundant (and for the record, although I don’t always agree with you, I hope you stick around as a poster), but my understanding of the ‘appeal’ process is that if you remain unsatisfied having PMd the mod who gave you the warning, you can open a thread in ATMB to dispute the warning (as here, for example). Now, it is true that quite often other mods will simply agree with the original decision, but in my experience that is because in the vast majority of cases the original decision was correct, or at least not unreasonable. However, there have been instances where the original mod has, on consulting privately with other mods, reversed their decision and apologised. So no, not all decisions are final. I believe even ‘permanent’ bannings have been rescinded, although this is extremely rare (and there may not have been any recent cases, since I recall a mod saying that whenever they have tried this in the past, the problem poster has reverted to problem behaviour within a few months and been re-banned anyway).

32

I’ve been telling you for years that you can’t trust those crooked bastards! :smiley:

33

By all means bring up old grudges! They can only help us to understand the current discussion.

34

you clearly are doing it wrong, I’m getting mine no problem.

Didn’t you read the fine print?

35

Moderator Note

This thread has been expanded enough from its original topic already.

This also comes across as a bit disingenuous. ATMB is for resolving issues. If you are here because you think pouring gasoline on fires is fun, then you have no business whatsoever in this forum. I don’t hand out many warnings in ATMB because I want people to post freely here without fear of being sanctioned, but intentionally stirring the pot is one thing that I will give out warnings for.

36

:confused: But OP didn’t say “people like you are racist.” He wrote “People like you are why racism can continue to exist.” I tried to hint at the difference in #11. I am astounded that apparently only I and the OP even understand this distinction.

Seriously. Set aside the specific question of OP’s guilt, if any. Isn’t it clear that the statement is NOT an accusation of racism, nor is it a true insult? I am disappointed in all of you if you can’t see that.

37

“People” is the plural of “person,” and “personal” is the adjective form of “person.” All that’s changed is the number and part of speech.

You’re not supposed to engage in personal attacks.

Any sentence that begins “People like you” is as indisputibly personal as a sentence can get. And when you’re finishing the sentence with something bad, it’s a personal attack.

Drawing daylight between “are racist” and “are why racism can continue to exist” is irrelevant. Both are bad things. Both are personal attacks.

38

This is entirely correct. The best course to take is to first contact the mod who issued the warning and discuss it with them in a civil fashion. (Being irate or abusive is as likely to be productive as cursing out the cop who gave you a traffic ticket, however.;)) I have reversed warnings sometimes when contacted privately.

Mods will regularly cross check one another by asking for feedback on whether a particular post deserves a warning or not, even in the absence of a poster protesting it. Sometimes the other mods will suggest walking it back or turning it into a note.

If the poster is still not satisfied with the result, then they may take it to ATMB. Most complaints of this type are not upheld, because the poster was in fact guilty of the offense they were warned for. However, sometimes warnings have been rescinded on the basis of such feedback; I have done so myself. So saying “there is no appeal” is false.

39

You’re right.

I didn’t see the second page. I got 2 from Marley 10 years ago.

The warnings seem pretty random to me. I can’t see a consistent standard and my inability to see that standard probably means that I will get banned because I can’t make heads or tails of it.

40

I think he’s commenting on the lack of consistency. You don’t have to be the victim to see the problem.