tomndebb, allowing racist hate speech was a bullshit mod call

[BigT]

@andros

It has the latter utility, yes. But I disagree entirely about your view of the purpose of Official Warnings[sup]tm[/sup].

An example:

I registered in 1999. With some breaks, I’ve been posting in GD for nearly 16 years. I just received my first warning. I deserved it, because I broke the rules of the forum. It was, for me at least, an effective way to catch my attention and remind me to pay attention to my words. That it was made publicly also serves to remind others to pay attention to their words.

If I go off the rails and get my ass banned, certainly that warning and any other I accumulate in the process will be offered as evidence that I was not booted without cause. But IMO that’s not the purpose of a warning.

If it were just a reminder, a PM (or possibly a Mod Note) would have sufficed. My argument is that a reminder with teeth is no longer a reminder. A Warning is effectively the mods saying “Stop doing this, or else!”

What I’m trying to get across is why people expect an actual Official Warning and don’t find the explanation “well, they know we are upset at them, so no Warning is needed” to be satisfactory. The “attention-getting” part of a Warning is not the part they are concerned with. It’s the punitive part.

The one thing that makes an Official Warning different from a Mod Note or PM telling you to stop is that a Warning goes on a record to be used should further punishment be needed. Warnings are useless without that feature. That means that is their point.

Also, VT: I added that because I know some people get upset when I comment in a thread that has been dormant for a few days. I was just trying to head that off. I find it kinda hard to not look silly while trying to head of a silly complaint.

[Bricker]

@tomndebb

That is why long-after-the-fact Warnings are so rare. They are either not needed because more warnings will be handed out, anyway, or they are not needed because the poster changes behavior and no further Warnings will be issued.

@MrDibble

Because that would be bullshit, mods do retroactive moderation all the time.

But not retroactive warnings all the time.

Or, MrDibble, do you contend that retroactive warnings are commonplace?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

But not retroactive warnings all the time.

Or, MrDibble, do you contend that retroactive warnings are commonplace?

What’s very, very rare is for a moderator to admit that he’s been refusing to enforce board rules because reasons, and to be called out on it and reminded that no, the rules have bright lines, and to snark at people while grudgingly declaring he’ll actually enforce the rules going forward. I don’t think we have a lot of precedent on how this should be handled.

In general, the reluctance to mod things that are several days old has been linked to the admonishment to report things when they happen, while they’re a topic of discussion; modding things after the thread has moved on is frowned on. But that’s not at all what happened here: the bad post was reported in a timely fashion, and the error was entirely the mod’s.

[madsircool]

Let it go

[Irishman]

@tomndebb

Is the point of handing out Warnings to see how many posters we can ban? Or is it to catch a poster’s attention to get him or her to behave?

Johnny Bravo and BigT have both said what I was thinking.

If a poster is really a troll or otherwise undesirable, that poster will continue to rack up Warnings to get banned. If a poster backs off from bad behavior, what is the desperate need to ban them?

What if they stop making the comments now, but start up again a month from now? Make one or two every six months, get a Mod Note? With no official warnings, they linger around far longer than necessary.

I’m not saying it’s a frequent occurrence, but there are times it feels like it happened with certain posters.

That is why long-after-the-fact Warnings are so rare. They are either not needed because more warnings will be handed out, anyway, or they are not needed because the poster changes behavior and no further Warnings will be issued.

I believe I actually acknowledged that. That doesn’t mean it goes down smoothly.

It was reported at the time, but the moderators balked at modding it, so this thread was started while the comments were still fresh. However, it took so long to convince you that an actual rule was broken that now “too much time has gone by”. But that’s entirely due to bureaucratic inefficiency.

So now he gets a free pass, and any future moderation begins with the official status of a clean record, which means that assuming the bad behavior continues, he gets more leeway and rope because there are no Warnings to support banning. Or you have to start defending using mod notes or other more nebulous grounds in the official decisions.

@andros

It has the latter utility, yes. But I disagree entirely about your view of the purpose of Official Warnings[sup]tm[/sup].

An example:

I registered in 1999. With some breaks, I’ve been posting in GD for nearly 16 years. I just received my first warning. I deserved it, because I broke the rules of the forum. It was, for me at least, an effective way to catch my attention and remind me to pay attention to my words. That it was made publicly also serves to remind others to pay attention to their words.

If I go off the rails and get my ass banned, certainly that warning and any other I accumulate in the process will be offered as evidence that I was not booted without cause. But IMO that’s not the purpose of a warning.

Warnings serve 2 purposes. The first is simply getting attention. But the reason we track those Warnings, and differentiate them from mod notes, is because sometimes (often) merely reminding a person they are breaking a rule isn’t sufficient to change their behavior. It takes a threat of further future action to “get their attention”.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

In general, the reluctance to mod things that are several days old has been linked to the admonishment to report things when they happen, while they’re a topic of discussion; modding things after the thread has moved on is frowned on. But that’s not at all what happened here: the bad post was reported in a timely fashion, and the error was entirely the mod’s.

So do we all agree that those comments, or at least the one about shooting Marxists, should have been modded? And that the mods are now paying attention for future comments along those lines, and future comments will be moderated strongly? And eyes are on **construct **, regardless of what his official record states?

