But how does one know “how close” you are to a definite banning? I mean, I made a mistake when I first started posting here - I wasn’t clear on a rule. Another thread was closed because it “seemed” to be asking for unhealthy advice, despite my protestations and clarifications otherwise.
So…am I now on a hit list? Do I have to watch what I say to anyone? How far is too far? What subjects for ME are taboo? Evidently, for reeder it was Bush, and perhaps it was wrong forum posting. But now the “hit list” thing has me a little paranoid. reeder was actually one of those long-standing members that I felt I knew where it was going, but it didn’t seem dangerous. Now how can I know if it is?
I don’t know, but wouldn’t it be nice to know where you stand in the “potential” list?
Respectfully,
Inky
PS - I can’t vouch for this, but perhaps reeder posted in the wrong forae because he hoped the discussion wouldn’t train wreck. ANYTHING’s possible.
For those who continued to enjoy Collounsbury’s expletive-strewn but clearly exceptionally well-informed and informative first-hand view of the Middle East in his LiveJournal, note that it is moving elsewhere soon.
There is no hit list. There is a record of cumulative warnings that are reviewed for frequency, egregiousness of violation, pattern of disruption, and willingness to respond to staff intervention. That is all taken into consideration when reviewing a member who has come to the staff’s attention because of particular recent behavior. Generally, when we review a history, if we find a single incident from a few years ago, we are liable to ignore it–particularly if it is different in context from more recent warnings (for example, an inappropriate link followed by years of good behavior followed by a series of raging outbursts in GQ).
There are no subjects that are taboo to you unless you have been explicitly warned to avoid them (as handy was warned to stop giving medical advice). Note that Reeder was not told he could not discuss President Bush. The general topic was open to him. He was told to stop posting one-line snark about Mr. Bush with a link and no actual discussion. (Even there, you will note that his final thread did not get him banned immediately. Part of what was taken into consideration were his content free responses to the first couple of posters who responded to the thread. At any event, he was banned for a pattern of behavior, not for breaking a single rule.)
Too far? A threat or an attempt to damage the board is too far, instantly. Beyond that, once you have posted enough to demonstrate that you are not here for the sole purpose of spamming or trolling, you will know what is “too far” because we will issue warnings asking you to pull back from the edge. Reeder was given several warnings and was provided a suspension before suspensions were part of policy and continued to repeat the behavior for which he was warned.
That comment made me do a double take too–I believe Istara ment geographical position and was specifically referring to Collounsbury; check out his or her location field.
It’s difficult. You have to decode arcane, cryptic messages from moderators like the last one that **Reeder **got. I think it went something like: “this is your final warning.” I know that the word “final” can be very confusing. Many people apparently think it means “not final”.
