Perhaps you could try anyway. Because I don’t think ‘how it was used’ is really the best description here, since it wasn’t used as hate speech. Kobal2 didn’t call anyone a nigger. Is it because he called someone a racist, in so many words?
Of course, he didn’t call someone a racist “in so many words.” He attributed extremely racist sentiments to another poster using extremely offensive words.
You can’t isolate the elements of the post, and say that it was moderated for just one of them. The post has to be taken as whole. Saying that it was just about the use of “nigger” or just about accusing another poster of racism misses the point.
No, BigT, no. You see, it isn’t that he word the used ‘nigger’, because that’s allowed. It isn’t that he used it as hate speech, because he didn’t. It isn’t that he called the preceding post racist, since that’s allowed. It isn’t that he ‘put words in the mouth’ of the prior poster, since, you know, there’s no rule against that. It’s an inarticulatable combination of all of the above, plus perhaps a dash of ‘being a jerk!’ I hope this is all clear to you now.
Although you are being sarcastic, yes, that’s correct. That’s pretty much what “it depends on context” means. (And of course, it’s not inarticulable, since you’ve articulated it.)
I’m not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
I think you’re missing the point of his sarcasm, which was to suggest that if all the parts are invalid on their own terms then it is hard to see how banding them together makes them valid.
The answer isn’t to object that he doesn’t understand the concept of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. The answer is to say that what makes those individual parts insufficient is not that they aren’t inherently problematic, but that they do not rise to the level of a problem on their own. They are each 1/3 of a warranted warning. So when you get three or four of them, a warning is warranted.
At least I think that’s basically your reasoning and his.
No, I do mean the result is more than the sum of its parts. That’s how language works.
Trying to reduce this to some mathematical formula, that each component is worth some fraction of a warning, misses the point just as much.
This isn’t algebra, it’s, y’know, the English language.
Bienvenue! Or I guess, bienvenue encore! Is that how one says, “welcome back”? Doesn’t really matter, it’s not really an expression I’ll ever have to get right.
I’m just glad there’s someone here who can answer my questions about French gov’t, culture, and history. Well, I mean who can answer my questions intelligently. (God knows there’s no shortage of posters offering inanities when a question is raised.)
But to the two posters who linked to the same wiki page on French help in the American Revolution, no duh! Everyone knows that. Saturday morning cartoons and Schoolhouse Rock! taught all of us:
At Yorktown the British could not retreat,
Bottled up by Washington and the French Fleet,
Cornwallis surrendered, and finally we had won! Hooray!
–from “The Shot Heard 'Round The World”
But that still isn’t going to stop me from chanting, “USA! USA!! USA!!!”
[QUOTE=billfish678]
I liked the part where you ended up kicking yourself in the nuts.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you know how it is. You want to try that neat trick you once saw on cable TV at 3 in the morning, next thing you know you’re in the ER unable to sit down but incapable of explaining exactly why to the nice young nurse.
That’s… sailing right past the point I was making.
Namely, that there’s really no distinction or nuance to find there, and in fact the pervasive notion that there is is the very thing that pisses me right off. You can’t be kindasortalil’bit racist on the sides. It’s not OK to be racist just because you’re not actively clamouring for blacks to be lynched. It’s not more socially acceptable to hint at racism in guarded tones. It’s not less hateful or stupid to earnestly (or mindlessly) support “mundanely” racist policies that are less dramatic or theatrical than a burning cross. It’s all on the level of niggerniggernigger, and it should all bring about the same shock or indignant contempt.
But, again, I’ll readily admit that I jumped the gun, the gunman *and *his horse in this particular case, that I was wrong to interpret that post that way with so little to go on, and in any case I was also wrong to blow my top about it instead of just rolling my eyes.
That’s why I said “otherwise non-offensive poster”, to skip the trolls, spammers, and socks.
[Quote]
In any case, you are in error about precedent on this matter. Just over a month ago another poster was suspended for a week for a particular post. This poster had fewer other warnings than Kobal2.
But some other warnings, just like Kobal2 had some other warnings.
Previously, folks have tried to suggest using suspensions in the way Jonathan Chance was suggesting: an otherwise good poster with clean history gets a suspension to get his attention. This was resisted on the grounds that the board reserves suspension as a last ditch effort for someone on the path to banning, not as a stepping stone of punishment levels.
If I am misunderstanding what Jonathan meant, he can clarify. But what he said was that one post was worthy of suspension, and a month long one at that (our was it 3 months - I’m not certain), without any other posts taken into consideration. I don’t believe that is consistent with how moderation has been done in the modern era, “case by case decision” not withstanding.
It was one month. I initially thought it was to be three when I read my suspension notice, due to a date formatting mix-up.
Well, if you Europeans would use the good and natural date formatting we use in the US, perhaps those misunderstandings wouldn’t happen!!
Use metric dates.
As long as you’re all being technical, and going so far back,Kobal2 was banned in the Marleygate event. We shant forget that.
I wot ?
Metric dates! Genetically modified to be a perfect 10 x 10 x 10 mm cube! Packs better than any other type of date, so more date-filled goodness per easily-stackable box. Order them by the kilo! That’s 10 rows of 10 columns 10 high of 10x10x10 metric dates! Mega bursts of taste! Yotta try them!
Don’t feel bad, I was banned then too.
This argument about “dog whistles” and whether they are dog whistles, or how we go about proving they are dog whistles, etc. misses the point. A thread might go as follows:
Poster 1: <argument>
Poster 2: Politely, sir, I respectfully suggest that your statement is merely a dog whistle.
Poster 1: No, it isn’t because…
Poster 2: Yes, it is because…
<thread derailed over whether Poster 1’s original comment was a dog whistle>
As I said earlier, the implication that another poster is hiding his true racist agenda by the use of code words is an ad hominem attack which does not refute his position, nor does it contribute to the topic of the thread. Whether that is done politely or with racial epithets, it is nothing more than a personal insult.
I’m not concerned with the method by which one pollutes GD with personal attacks, but by the fact that the topic is now derailed by an insult towards the prior poster. Just argue the facts without impugning motive behind them. Suppose that the prior poster IS, in fact, the grand cyclops of the KKK. The position he is advocating should be debated on its own merits without resorting to insulting him. There is another forum for the insults that such poster would so richly deserve.
Why not keep GD about actual debates on the merits of the position?
Some trolls make a series of unoffensive posts before revealing themselves. Trolling is potentially an instaban offense, regardless of previous behavior. Likewise hate speech, if particularly severe, could be an instaban offense.
He had one previous warning, from 2011. That was effectively off the books. The fact that he had no recent warnings was taken into account in deciding for a suspension of only a week. Kobal2 had many more warnings and more recent ones.
We do occasionally use short term suspensions of a few days to two weeks for offenses we don’t feel merit a full month, or in cases where a poster is having a meltdown and we feel he or she needs a time out. After discussion in the mod loop and review of his record it was decided to reduce Kobal2’s suspension.
This doesn’t mean that we might not impose a one month suspension or even a banning for a sufficiently offensive post.
It works for watermelons, there’s no sense in not standardizing the model !
This is an excellent point. Basically, by doing so, you’re attacking the poster instead of the post.