Kobal 2 should not be suspended

First, all you guys could drag up was two posts. No one has been suspended after this small an amount of warnings.

Second, one of the warnings shouldn’t even have been a warning, as Richard Parker correctly points out. It was intemperate, but it was an accurate summation of the previous poster’s logic. Mod note at most.

Finally behold this guy:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18421135&postcount=142

This is the poster you want, while Kobal2 isn’t. Is this really making sense to you?

ETA:
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
May your suspension be filled with good whiskey and your preferred sex partners, Kobal2.
[/QUOTE]
I concur.

Well, clearly I disagree. That first one. The one with the repeated use of variations of the word ‘nigger’ would be enough to earn him a suspension in my eyes. I don’t care what a poster thinks justifies that…that poster is mistaken in a huge and ludicrous way.

You need to look up the use-mention distinction.

OK, in case that wasn’t clear, Kobal2 wasn’t calling Black People niggers. He was distilling his opinion of the logic behind davida03801’s argument. You know that right?

It’s like giving a warning to someone who quotes Huckleberry Finn, or lists “nigger” in a list of common racial slurs.
But yes, I disagree.

First point: I agree that two warnings in four months isn’t enough to deserve a suspension. Maybe there were others you didn’t list?

Second point: Both warnings were justified.

He was not warned for saying nigger, but for a personal attack on another poster. The fact that he falsely accused the other person of saying the word. That’s nothing like a discussion of the works of Twain, who actually did use it.

He attacked the poster’s argument, which is fair play hear.

Sorry, let me be more clear. He didn’t accuse the other poster of saying 'nigger." That would be a silly thing to accuse him of, since anyone could see he said no such thing. He merely meant that that was what his argument boiled down to. It was intemperate, and a standard note of “cool down” would have been appropriate. But people attack other posts all the time and don’t draw warnings.

Look, Jonathan, after a few deep breaths, let me try to understand. You are upset by the word “nigger.” Good. You should be. But you can’t use your immediate visceral reaction to a hateful word to warn everyone who is using it. Please look at the context in which it is used.

Also I’d point out that Kobal2 is one of the strongest anti-racists here, especially in countering attacks on Muslims and Arabs.

I think that the ‘nigger’ post was definitely egregious, and certainly calling someone a jackass outside of the Pit is a warning offense, but two warnings shouldn’t be grounds for a suspension. There has to be more to this than that, especially for a veteran and well liked poster like Kobal2.

It does seem odd to me, too. If it had been two warnings close together, that would have made a bit more sense. But going back to February?

And the one in February…I can see why he got warned. He did repeatedly call someone a jackass. I also kinda see why he did. In the post he was responding to, the statement was “you brought up Uganda, and I just knew some jackass was going to bring up Uganda” (paraphrasing of course). Yes, the first post was within the rules, and the response was assuredly not. But I can see why he responded the way he did. Just not the wisdom of it, with the rules in place.

ETA - I do see that the other party was also warned. Never mind then.

It was, as JC said, “putting words into his mouth.” That would be bad enough. I’ve been the victim of that many times, and IMHO it should be enough for a knock-it-off at the very least. But when the word inserted into someone else’s mouth is nigger, definitely that should be a warning.

Too bad the readers aren’t smart enough to draw their own conclusions about whether comparisons are apt or not. Better to just ban all the people giving us thinky-pains.

Well, I don’t know if Kobal2 likes whisky, but I hope he’ll enjoy some time outdoors (the weather is about perfect right now!) and be back.

Rules clarification requested.

As of say 2009, suspension was ordinarily a last chance thing, though there were a couple of exceptions. Is that still the case? Because typically suspensions involve more than 2 warnings. I perceive a shift in standards and I’d like to know what the mods thoughts are on this. If they are intentionally tightening matters, then it would be nice if they said so. If they think this is SOP, then please consider this post a friendly heads up.

I note there may have been some unfortunate PMs that I am not aware of.

Typically, the second instance would have been accompanied with an admonishment advising the poster that this was the second warning in four months and that any further hanky-panky would result in a review of posting privileges.

Two and out seems unusually abrupt.

Kobal2’s suspension is freaking ridiculous. A whopping 2 warnings in four months and a generally well-regarded poster gets suspended? Especially one who fights strongly against anti-Islam and anti-Arabic bigotry, as Larry Borgia mentioned?

Meanwhile, posters who repeatedly post hateful, bigoted crap but don’t direct it to fellow posters don’t get so much as a mod note. Something about the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law seems appropriate here.

There’s is the possibility of being TOO much of an “anti-racist”, seeing racism where it doesn’t exist. And then claiming the person is saying nothing other than “nigger”. That post was so far beyond the pale that I agree with JC in that it could be grounds for suspension in and of itself. That’s not being an “anti-racist”, that’s being a jerk.

Its ridiculous. Beyond the pale. Why do good posters get banned/suspended, while hateful bigoys continue to thrive?

True. It’s not the case here, but the quoted statement is true.

Depends on what they’re bigoted against.

They wanna say nasty things against blacks or Muslims, they’re given a lot of discretion.

They wanna say nasty things about Jews, they’re given fairly broad discretion but are kept on a considerably tighter leash.

Anyway, I won’t dispute the warning, but I’ll definitely question giving a guy a suspension for just two warnings in the space of four months.

“A predictable result of relaxing policing policies. Anyone with common sense understands why.”

I don’t see any intrinsic racism in that statement. Translating that as “nigger, nigger…” is what is beyond the pale.