Question about Temporary_Name suspension

Suspension for

  1. arguing about moderation
  2. attacking a moderator

I don’t see either of these. @Aspenglow was posting as a regular member. She stated her opinion in a thread about Trump. It was not a moderator action. Disagreeing with it is not “arguing about moderation”

And as for “attacking a moderator” I don’t see it. He complained about @Aspenglow attacking him. And, again, she wasn’t posting as a moderator.

What gives?

Did you not see the warning What_Exit gave them in the linked thread? And the poster arguing with What_Exit about it?

Eta: the linked thread, not the quoted thread.

In the thread the warning issued from, they said accused another poster of being willfully obtuse or a troll. That’s a pretty direct insult for PE. I could see under some circumstances with giving a note instead of a warning, but TN was seriously worked up in that thread (for reasons I sadly understand don’t get me wrong) and probably needed a timeout.

Since he quoted the warning from W_E and then tried to argue it in the same thread, that was absolutely warning territory.

Technically that could have been two warnings right there in one thread, for two different issues. I think the suspension is, if anything, a hope that T_N can calm down and salvage themselves as a poster.

ETA - again, I understand T_N’s sentiment, it is an intensely frustrating time to live in, and emotions are running high, but all the more reason to step away from a while.

I agree that the three descriptions are for three different posts. One post involved insulting others. One post involved insulting others in P&E. One post involved arguing with moderation outside of ATMB. And the most recent post was again an attack on a poster (who happens to be a moderator).

That said, I still disagree that arguing with a moderator outside of ATMB is a serious offense. It is an extremely common thing that many posters have done, and nearly always only gets a mod note. The only exceptions I can think of involve the poster attacking the mod.

I agree that Temporary_Name deserved to be modded in the most recent thread (as they were getting too heated), and I agree with the first insult. But two (or possibly 3) bad posts in 2 years isn’t generally grounds for a suspension.

I think that merely banned from the (recent) thread would have been sufficient for telling them to cool down That is, unless there is further history that was not mentioned.

Yes I did, but I don’t see the reason for it.

No, I can’t see that. Where is it? As far as I can see, Temporary_name did not post again after @What_Exit’s moderation.

Are you talking about the other thread that WE linked to? Because that was nearly two years ago.

never mind

Are you referring to this?
That was different thread two years ago.

You are correct, and I am wrong. I was following the links in the suspension, and not looking at the dates. Mea culpa.

Yes, in the recent thread I too am just seeing what @Peter_Morris has described in the OP here, and I too am puzzled by @What_Exit 's harsh reaction.

I also did not look at the dates, and also issue a mea culpa. Apologies, and I think your thread here has merit.

The whole sequence is bizarre. Unless there were private messages somewhere exchanged I’m not seeing what the warning and suspension were about.

I agree, I was arguing with TN but I never saw them say anything worthy of suspension or a thread ban. The whole situation in that thread was bizarre.

This seems possible but I would hope that this would have been made clear in the announcement.

The thread in question:

First, @Aspenglow was posting as a poster, not a moderator. Second, @Aspenglow’s comment about “magical thinking on a ridiculous scale” is arguably (and I didn’t have to argue very hard with myself) insulting to @Temporary_Name. That sort of comment seems to me very much like other such comments by ordinary posters that have been called insults. Third, saying “I find the comment inappropriate and offensive” and “I do not think that such an insulting comment should be made, especially by someone in a position of authority” do not seem to me to be attacking the poster any more than @Aspenglow 's original comment. If one is worthy of censure, so is the other, moderator status notwithstanding.

Perhaps I have fixed on the wrong comments by @Temporary_Name; if so, please point me to the correct ones. I am asking for an explanation that is understandable to a reasonably intelligent (if I say so myself) poster with some experience on this board. That is why I have asked to be walked through it, because I truly do not understand it, and as it stands now it seems to me misguided and inappropriate.

I hold no particular brief for @Temporary_Name as a poster, and I disagree with his position in that thread, but those are not the issues here. I’m looking for basic fairness and equal treatment.

I, too, would like to be directed to where @Temporary_Name:

  • Argued about moderation
  • Attacked a moderator

I am not seeing it.


To answer one question: This is the line that we considered harassing a moderator. That is specified in the original warning.

In writing the suspension notice, we have a good example of what happens when such are done by committee and it drags out for a bit with life happening in between. I failed as an editor to keep to the warning straight.

Finally, I’m trying to find out how much I can talk about it, but there were major extenuating circumstances of PMs to moderators that drove this up to the one week suspension.

Hopefully I can share more later today.

We’ve let a few fairly recent posts of theirs go with a Modnote, here is the one I recall: {please hit the down arrow to expand}

So apologies for screwing up the Suspension notice. That is on me.
It is now corrected.

Oh, so it’s okay for @aspenglow to insult him, and if he objects, that’s harassment? I don’t see it.

Also this:

So we have your ruling that it IS acceptable to harass a moderator in ATMB?

It’s not that he objected, but that he did so by attacking aspenglow’s status as a moderator to do so. For better or worse, that’s explicitly not allowed.

With additional history and (presumably abusive or insulting) PMs we didn’t see, I can better understand this moderation decision.

No, but more leeway is given in the ATMB from what I’ve seen.

I don’t know why you would assume that we would make a major change to a long standing rule based on how one particular sentence was worded. But, if common sense isn’t enough in this case, let me clarify.

You may not harass or attack the staff in any way. This includes insults. This applies to all forums (with some special consideration for the Pit).

You may not Pit moderators for anything they do as a moderator. You may however Pit moderators for anything they post as a regular user.

This has been the rule for many years and has not changed.