IvoryTowerDenizen, this was poor modding

If the only response to this:

Is going to be this:

without a warning issued, then it’s clear all the talk about better moderation around misogyny was just that - talk.

I’ll also be honest that I found that one just a wee bit puzzling.

Here is one scholarly article linking violence by women to their menstrual cycle:


By demanding a warning for a sarcastic yet valid question, are you suggesting that PC concerns are more important than actual reality?

If you have to cite a journal article from 1971 I’m not sure how solid your argument is.

That completely setting aside, of course, the *utter *irrelevance of the article to the thread topic in question.

Not remotely going to take that obvious “PC concerns” bait, but do you think “since this discussion is all about women” serves as an indicator **UR **was posting with *any *sense of sincere inquiry? And that’s ignoring his general posting history around women…

1971, hot off the presses!

I didn’t notice the date but Einstein’s papers are much older. You are free to disregard them.

What did Einstein say about wimmenz?

Maybe a thread about the traumatic experience someone goes through with their daughter is not the right time for a menstruation joke. I don’t care if you can interpret it in an unreasonably charitable way by citing a 50-year-old research paper on the subject.

And I do say “unreasonably charitable”. This is the guy who bragged about sexual harassment. Let’s not even get started on how disturbing that context makes his posts in the #MeToo thread super sketchy.

“PC concerns”? Are you for real? It’s called basic tact. It’s like how “Are pit bulls more dangerous than other dog breeds?” is a valid question to ask, but the guy who tries to start that discussion in a thread where another poster is mourning the death of their beloved pit bull is being a gigantic asshole.

Warnings are not the only moderation tool we have. Mod notes are valid forms of moderation. I don’t feel the need to live up to an arbitrary standard about what counts as enough moderation to satisfy your expectation.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was asking a legit question, but in a clunky way. That has always been my style (erring on mod notes rather than warnings) and I’m ok with it. It was also consistent with my moderation in that thread.

So, an individual’s posting history doesn’t factor in?

If it were an otherwise decent (or new) poster, this might be relevant. There probably is a substantive issue here, and in the right context it could be discussed. One might give the benefit of the doubt, and simply treat it as a hamfisted way of raising the issue.

Given Urbanredneck’s history, what do you sincerely think is the probability that he was making a sincere attempt to raise a substantive issue for discussion?

Do you think posters should be given the benefit of the doubt on every single comment independently? It seems to me that “good” trolling is essentially the sum effect of a large number of comments, where comment each in isolation can be justified in exactly the way you are doing: there’s a real issue that gives a veneer of possible justification to the comment, and it could be seen as just tactless.

Undeservedly so.

Seriously, if mods are going to take every single post at face-value with no consideration of a poster’s posting history, we may as well get rid of mods altogether, and just employ some bots to scan threads for naughty words.

Seriously. Seriously.

But giving him yet another note for this behavior for the umpteenth time clearly isn’t changing his behavior. Given his long history of misogynist (and other bigoted) posts, he should be beyond the point where you give him the benefit of the doubt.

I know I’ve been against being overly reliant on past behavior for modding, but the opposite is a problem, too. It allows provocateur posters to regularly push as close as they can get to the line.

Normally I like your “err on mod notes” policy. But I think it does us a disservice in this case. Mod notes haven’t worked.

Agreed. Hell, most bans / suspensions are done taking into account someone’s history on the board, and not a single post. It’s (presumably) why mods link to a person’s moderated posts when they announce a suspension or a ban.

I assume this practice will now be discontinued, since the totality of a poster’s statements no longer matter. Just the one that is currently being modded.

This board has a huge blind spot when it comes to misogyny. They make some noise about doing better when people get upset, but they let it slip back. It’s just not an issue that they seem to care much about here.

I don’t think that has necessarily been established as a fact.



Tor be fair, there are studies that say the opposite, but it does not seem clear to me that it is definitely established that there is no relation between menstruation and BPD, at least not to the point that a mod can definitively state one way or the other.