It would be foolish to dismiss that possibility. Most women’s sports are a significantly different product.
That bias exists does not mean it is a monocausal factor, or even the most important single factor. Likewise, someone who believes that bias is a relatively insignificant factor in this case is not burdened with also believing that bias does not exist, which was your own particular contribution to excluding the middle.
The topic-ban is definitely a move in the right direction; thanks! But to look at posts in that thread–including Helena’s angry response to your bad ruling–and decide that the only person who needs a warning is Helena? Come on. That doesn’t make our board a better place, it just feels like a retaliatory warning.
That’s exactly what it feels like. We get it, she shouldn’t be arguing in thread. But to say she “asked for a warning” was a misrepresention of what she said and smacks of punishing the whistleblower.
Even if you felt obligated to warn her on principle, the swipe was unnecessary.
That’s nice, but this:
Do we not have a rule against being a jerk? I would think “a clear pattern” of naked misogyny violated that rule in warnable fashion.
And also, I agree with LHoD and ITD that warning Helena feels wrong, especially worded like that.
If ever there was a time for the Millerian “No Warning Issued”, it was then.
I took “taken by itself” to mean that the post alone wasn’t warnable, so there’s no clear pattern in the post itself.
I honestly don’t understand this ruling. I mean, the topic ban is great and all, but no warning… because misogyny (still?) isn’t against the rules? Misogyny or not (and it’s definitely not in the “or not” category here), his post was at the very LEAST threadshitting, which so far as I know is against the rules.
Just because casual misogyny is somehow “okay” by board rules (it shouldn’t be) does not mean that threadshitting should suddenly become okay just because it happened to involve misogyny as well. This isn’t merely narrowly enforcing the rules as written, it’s giving special exemptions to people who also happen to be misogynists because… I don’t know why, frankly. You have, in effect, narrowly enforced one rule against @helena330 for a comment provoked by a misogynistic threadshit on the one hand, but allowed an exemption to another rule for misogynists on the other.
If there’s a clear pattern, then the latest example of said pattern should be warnable if it’s bad enough to cause a topic ban. Straws, camel’s backs, etc.
I get the sense that Chronos felt the topic ban was punishment enough, but personally, I feel every topic ban should come with an automatic warning, as well. Permanent record and all that…
Since the Mods take giving out a (formal) warning so terribly serious. I do not feel the warning for @Helena330 is in proportion to the offence. I think this is giving someone who is obviously (even you Mods acknowledged it) trolling a win.
I also find the topic ban too narrow. Female athletes? Because we are all just dying to know his position on trans athletes?
A topic ban is usually the last attempt to “redeem” a poster before an outright ban. You are arguing that someone get a parking fine after the judge confiscated his drivers license and his car.
I get the misogyny issue, and definitely agree. But how was it threadshitting? The question was what is the best and worst of the Olympics. He wrote that for him, the women’s sports were the worst. Its clearly misogynistic, but on point with the topic.
Just to note:
dalej42 did get a warning. It was for his other even more recent and more blatant misogynistic post.
No, I’m arguing that you should at least put points on the licence.
I don’t especially care whether dale gets a warning or a topic ban or a total ban, as long as the misogyny stops. I don’t want him to go away mad.
And, I dunno, the warning for Helena is a bad one, but I don’t know if she even cares, so I’ve said my bit on that.
That warning for Helena was fucking horrendous and an embarrassment. Totally tone deaf. What the fuck? Did the entire staff agree with that?
She violated a clear and explicit rule. That is a mandatory warning. You want to dispute a ruling? Here is the place to do it and no other. Just as you did.
Since when are any warnings “mandatory”? What happened to moderator discretion?
Do I have to do a search for posters who were just mod-noted the first time they disputed a ruling outside ATMB, or can we take it as a given that this is not, in fact, true?
It was pretty cut and dry. I fully sympathize with her but she knows the rule and made her protest knowing it would get a warning. She should have done as LHOD did.
Could you maybe cut us a little slack here please.
Giving (or defending) counterfactual rationales for warnings is not going to earn you any slack.
Not when we’ve all posted here for years and have all seen people merely mod-noted for disputing moderation outside ATMB. It makes any talk of “mandatory warnings” just look hastily post hoc and, yes, retaliatory. That she did it deliberately is a factor, but so should be the inflammatory nature of the offense she was objecting to.
FWIW I thought the topic ban but no warning was a good call. And I get the warning against Helena too, albeit regretfully.
Sorry - was that too nice for this forum? I could call Chronos a nogoodnik if it would help.
This is utterly false. People dispute moderation outside without getting a Warning all the time. That is the norm. The usual moderation is a mod note saying to take it to ATMB.
This is, in fact, exactly why the Warning seems targetted. She violated one rule, the one about disputing moderation, which does not normally get a Warning, and violated no other rule. It seems she was singled out.
And, FYI, this is what I was going to post before. I had a longer, less confrontational version. But surely I should not have to say that moderators should be beholden to the truth.
It is absolutely untrue that disputing moderation is a mandatory Warning.
I’ll reiterate what I said- I can see giving the warning, (though the mandatory part is a bit of a puzzlement). I was the petty swipe and the implication she was asking for it that pushed it over the edge. No sense of “Helena, you were right. I gotta ding you for arguing it here, though”