I agree with this. But the message was sent and received without the Warning being issued. Do you dispute that?
You’re confusing having a zero-tolrance policy for something occurring with having one remedy to fit all the situations in which the policy is ignored.
Treating the entire spectrum I described to you earlier as deserving of the same remedy is every bit as ridiculous as the principals who enforce the zero-tolerance policies without nuance. Many of them at least have a defense—that they are bound to do so by the school board and or the municipality. You? You could simply have advocated for a Note being sufficient. But no siree, Bob. You found an aspirin in the kids backpack and you sent him home for two weeks.
Great job. Man, none of the kids are gonna mess with that “No Calling Jews Vermin” policy now. And without it…well, I shudder to think of all the threads peppered with such language.
Yes, and it my view it makes it worse. It came after deliberation. If this were to happen I would have hoped that the post-deliberation consensus would have been: Well that was really offensive, especially to some, but he did intend it as a joke. We can be pretty sure about this because 1) he said it was and most posters thought it was too—albeit a really bad one, 2) the poster is Jewish himself, 3), there is zero history of him ever making any antis emetic remark before, even obliquely and 4) he apologized, and it seems to be very sincere about it.
After those facts are deliberated over, one would certainly hope that the outcome would be more measured than might have been delivered by a Mod in haste. Also, if I recall correctly, the action was initially moderated—correctly.
I do dispute that. I think a warning was the more appropriate response to that post.
We have more than one remedy. We didn’t feel a ban was needed, but we felt a warning was appropriate. Speaking personally I don’t think “Hey, don’t do that again” sends the right message.
This just isn’t a good comparison. There’s a lot more context in real life then there is on a message board and there are more extenuating circumstances. And of course the consequences in life are far more significant.
Yes, we could have- and we would have done that if we’d decided the response was sufficient. But when we discussed the issue as a group, we didn’t think it was sufficient.
If that’s the case, you don’t have to worry about the negative consequences that come from zero-tolerance policies.
And again, the issue is not that it’s a joke, but it was a beyond the pale offensive joke that deserved a stronger reaction than it initially got, which became clear after discussion.
Anyway, it’s clear your line is in a different place, and that’s your right. You’ve expressed your opinion, as is your right, but in this case your opinion fell on the other side of the line. However, I don’t think this is the board-defining, or terribly unique, incident that you seem to think it is.
Mags - you keep bringing up that BPC is Jewish himself as a mitigating factor here but A) he said clearly that his parents and grandparents are Jewish but that he himself was not (weird but whatever), and B) if he really is Jewish he should know better than to equate them with vermin, regardless of what makes his little buddies in Munich chuckle. In fact, being from alleged Jewish lineage and living in Germany, even as an American army brat or whatever, he should know these things even clearer than most.
At least that would be one less person perpetuating the type of thinking that is akin to those brilliant zero-tolerance policies in our schools.
Free tip: this is not what someone in a position of authority should be proud to put forth when asked about the motivation of someone he has power over:
[QUOTE=Marley]
I neither know nor care.
[/QUOTE]
Because when you do, you become that principal. And ti m ale matters worse, you do so by choice.
He said that he was Jewish. You don’t know that he is. A quick search shows that he has never mentioned it before. Just like a quick search shows no anti-semitism before. He could really be an anti-semite and he could really be Jewish. Personally, I don’t think that either one is true.
The staff does need to respond to stuff like this, so that’s not entirely true. At the end of the day, you’re complaining about something that I am sure you recognize is not allowed. If someone asked if the mods would be OK with calling Jews (or any similar group) vermin, as a poster of long standing I am sure you would say no. So complaining that we changed a note to a warning after people asked about it seems pretty trivial.
And while I don’t need to cast aspersions on Budget Player Cadet’s honesty…
I noticed that, too. It could be true, but it’s awfully convenient that it just came up now, so it’s not something we need to factor into our thinking on this issue. And you misread what he wrote in any case, magellan01. I’m done with this for now, so you can go play a different game for a while.
No. As I said, you have every right to let the Mods know if you think something is out of line. In fact, I’d say it is helpful to do so.
My problem is with the Moderating escalating to a Warning—after supposed thoughtful deliberation. And when it did, for those few posters who whined that it should be a Warning because the Mod note, well, that, that just isn’t enough!—they become the Offenderatti.
Given the circumstances—which we had the benefit of knowing before the Warning came down—a Mod note was the appropriate action, as the original moderation indicated. But you get enough whining buy the right people, and if that aligns with the sensibilities of some of the Mods, well, then we find ourselves in a situation like this, akin to those school zero-tolerance policies.
That would be me. I was the first to reply to the pit thread. I guess I’m just one of the offenderatti, despite the reasons it’s offensive to me. So BPC’s reasons should protect him, but my reasons are irrelevant and you can just toss around minimizing terms. It’s not nice to call names and minimize propels sincere beliefs.
Anyway, I’ve said my peace and I’m very happy with the outcome, not just for me personally, but because I think the board is a better place for the discussion and decisions that occurred.
Actually, no, not good for you. Because those things are very different. What’s the most reasonable reason for him to not have stated his religion. I’d say because it simply never came up. Many people on this board have probably never had cause to divulge their religion.
Now, what’s the most reasonable explanation for him never uttering anything even remotely anti-Semitic? Keep in mind he is an active poster and it can’t be said that he’s shy about putting forth what he thinks. So, what is the most reasonable explanation? Well, how about: he’s not anti-semitic!?
Or do you have a more reasonable explanation?
But, if I understand you, people are now to not only believe that he is truly an anti-semite, but he is a a stealth anti-semite and a liar to boot. All to have him fit into the “Jew Hater” box you built for him?
Well, lest your delicate sensibilities be plucked in the future, maybe you should suggest a new rule: The No Failed Edgy Humor Rule. Hmm. Maybe call it the Lenny Bruce Rule.
No, sorry. I explicitly said in that post and elsewhere that I don’t think that he is an anti-semite. Let’s try this again: I DON’T THINK THAT HE IS AN ANTI-SEMITE. I am very sure about that. Clear enough?
Separate from that, I think, though I am not nearly as sure, that he isn’t really Jewish but said that to try to mitigate what happened. I also think that it’s irrelevant if he is Jewish or not. It doesn’t make the comment any more or less offensive to me. He apologized and I accept the apology.
