No, not just because. She’s a woman, been in on this debate here from the beginning, has been modding a while, and doesn’t share your angry combative persona are all reasons for me to trust her judgment over yours on this matter.
Huh–Der Trihs was suspended for seven warnings that were listed and I know for a fact that there were more.
9 (NINE!!!) warnings may be a board record. Even Reeder didn’t get nine warnings.
So, yeah. You bragging about getting 9 warnings is relevant.
Not remotely.
Assuming this cryptic comment is directed at me, Bone seems to think it is relevant, and so did you when you suspended Der Trihs.
Why don’t you and Bone hash it out and get back to me on the official position. I’ll certainly comply.
Dude seriously, what the fuck is your problem? You need to retire your moderator hat.
Maybe we all need to take a chill pill. <-- Statement of personal opinion, not jr modding!
I think JC’s “not remotely” was in reference to nine warnings being a board record.
And aren’t you dying to know what the record is and who holds it?
I’ll admit it, I hold the board record for warnings. 37, I’m pretty sure. I humbly throw myself at the mercy of the Dope.
BAN HIM!!!
(just kidding ;))
I vote we keep you, and just add another “i” each time you get a warning.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii’m not sure that is a good idea.
Just use Roman numerals.
iiandyxxxviii
:smack::):p:D
Ha!
I don’t have much to add to this debate except to wonder if a bunch of guys taking over the thread to rehash ancient grudges with each other is really the best way to address misogyny on the board.
Since the question isn’t actually about misogyny, but about warnings and bannings and how harshly things should be modded, then yes. I think it’s entirely appropriate.
I vaguely recall the old SnarkPit digging someone up who had like 12 or 13, of which at least 2 or 3 were “last and final warnings”, and then posting the list under a sock account, but since I couldn’t find the thread, I didn’t count it. BigT’s nine warnings is the highest one I could find proof of.
PS–JC, if that’s what you meant, sorry for misunderstanding you.
I got distracted and didn’t have time to add this: since MrDibble’s implied rule in post 112 (Whoever states an opinion first is always right about it), I state categorically that ITD’s modding was absolutely correct, she modded wisely and well and that while there’s still misogyny on the board, ITD should be awarded a medal or something for her role in combatting it. And anyone who disagrees is wrong.
…you know exactly what I meant.
No *you *are.
No I do not. They are two distinctive things. It is both a poor argument and an argument from emotion.
Its a poor argument because its barely an argument. Its a conclusion. In order to reach your conclusion we have to make assumptions about IvoryTowerDenizen’s state of mind. Its a poor argument because you “don’t show your work.” Your OP was barely a sentence. You don’t show us how you reached your conclusion: you just stated it.
No it doesn’t. There is plenty of evidence that the mods are serious about moderating misogyny just as they claim. There has been an enormous shift in board culture over the last two years. Things that would not have been moderated in the past get moderated now. Things that may have been tolerated are no longer tolerated.
If, for the purposes of debate, we assume that the decision not to give a warning was “objectively wrong”: that still says nothing about the moderators commitment to moderating misogyny. This is a blip. You can’t show a pattern. To come to this conclusion you have to give IvoryTowerDenizen no benefit of the doubt. You have to assume the worst. And assuming the worst, especially in regards to the moderator in question, is not backed up by any of the evidence.
I disagree. It was a clueless post. It was obviously misogynistic. But was it “trolling?” *That *was the “line-call.” Trolling implies intent. The moderator has to make a decision: was this particular post a deliberate action posted to stir up trouble or just hopelessly tone-deaf? This is the key point: and this is why the assumptions you make in the OP are completely unwarranted.
You could posit an identical argument: " it’s clear all the talk about better moderation around **trolling **was just that - talk" over this same decision, and all the “evidence” that you’ve provided in this thread should come to the same conclusion you reached in the OP. Is that an opinion you hold as well?
Deciding that this particular post was not trolling says absolutely nothing about IvoryTowerDenizen’s commitment to dealing with misogyny on these boards. It says that the comment requires moderation, that it was obviously inappropriate for that particular thread, but that she didn’t think it warranted a warning. It doesn’t say that IvoryTowerDenizen no longer cares about an issue that she obviously cares passionately about, a subject that she has to deal with in ways that either you nor I will ever really be able to really understand.
They shouldn’t do this if they think you are wrong.
You could choose to accept that the moderators are not going to change their minds. You could stop accusing the mods of “not caring about misogyny.” You could stop impugning the motives of the person who has done more to combat misogyny on these boards than you will ever do.
Or not.
And it appears we can plainly see what you have chosen to do.
To clarify, It was in reference to the total number. We have several posters with greater. It was offered as an example of the practice taking poster history into consideration, which is always done and continues to be done.
Sometimes we take harsher action after fewer incidents, and sometimes greater. Depends on circumstances and context.
Me and JC are simpatico 