I suspect that we are unlikely to repost an insult that we considered sufficiently provocative to warrant sanctions.
Why would you even think otherwise?
I would like it if you would. People are provoked all the time in the Pit; I believe the general rule there is if you can’t take it, don’t play there. mshar insulting Argent Tower’s girlfriend was quite rude, but we don’t have any “no insulting girlfriends” rule that I know of, and rude is the norm in the Pit. As for any histories here, as far as I know mshar is not a chronic troublemaker, and Argent Towers is frequently belligerent. I think you guys got this one wrong.
There’s no “unless really provoked” clause in the rule. Is this really a precedent you want to set?
It’s a good thing you’re no longer a junior mod then.
(I keed, I keed…)
I’m not that worried about precedent (how often do you think this is going to come up?). I’m more concerned about making the right response to the situation, which IMO we did.
Were I a lawyer I’d say “fighting words.” Argent went over the line but backed off after a mod told him to cool it. Nobody wants to crack down on the Pit and change the way it works, but what can I say- some shit isn’t welcome here, period.
If you are actually having this much difficulty with what’s being laid out here, you’re welcome to test your interpretation. Otherwise… 
All I know is if this situation were to have occurred in meatspace, the result would havbe been precisely opposite to the outcome here. Where I come from, one is expected to be able to contain himself in the face of simple verbal provocation. Again, I’m not defending mshar, but merely asking the rules be applied equitably. IMO, this is just another case of not tolerating misbehavior from a newbie while giving a long-term member a pass. It’s favoritism. You can call it whatever you like, but that doesn’t change the fact.
I’ve never considered “provocation” an excuse; retaliation in the face of provocation is, in fact, self-defeating. If someone posts something over the line, the best response is to REPORT the post (little ! in red triangle in upper right corner of post) and let the mods handle it, rather than respond in kind.
When the teacher comes out on the classroom and finds two kids fighting, the first obligation is to stop the fight. That usually means both kids get blamed, regardless of who started it. Mods do not have the time or inclination to wade through “He hit me back first!” If the provacatee doesn’t retaliate, but goes immediately to get the teacher with “he hit me” then the blame all falls on the provacateur.
That would be a great explanation if it were true.
Argent made threats and alluded to wishes of violence in posts #56, #57 and #65. He was warned by a mod in post #68.
In post #83 he says the guy deserves a beating. In post #122 he stands by what he said earlier and then in post #148 he wishes death on an entire group of people on another message board.
The shock and flash of anger is understandable so I can certainly get why the first post or two may contain hostile sentiments and even a threat if you are a person who is emotionally challenged, but he continues after he is warned.
If the answer is “Because we say so” then there’s the answer, but please be honest and say so. Saying it’s because Argent suddenly pulled back on his tirade of insanity when it is so easy to see that he didn’t is kind of silly.
He’s not the only poster having this much difficulty with what’s being laid out here.
As someone who once bit when provoked, getting my one and only warning in 7 years, I concur with those who think you got this wrong.
Of course you just agreed with **Q.E.D. ** position.
He did keep that up for longer than I realized, and certainly shouldn’t have. “Standing by an earlier remark” and wishing death on non-members isn’t an issue as far as I’m concerned.
Oy. Look, I can see disagreeing with the reasoning or how this was handled. “Because we say so” isn’t the reason, so I don’t know why you’re bothering to ask me to admit it. I’m explaining my reasoning here, not making one up after the fact.
I get that it is a non-issue as far as you are concerned but Ed Zotti outlines it a little differently in his post here.
Quoted in italics as not to make everyone read the entire thing:
You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. We recognize that this rule cannot be strictly applied in discussions of war, capital punishment and the like but urge users to express themselves in moderate terms nonetheless. If we tell you to refrain from behavior that we regard as uncivil, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.
Eh, whatever. Apparently your choice was made and I can certainly see why the guy was given a little time off, but Argent was a raging nutbar in that post before and after his warning.
Your sandbox,your rules.
You don’t need to tell me the rules - which also include hate speech. Argent went over the line but I know I felt the posts he was responding to were bad enough that it’s fair not to give a warning. Insulting a poster for something he says or does is one thing, but when somebody makes an unprovoked and irrelevant racist attack on a guy’s girlfriend I’m comfortable making some allowances for an overreaction.
THAT SAID, the right thing to do is to ignore and report these kinds of things. DNFTT and “don’t respond in kind” is the way to go and people should keep that in mind instead of trying to intuit cases where they think we’ll make exceptions.
You’re insulting another poster here. (Same for the “tirade of insanity.”) Stop it. Questions about the rules go here, that kind of stuff belongs in the Pit.
Just to clarify, he wasn’t issued with an Official Warning in post #68, or via any other post as far as I’m aware.
So much for this thread not being about the AT vs mshar meltdown.
For a different but related question. I found it in very poor taste that after mshar edited his post, someone else (can’t remember who and it doesn’t really matter) rushed to repeat what he edited out to make sure the pile on would continue on mshar. It was a smear for the sake of smearing. There was nothing positive that could have come out of this. He knew it was already edited out, so it was not a case of crossed posts.
Can we have a ruling on this? I find it deep into being a jerk territory.
As for the original question: Is it then the official response that edited out comments don’t break the rules (except in special cases where you apply the “we call them as we see them” rule)?
As it seems to have escaped your attention, allow me to point out with all due respect that your boss disagrees with you.
You may be comfortable with it, but most of us aren’t.
And in the vast majority of cases that’s exactly what happens: both participants get told to knock it off, or they get warnings, or they get suspensions. But that doesn’t mean–and it never has–that some instances can’t be evaluated differently. Which is what happened here.
And we (well, I do) want to know “Why?”. I could see it if the guy was a known troublemaker, but the thing with AT looked like nothing more than he had a beef with AT, and was flaming him in the appropriate forum for that.
He was suspended because he used a vile racial insult, as explained in the suspension thread. There are limits, even in the Pit, to what you can say; and edited out or not, it should never have been posted.
Why a suspension, though, and not just a warning?