So, about that money you’d like me to spend on membership? Still not happening.
The moderation looks fine to me. What specifically concerns you?
That no warning was issued. I thought I made that clear.
Maybe you’d get a more sympathetic hearing if you did not run screaming to the mods every 5 minutes.
Is “run screaming” the new “uppity”?
Oh, wait, you’re still smarting about the last time I asked the same question - in February. I guess “every 5 minutes” has a different meaning for you or something?
Wow. I was going to argue that a warning would be a waste of time; just ban the poster who obviously just joined to write an inflammatory, racist screed. Then I noticed the 2013 join date.
Agree with the OP. That should be warnable at the very least, if not bannable.
Well, his join date is 2013 but, if you notice, he only has 32 posts in five years. In the interest of fairness, the moderator probably felt that a “pre-warning” was the best thing to do in order to award what is, in essence, a 2nd chance. My join date is 1999, but my post record was also extremely low for someone who has been registered here for that amount of time. I also received a “pre-warning” when I transgressed. So, I’m thinking it’s pretty consistent in terms of philosophy and level of response. If he pulls that stuff again, I’d wager he will get that warning.
Assuming this was a first infraction, I think a ban would be overdoing it. But I thought it was odd that no warning was issued since the moderation included “…you may very well lose your posting privileges with this sort of inflammatory post”.
A warning most certainly should have been issued.
Tom didn’t write “no warning issued”. So it is possible he intended this to be a formal warning (which is clearly the tone of his last clause), just failed to say so, while also trying to give a new (in terms of posts) poster some detailed guidance. I agree it would be helpful if this could be clarified. The behaviour seemed to me egregious enough to merit an official warning regardless of post count/join date, but probably not an insta-ban, assuming no previous warnings.
What would the warning be for? Hate speech, trolling, the catch all being a jerk?
Hate speech at the very least, IMO.
All three, IMO. Even racists don’t say that stuff so directly unless they’re trying to piss people off. And, yeah, I’d say it crosses the line into hate speech.
The Note says that such language could get them banned. That sounds like this was a Warning in all but the official sense, so I’d just upgrade it to a Warning. I mean, that’s that the “Warning” part means, right? It’s a “warning” that you may be suspended or banned if you do not stop.
At a party/bar/event if someone walked up to me and said those things I’d walk away and avoid further interaction. If someone asked me why I was avoiding the person, I’d say, “because they’re a racist asswipe”.
I guess hate speech or being a jerk is the closest offense here.
Whatever tom thought could get the guy to lose his position privileges. Hate speech, presumably, since tom mentions racism at the beginning of his post.
I think it would also be best practice to not mix moderating with posting as a regular poster, which is what it looks like was done in that case. It’s hard to tell where the moderating ends and the posting begins and that invites a retort in the thread, which we’re supposed to avoid when it comes to moderating.
Well no. Since to still be smarting about it, I would have to actually give a shit about the forum and you.
It’s more like watching a toddler throwing a tantrum in a supermarket.
That’s enough, AK84. Make the thread about what it’s about, not what you want it to be about. You can make another thread if you’re that worked up about it.
Otherwise, it could appear you’re trying to deny someone their right to appeal the process. That would be bad.
If I was a moderator, I would probably have issued a warning, for trolling. But, it’s a discretionary issue, so someone might reasonably have a different opinion.
It’s an indication that it could be considered trolling and that is grounds for an instaban.
XYZ people are dumb is wrong, bit it’s an opinion. Hate speech must be more than negative sentiment toward a given group. That is how we have treated it in practice.