I have no recollection of the actual thread, but my reading of your summary would leave me to believe the response meant that the evidence and logic would not support your belief that Reagan prolonged Apartheid by 10 years, not that prolonging Apartheid by 10 years wasn’t a good reason. YMMV.
MMVed. I won’t say the identity of the poster in question wasn’t the reason it Ved, because it totally was.
And Reagan’s action prolonging Apartheid isn’t actually up for debate, it’s history.
He didn’t even “basically” say what you claimed he said. What you wrote was just wrong.
There’s no field of human endeavor which involves judgement calls by different people at different times under different circumstances in which you are going to get exactly the same result every time. You’re expecting something here which doesn’t exist in real life. I also think that those who insist on robotic moderation would not really like the result.
The bright line application of rules tend to not be very popular with posters and I can understand why.
True, but the POSTER wasn’t saying that. They weren’t saying prolonging Apartheid was a good thing, they were saying it wasn’t Reagan’s actions that did it.
I’m also observing that quoting someone else’s use of the phrase “fuck you” is almost as satisfying as saying it yourself. “Fuck you fuck you fuck you.” “And fuck you very much.” 
As long as it’s not done with malicious intent.
I might buy that if it, say, you making the point. The poster in question? Not so much, no.
Yes, he did.
And the key word there isn’t “basically”, BTW.
No, it isn’t.
I’d be happy if there was at least an attempt at approaching consistency…
Depends which mod the robot is based off. I’d love all moderation to be by MillerBot™. Some of the other mods? Not so much, no.
“if it were”
I think I should explain my thinking - I had said my reason for disliking Reagan was the extension of Apartheid. The poster said that wasn’t good reasoning. He did not say the facts were not good, he said the reasoning wasn’t good. The argument “Hate bad people. People who extend Apartheid are bad. If Reagan extends Apartheid, hate Reagan” remains valid reasoning even if the “Reagan extends apartheid” parameter is false (it definitely isn’t). The only way it becomes bad reasoning is if either “Hate bad people” or “People who extend Apartheid are bad” are false premises.
Yeah, but I wouldn’t make that point.
(Granted Reagan wasn’t the only reason – that bitch across the pond had a bit to do with it as well, I’d say)
Sure, but the issue being addressed at that point in that thread wasn’t “who do you have good reason to hate”, it was “There’s no good reason to hate Reagan.”
Which, yeah, someone makes fun of 10 extra years of Apartheid under “constructive engagement”, apparently not enough to earn mod empathy when actual Apartheid victim boils over. Just gets one accusations of truth-twisting from other mods, apparently.
Acting out because someone says something boneheaded about language usage? Have a mild “tsk, tsk” and a hug, buddy.
Note that that was my first warning, so this “we go light on first offenders” sounds like so much bullshit to me.
How about a link to the thread in question. I can’t find anything on a search.
Thank you for once again confirming that the poster in question didn’t say what you claimed he said. Rather, as you’ve explained here, you were responding to what you imagined he meant. If you have to explain your reasoning, then the meaning of the post you were responding to clearly wasn’t explicit.
That in itself would have been good reason not to cut you any slack on the response. As mentioned above, moderators take into account a poster’s history in deciding on a response. When you have a history of animosity with a particular poster, you’re not going to get much allowance on insults.
I’m not sure what your point is – are you saying that if the poster in question had indeed explicitly said that extending apartheid for another 10 years was a good thing, then the “Fuck you” response would not have been moderated? Or are you just disagreeing for fun (not that there’s anything wrong with this)?
For the record, I think MrDibble’s interpretation is a reasonable one. It doesn’t mean that he’s definitely 100% correct about the poster’s intention (that would require mind-reading), but taking everything into account, I also believed at the time (and still suspect) that the poster in question was saying that (at best) it wasn’t a big deal to take action that extended apartheid.
No. Mr. Dibble’s argument is irrelevant to whether he should have received a warning for that post or not. He is complaining because one poster got a lesser response now to an offense than he got five years ago. However, he made a false statement about what another poster said, which in effect is insulting to that poster, and I felt that the record should be corrected.
He didn’t make a false statement – he interpreted a statement differently than you did. People really can disagree on things like that. Especially when the original poster doesn’t explain what he meant.
Seems pretty consistent that a poster is going to get at least a Mod Note for telling another poster “Fuck You” in some forums. So, don’t do that.
In other words, the poster didn’t actually say what Mr. Dibble claimed he said. He put words in his mouth that weren’t in his post, and didn’t ask for an explanation. And as he admits, his response was based on personal animosity.