Seconded.
I don’t see why rescinding would make sense. Shodan eventually denied he was trolling, but he’s never given any indication that he was posting sincerely; at best he was engaged in a sarcastically contemptuous paraphrase of what he believes his opponents believe in an attempt to make them look bad, a lazy post almost designed to derail a thoughtful discussion into an angry denunciation (full credit to AHunter for not rising to the bait).
So now lazy posts are worth a warning? Lazy sarcastic posts? There are going to be a lot of warnings going on. Or else the SDMB is going to change a great deal. Some of us come here for the sarcastic lazy posts!
Lazy Post?
Shit…dead man posting here…
Maybe. maybe not. I mean, sure, I can see the distinction you’re making, but I can also see someone writing a quick message board post in a thread that will be forgotten in a month or less using “decide” in place of “self-identify.”
It’s not obvious to me or to other people.
Again the thread was not discussing transgenderism in general. The OP of that thread posted an unnecessarily cumbersome (IMO, of course) way of discussing a person’s gender:
Shodan responded with:
I suppose “Whatever you self-identify as” would have been more nuanced, but I can’t see anything close to a rules violation, even the general “don’t be a jerk” rule. Shodan may or may not support the trans rights movement. It wouldn’t surprise me if he doesn’t. But he said nothing in that thread that wasn’t a response to the OP. At worst it’s snarky, but if snarky replies to ill-conceived OP’s are warnable most of the board should have been banned in 2003.
At most it deserved a mod note. And really, not even that.
I don’t agree with your analysis, but taking it as it is: “Almost designed to derail thoughtful discussion”? Almost? That deserves a warning? Seems like that is exactly where a mod note is appropriate.
And he never gave any indication that he was posting sincerely, therefore we assume he was not! Burn the witch!!
This wouldn’t be the first Mod Warning that was handed out on the SDMB (and not rescinded) for something that didn’t happen.
True, but there is a pretty significant matter of precedent here, too.
I’d guess that part of the interpretation was based on his having admitted he enjoys trolling the board with his signature and has learned to do it just within the line of board rules.
Beyond that just do a google search for something like “sdmb trans shodan” and you can find quite a few threads over the years where he dropped a one line turd in the thread - I guess what he considers to be a witty quip, but clearly it is a means of expressing his disdain for the recognition that gender issues recieve in modern times.
With the signature, despite it being a jerk by many interpretations, the mods can’t really do much since on its face it’s just a signature.
But with one line dismissals of threads they are within their powers to call it out as trolling or threadshitting even if one possible interpretation is that on its face it’s just a ‘lazy’ or un-nuanced post.
Whether it was trolling or just threadshitting, the bottom line is he posted another one-liner in a thread about gender issues and got close enough to the line that it drew a warning this time.
Mods aren’t bound to let things slide on a technicality - divining a poster’s intent is part of the job and past posting history probably has a lot to do with it in many cases.
One issue is that each post is not in a vacuum.
Shodan’s posting record on transgender issues is very easy to find and very well-known among many on here. He has consistently and persistently showed little but contempt and has made snide, baiting posts towards me and mine, almost always flying just under the warning line. And topical to this specific post, one of his specific “beefs” with people like me is he has expressed that self-identification of gender is something he does not believe in or support at best, and fraudulent at worst, if it does not align with chromosomal/physical makeup.
Moderators are not scripts nor bots. If they see someone posting a flip response with no other clarification in a gender identity-related thread, and they have a well-documented record on that subject…well, they get to use their judgment.
I personally cannot say I have 100% metaphysical certainty that the specific post was trolling or a snipe. I can say I’m 99.9% certain about it.
That being said, if I was a Moderator and saw it…I would have just left it. I appreciate very much that Ivory Tower Denizen was trying to clean up and look out for the SDMB, but I would ask humbly that they give Shodan a pass on this, because it just wasn’t clear enough, nor really offensive enough to be a real insult IMO. Honestly, he’s posted much worse about us, and probably will do so in the future.
I’m not a Moderator, just a poster. If the Mod loop is considering this issue at all, my humble opinion is that Shodan should be given a pass on this one. I’m not going to be broken up whichever way it plays out, just IMO.
The post only makes sense as a jab. It’s one line that adds nothing unless it is a jab.
Furthermore, the poster has a history of such jabs. Not only that, he has a history of transphobic posts, so we have no reason to believe his post was serious but written poorly. And, what’s more, he has a history of making transphobic jabs when people are trying to have a real conversation.
He has also admitted that he likes to tweak people, and has a history of doing so as close as he can get to the line without crossing.
And, finally, his behavior after the warning has been entirely defiant. He does not accept even the possibility that he offended anyone and needs to apologize. And, again, if you don’t apologize, you communicate that you intended to offend.
Given all that information, there is no reason to read his post as anything but a transphobic jab. And, given his past history, he is not entitled to any benefit of the doubt.
Shodan has been low-grade trolling this board for a while, and he finally crossed the line. Maybe this Warning would be a wake-up call that we know what he’s doing.
Well, not even that -
I have never given any indication, except where I said so. :smack: and 
It relates to what I said in my OP - part of the problem is that I didn’t flesh it out enough to show that I wasn’t trolling. So it was assumed that I was trolling. Then I flesh it out. And I am still assumed to be trolling. (Not by a mod, I grant you.)
I have had two of my previous three warnings rescinded after the mods reconsidered. Maybe this time too. It might be a gray area, but it doesn’t seem too dark a gray.
Regards,
Shodan
What is with all you guys admitting that he did the actual bad thing, but then saying he should not get punished for it? Is this a bizarro world? If you do the bad thing, you get the punishment. If you don’t, then you’ve just said the bad thing is not bad.
You have not apologized. That means you meant to offend.
And you can’t flesh out something after the fact. If you didn’t post it he first time, then it’s just covering your ass.
You are anti-trans. Thus you just had an alternate explanation in mind in case you got caught.
FWIW I appreciate this, as well as the responses from Bricker and John Mace and Larry Borgia and aldiboronti and some of the Usual Suspects[sup]TM[/sup] very much.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, they could rescind it then a chorus of “class act!” could ensue…
I believe that people post “sarcastically contemptuous paraphrase[s] of what [they] believe [their] opponents believe in an attempt to make them look bad,” very frequently, and I strongly doubt that the new practice of the board’s moderators will be to issue warnings for them all.
That suggests to me that Shodan got a warning because the political aspects of his presence here are disfavored; because “his opponents” in this case are liberal.
Which suggests a bias in the way the board is moderated, a claim typically hotly denied by the gentry here.
There is an element of asymmetry, but I don’t think it’s quite that “the political aspects of his presence here are disfavored.”
It’s that if you have a kind of aggravating circumstance for posts that get close to the line and also attack an oppressed identity, then you are going to net more conservatives than liberals. I think that’s probably a better explanation for what happened here than some anti-conservative bias. Of course, you’re free to argue that such a rule is itself biased against conservatives. But if it is, it is so in a rather more complex and defensible way than you suggest.
I’m not saying that implicit rule is a good idea. I don’t think it is. But I also think it’s more defensible than simple direct bias against conservative posters.
If the board starts modding this sort of lame-shit one-liner that comes across as a petulant attempt at snark, the board will only be better for it.
What’s the aggravating circumstance that you are discussing? If you mean “being a conservative”, then I don’t see how what you are saying is more complex or defensible than “conservatives are discriminated against”.
Maybe it doesn’t matter - ITD said that it was the specific words in the specific thread, not any general reputation.
Regards,
Shodan