If you look at the suggested reasons offered by posters in that thread, they seem like exactly the type of broad-brushing that you’re professing here to be opposed to.
[BTW, your description of the thread is not accurate. It’s not about why conservatives “tend to strongly oppose public policy meant to combat climate change”, it’s about why they tend to deny the science supporting climate change.]
(emphasis mine, but overall very thought-provoking.) It is posts like this make me seriously wish there was a like button here because I don’t really want to participate. I’ll hesitantly add this: political affiliation is becoming the new religion.
The record exists, though informally. This discussion, as well as mod loop discussion, ensures that aspect.
It’s not a real constraint, but a logical one. If someone trolls from the get go, we ban them. If the assessment is made that someone is trolling and a warning is given, I’d be hard pressed to not execute a ban. For what reason would we not ban? Anyways, like I said, I read the post and re-read it because it gave me pause in how jarring it was, but I think it’s clear what the thought process was.
I’ve just read the thread through from beginning to end, and the moderator thinking on this matter is, quite frankly, risible in its level of analysis and consistency.
I’m not sure an insta-ban was necessary, but I simply don’t understand why that post didn’t get a warning. Every argument offered in defense of the moderation here just seems like sophistry. Perhaps the most mind-boggling is tomndebb’s hilarious effort to equate racial supremacism with political ideology.
There seems to be some sort of belief that you can’t give the guy a warning for trolling, because then you’d have to ban him, or something. At least, that’s what you imply here when you say that " If the assessment is made that someone is trolling and a warning is given, I’d be hard pressed to not execute a ban. For what reason would we not ban?" This seems to strongly suggest that trolling is worthy of banning, but not a warning.
And yet there have been dozens of warnings on this board for trolling. Want some examples?
Link (because thread was closed, so no quote function)
Awhile ago we had a poster on this board who peppered conversations with statements like, “Republicans hate women,” and, “Conservatives want brown people to die.” For awhile the mods told us we had to refute him civilly and with facts.
But eventually they told him to knock it the fuck off.
Mods, do you regret this decision? Would you give a different instruction to someone else who came to the boards with objectively incorrect, highly-insulting, stereotypical claims about a political ideology? Or do you think–as I do–that it was exactly the right call?
If you agree with me, can you explain why making objectively incorrect, highly insulting, stereotypical claims about a racial/ethnic group is less deleterious to board culture?
The examples you gave were all of posters that had a much more extensive posting history (except one, but I was on the fence on that one too). This poster in question had about 30 posts IIRC. If someone trolls in their first foray into the boards, I’m going to ban them. Banning trolls is open season for any mod. I admit it’s a bit of a sliding scale, where people with a lot of history may get more leeway, hence trolling being the 4th most popular warning category.
It’s not that trolling isn’t worthy of a warning, it’s that the post in question didn’t rise to the level that would yield a warning for trolling, in the context of that poster.
At the time of the moderation, this discussion did not exist. So saying that is a reason that no record is needed doesn’t make sense. Anyway, we are always told that records are not kept for mod notes. If we are now counting “informal records”, then maybe we shouldn’t be told that anymore. The post in question and the moderator’s note will exist, and that serves as an “informal record”.
This is pretty silly. If he had been a frequent poster, you would have warned him for trolling but because he isn’t you’d have to ban him. Since that seems a little harsh in this case then you can’t do anything. You are handcuffing yourselves for no logical reason.
There are lots of different standards on trolling and “playing devil’s advocate” around the internet. Why should this one rule be treated so special that a newb can’t be corrected with a warning?
That’s simple. Since you don’t recognize quantifying modifiers as weasel words, you could simply write, “All the country’s problems are the fault of most old, white males.” That wouldn’t ruffle feathers, right?
Of course, I’ve never seen a post blaming all the country’s problems on old, white males, but if you wanted to make such a comment, that seems like the way to go about it. Good luck defending it, though.
Its description of how Holocaust deniers engage should sound real familiar to anyone who’s read any of the Just Asking Questions scientific racist posts that crop up around here. Their description of how they deal with such posts will be novel and refreshing.
I encourage folks, but especially mods and admins, to read what they’ve done, and consider how much better our board would be without the need to coddle racists.