That’s not a counterargument at all. All moderator decisions are subjective. That doesn’t mean they made the correct decision. Even the mods themselves have reversed their decisions when people made valid arguments that they made a mistake. They realized their subjective opinion was wrong.
Hell, being subjective could actually support his argument. It could mean the mod subjectively decided that he agreed with poster and thus chose not to punish him.
A counterargument is an argument that addresses at least some points in a previous argument and attempts to refute them.
Bias as in liberal/conservative I couldn’t care less about. But as other ATMB threads point out some posters seem to pull a pass when others can be hit with theater-grade nukes for the same basic thing. I won’t speak for others but I’m always curious when a case like that looks to pop up. Like I said I would have been very tempted to respond much in the same manner as Leaffan but I would have been more likely to question not getting a warning than I would have been getting a warning. Context is indeed everything but even in this context a note seems light to me.
It’s not “debating the modern meaning of a term.” It’s a guy trying to straightsplain that a homophobic slur is not actually a slur. And in the context of defending some homophobic bullies, saying they did nothing wrong and shouldn’t be punished.
It’s perfectly understandable for someone who was bullied to have a reaction to that.
Does that mean it necessarily deserves no Warning? No. It clearly deserved one. But, like cops, mods have leniency. And a mod decided leniency was warranted in this case, as the person involved had no priors.
I can’t say if “fuck you” has gotten away with just a note before. But I know for sure other blatant insults have, in certain contexts. It is always at a moderator’s discretion to think a Note is enough to resolve the situation.
What you have no evidence for is any sort of political bias. I will argue that you only claim this because of confirmation bias: You believe (rightly or wrongly) that there is political bias on this board, and thus are constantly on the look for it. Any deviation from what you consider the norm is suspicious to you.
F-g has a number of different meanings and degrees of severity as an insult. That has always been true going back to my earliest experience of hearing peers use the word. Darren’s wording was that was “not necessarily” the intended meaning, not that it could not be the meaning.
Leaffan was probably was outraged by perceived homophobia, however carefully read the post they replied to. They either misread the post or don’t think f-g can have other meanings.
Maybe it hasn’t otherwise come up in their experience due to age or regions lived. I recently was very surprised to find out “goof” can be an insult with a terrible connotation of pedophilia in some parts of Canada.
Warnings are permanently recorded, notes are not kept track of in a formal way.
Both are intended to get a poster to change their behavior. When a poster doesn’t have a history of similar offenses, a note may be deemed sufficient. When a poster doesn’t seem to be getting the message and commits the same kind of offense repeatedly, notes may be escalated to warnings.
Where was this mod “empathy” when I got my first warning (for saying exactly the same words - “Fuck you” - to someone telling me basically ten more years of Apartheid would have been a good thing)? S’not like it wasn’t extremely personal. I definitely wasn’t trying to get around the rules. It’s not like I hadn’t suffered under Apartheid before, so it should have been understandable that I might have a reaction and attack someone who was (not appeared to be) revelling in the idea of Apartheid lasting a decade longer.
And its stuff like this (I remember your case but couldn’t have put your name to it) that keeps me curious about this general subject.
Going way back when I first started posting I got ---- somethinged. I honestly can’t remember if it was a note, a warning, or just a simple “cool your jets”. Both of us caught the same thing for a series of exchanges that started fine and devolved as tempers did likewise. Whoever the Mod was then basically told us both to dial it back and offered me this advice “If you are angry as you type, close the page and back slowly away from your computer. Take an hour or 12 and reply when you can do so calmly and with some civility” or something close to that. It wasn’t bad advice. Yeah - I’ve come close to smoking a person or two but it was always in a polite fashion and without the “Jane, you ignorant slut” aspect that kills a lot of discussions. And this was the rule back then as I remember it; making things as personal as “FU” just wasn’t tolerated no matter who it was. It helped; at least IMHO.
I have no stats or actual data but my impression is now we seem to go two extremes in moderation of insults and swearing at other posters; “oh well” and “take this you moron”. Yes; different times and different Mods. But its still there in my opinion. I don’t see it as liberal vs conservative bias or racial or gender or whatever so much as a very individual thing. I recall both sides of any “definitive” getting slapped or pardoned on something of an almost random basis. And I just hate things that look random because I don’t believe such a thing exists. By nature and training I’m a Behavioralist (I trained under the late Dr James Holland) so whenever I see strange behavior I get curious.
Sorry to have gone so long. But what it comes down to is I feel a “FU” needs a warning; pretty much every time. Yes context matters but deal with the context by adding a “time out” to the sentence. Someone like Leaffan who really did just get caught up and its a warning. Someone named made up name who has been noted for a few smaller things before or got more aggressive about it and tack on a suspension for a week. It could help in places like the “Mini-Pit” (GD) a lot and instances like this in MPSIMS even more.
For someone who does not have a pattern of offenses in general, no. One warning every several years has no impact just like a couple of notes have no impact.
For most well intended posters both are reminders to nudge away from posts that break guidelines and sufficient to do so.
Now for someone who rule breaks often there is a difference. But they are usually past being given any benefit of the doubt. They’ll get warnings.
But for most of us? Why would most of us without such track records care about a single warning?
I’m not sure he said ‘Fuck you’, he seemed to sort of be coughing, maybe it sounded that way but may he was saying ‘Thank you’. So I can see the mod giving him the benefit of the doubt.
“Cut some slack” would perhaps be the better phrase. Point though that if the person is not a regular offender there is no difference in impact and who cares?
I find it strange why someone would think different mods, in different times, in different forums (fora, whatever) would all have the same thoughts on when a note/warning is deserved.
Yes, they did. Not in so many words, but that was the inference of what they did say:
Them: Hatred for Reagan is unreasonable
Me: My reason is he prolonged Apartheid by 10 years.
Them: It has to be *good *reasoning.
Implication: prolonging apartheid isn’t a good enough reason to hate Reagan i.e. it was not a bad thing.
But go on, by all means, continue to interpret it differently. That’s you privilege, no doubt.
