These posters were banned and suspended, respectively, at virtually the same time by the same mod (JC), so I was interested in the details. As I read about them, it seemed very odd that their behaviors were almost identical, but the discipline was quite different.
Both posters had been suspended previously. Terr subsequently got 2 warnings, and BG got 5. Why would the 2-warnings guy get banned and the 5-warnings guy only get suspended, I thought.
Must be that Terr’s most recent infraction was worse than BG’s. But no… their most recent warnings were not only for the exact same behavior, but in the exact same thread. And BG actually got 2 warnings in that thread.
This leaves me scratching my head. Not that I am lobbying for BG to be banned or for Terr to be unbanned, I’m just wondering if JC can explain why the posters were treated differently, with the lesser action taken against the guy with the worse infraction record. I don’t subscribe to the school of thought that conservatives are treated more harshly by the mods than liberals, and I doubt that was the case here.
Anything you care to share about the decision? I assume that the banning, at least, was some sort of consensus among the mods, right? Not sure about the suspension.
First off, remember that just because I posted the announcement, it wasn’t like I acted unilaterally. Other than spammers, I’ve never seen anyone summarily banned or suspended with moderator consensus. I only say this because I’ve seen the assumption previously that whichever mod posted the action was someone solely responsible for the action.
As for the difference between Terr and BrainGlutton, if you’ll review BG’s suspension it was for one week and not the full month. Two years ago his suspension was intended less as punishment than as a quick attention getter. This differs from Terr’s suspension of a year ago that was a clear ‘you’re on the edge’.
The main difference is that BrainGlutton’s suspension was for only a week (as well as being longer ago), while Terr’s was for a month. We usually (but not always) give a one-month suspension before imposing a ban. Since BrainGlutton hadn’t had one, we decided to give him one instead of a ban.
ETA. This was written before I saw Jonathan’s post.
Understanding that this does not apply to this particular circumstance, but in more general, do posters who have been longer-lived and more integral members of the MB get cut any additional slack than other posters when banning decisions get made? Is there some consideration of the positive value of a poster (such as in some hypothetical case the value of well articulated minority perspectives, be it in any direction) that is used to offset the sentencing for their offenses?
If it’s “positive value of a poster”, then there’s no reason both shouldn’t have been banned. They’re both equal in that regard, although in very different ways.
Again, “understanding that this does not apply to this particular circumstance, but in more general” …
I am not taking a position that one or the other is of more positive value. I thought of it however precisely because I would expect that each would have other MB members who feel that each does or does not fit that definition.
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard them say that a history of good behavior does factor into punishment. And, of course, if you’ve been here longer and integrated well, you have more good behavior stored up.
In my experience no. Length of service will not protect a poster should they rack up a significant number of warnings.
Speaking only for myself, when I give out a warning I tend to check a poster’s history to see if they make a habit of getting them (some I’m fully aware of without checking, trust me). If I note a change in behavior or that they’ve racked up many in less than a year I might bring it up in the mod loop to see what the others know about the situation. The discussion continues from there. I wouldn’t say that’s how the others do it, though. I may be idiosyncratic.
Exception: Shortness of service may make the ban decision occur faster should a new poster come in and cause trouble from day one. That leash can be pretty short at times.
ETA: Thinking on it, a poster with a suspension far back may get more leniency if they step off the straight and narrow again. A further warning in that situation doesn’t have to lead to a ban automatically, in my experience. But a recent suspension followed by continued bad behavior upon return is almost certain to lead to the ban.
That less than one year thing seems to me like you’re saying you do consider how long they’ve been here, as that’s checking for good behavior in the past year.
Not arguing with you, just explaining my post right before yours. I think it’s two different ways of looking at the same trend.
Also, let me add a huge thank you to how that thread was moderated. I almost started a Pit thread over it–and I don’t do those (anymore).
I can see your point, and hadn’t considered it that way.
Yes, in general, several warnings over many years is not exactly a recommended path, but it’s less likely to get a poster in real trouble than several warnings over a short period. Warnings do last forever, though, so I can’t say they’d be completely ignored. The only way an old warning would no longer count at all would be if it were rescinded as Miller just did for Tibby.
And for the other part … is there any consideration for particularly trying to … rehabilitate … members who (at least occasionally articulately) represent (for this MB) minority perspectives?
I think I understand the answer to be no. But I wonder if the board would benefit if there was. Again, not claiming that such applies in either of these cases (or stating that such does not or anything about the specific posters at all).
I’ll say that I don’t take it into account. I’m more likely to look at history of warnings before considering any possible sanctions in the mod loop.
As for your other points about minority viewpoints. It may be a discussion worth having. But I think any sort of favoritism like that - which is what it would be - would be very difficult to enforce and monitor and would lead very directly to accusations of favoritism even against evidence. I’d never want to see an accusation of ‘you’re going lighter on him because he’s X, Y or Z’.
If you’re not willing to extend extra tolerance to Xidaotang Muslims, Yazidis and Zoroastrians of all people, then who will you extend extra tolerance towards :mad:?