Marley23, when you announce a banning, could you post links to the actual warning the person got, instead of links to the offending posts? This would be more helpful as instructive lessons to us peons, because it shows moderator actions, in response to offenses. Pointing to a troll’s wall-of-text doesn’t show us what specific part of said wall-of-text was the rule violation.
Wall-of-text posting isn’t a rule violation, and I’d rather not have to dig through one to try to find the violation. I don’t envy you in having to moderate those.
It’s just easier to link to the posts since we can access those from his profile, and you can always just scroll down to the warnings. Commissar’s warnings were:
Huh, I thought it was just me. I sent a report on the Sablicious announcement thinking it might have been in error–or that I might have been imagining things that it was typically the warnings that get posted, not the action.
Since there’s now a thread, I’ll comment that I too appreciate the links to the warnings, not just the offending posts. Oftentimes there is a bit of explanation in the mod post, and the warnings usually edit the offending post down just to the infraction.
While some links are more ‘here’s the evidence’ than ‘here’s what you need to do to avoid a warning’ or rules clarification, linking to the warning makes it easier to figure out what is what. Not that searching in-thread for '[warning] is too much trouble, but if it’s phrased as [modding] or other poster’s quote in-thread, it can get a bit messy.
So not a big deal, this is just the two cents of someone who doesn’t want to get back to work.
At least for me, the linking and the amount of explanation in the announcement of a ban or suspension is a function of how much spare time I have. I’m kind of busy, so the Commissar and Sablicious posts were short.
How are those posts from **Commissar **any different from what Der Trihs posts here every day and twice on Sunday re: Republicans, conservatives, Christians or, for that matter, Americans?
Der Trihs bothers some people because his views on religion and politics are extreme and he’s not shy about them. He doesn’t go out of his way to annoy people and then play dumb when called on it, which is what Commissar was donig.
Separate issue, but a good point. I don’t care if my thread gets hijacked over it, if you want to continue the discussion, here. My point has already been made. Or start a new thread, appropriately titled, as that might get you more responses.
I’m not sure I’m done. When I was a mod, we generally did post the warnings in a banning/suspension thread.
I’m assuming that Marley’s issue is that the automated warning system (new since my time) links to the post warned, and not to the mod post doing the warning. It makes a lot more sense to me to see the moderator action, which I know has a link to the actionable post.
Yep, that’s the situation. The automated system gives you the post warned.
When we’re really pushed we’re doing good to get the notice made with all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed, let alone track down where you actually issued the warning. Doing our best here, you know.
I have not read the full threads in question here, but from the material quoted in the linked warnings, it certainly looks to me as though Commissar is being shut down for having unpopular opinions. The insulting terms do not seem to be directed at other posters, but at those involved in the actual Libyan conflict.
Sure, feel free. I just wanted to express my preference that links in “banned” announcements go to the warning, instead of the warnable offense. Makes it easier to figure out what the offender did. My purpose was accomplished in Marly’s first post (second of the thread).