[Saint_Cad]

@tomndebb

No. We are not going to drop a Warning on a post that is over a week old when the poster has been watching these threads enough to know that he was out of line.

So what if I make a post like “We should shoot all of the public-tit-sucking broke-ass fuckers.”? And before it is modded I acknowledge I was out of line saying, “I apologize. I shouldn’t have posted that. I was just pissed because I was running late and some homeless guy stood in front of my car until I gave him a dollar. Mea culpa.”?

[Irishman]

If somebody complains or if the mods see it before a week goes by, you might get a warning, or a sternly weirded mod note, deoending on their mood.

[Irishman]

I suppose I could give it another analogy. If he’s going to flame out, one post is not going to ultimately make a difference. And if he isn’t going to flame out, then it isn’t really different than other instances where moderators elect to forgo warnings that are really due in favor of blanket admonitions to the entire thread. Sometimes free passes are given.

[DrDeth]

@Irishman

If somebody complains or if the mods see it before a week goes by, you might get a warning, or a sternly** weirded **mod note, deoending on their mood.

Or a note from a stern weirdo.

[tomndebb]

@Grotonian

“All those (ethnic slurs) in ISIS should be bombed and burned.” Is this ok?

Not OK.

@Grotonian

“All of ISIS should be bombed and burned.” Is this ok?

Depends on context.

@Grotonian

Of course I would. Let me rephrase the question: a different poster, not me.
. . .
Again, I’m not asking for myself, I’m asking if a DIFFERENT poster posted the above, would either, or both, be a rules violation?

This silly attempt to play the “martyr” card is duly noted as one more silly attempt to play the “martyr” card.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Irishman

If somebody complains or if the mods see it before a week goes by, you might get a warning, or a sternly weirded mod note, deoending on their mood.

Exactly. It all depends on the mod, but even more so, the possible infraction.

I’ve seen reports for rules broken and noticed it was a post made weeks or months ago and not said anything, mostly because it wasn’t anything too major.

If I see or am made aware of a post that was made within a week, though, and it’s something bigger (like a poster calling another poster a name or insulting them in some way), I’ll step in and give a note or warning publicly.
I’ve even (once or twice) not modded a really old, reported post (>1 month), but sent a PM to the user for it telling them not to make a post like it again.

[kayaker]

@BigT

I find it kinda hard to not look silly

(Post shortened)

I hear ya.

[MrDibble]

@Bricker

But not retroactive warnings all the time.

Or, MrDibble, do you contend that retroactive warnings are commonplace?

No. I said ‘moderation’, not warnings. There’ve been more than a few instances of the mods saying things like ‘we discussed this in the mod loop and are rescinding this warning’ - type of thing. It would be different to issue warnings later, rather than rescind them. But I don’t think that’d be beyond the pale for actual warnable offenses, actually. It’s not like this is a realtime IM chat app. Posts don’t disappear, and the mods can’t be everywhere, so I don’t see the big deal about moderating a few days later.

[Grotonian]

@tomndebb

Not OK.

That’s what I assumed.

Depends on context.

That’s what I assumed.

This silly attempt to play the “martyr” card is duly noted as one more silly attempt to play the “martyr” card.

You can “note” it however you like, the fact remains I got very different answers to the same question depending on whether I phrased it as first or third person. By your own admission, a comment that would definitely be trolling from me may be okay, depending on context, from another poster.

That’s what I assumed.

[tomndebb]

@Grotonian

You can “note” it however you like, the fact remains I got very different answers to the same question depending on whether I phrased it as first or third person. By your own admission, a comment that would definitely be trolling from me may be okay, depending on context, from another poster.

That’s what I assumed.

I made no such “admission” and your assumption is wrong.

[Bricker]

@MrDibble

No. I said ‘moderation’, not warnings. There’ve been more than a few instances of the mods saying things like ‘we discussed this in the mod loop and are rescinding this warning’ - type of thing. It would be different to issue warnings later, rather than rescind them. But I don’t think that’d be beyond the pale for actual warnable offenses, actually. It’s not like this is a realtime IM chat app. Posts don’t disappear, and the mods can’t be everywhere, so I don’t see the big deal about moderating a few days later.

While I’m obviously not a moderator, I think there is a principled distinction to be made between warnings and notes, or indeed between warnings and other moderator commentary.

[raventhief]

@Grotonian

That’s what I assumed.

That’s what I assumed.

You can “note” it however you like, the fact remains I got very different answers to the same question depending on whether I phrased it as first or third person. By your own admission, a comment that would definitely be trolling from me may be okay, depending on context, from another poster.

That’s what I assumed.

It seems to me that “context” in this sense includes more than simply the other words surrounding the statements. In this type of environment, your posting history is likely to be a factor in how any individual post is read. Make a habit of skating right up to the line and that’s likely to affect how a moderator interprets your words.

I am not a moderator, of course, so take that for what it’s worth.

[Irishman]

@DrDeth

Or a note from a stern weirdo.

I shouldn’t post from my phone. Too easy to make typos that don’t get corrected, or auto corrected to nonsense.

[MrDibble]

@Bricker

While I’m obviously not a moderator, I think there is a principled distinction to be made between warnings and notes, or indeed between warnings and other moderator commentary.

Oh, I agree completely. The distinction being - notes are for keeping a thread on track, and are therefore inherently time-sensitive. Warnings, however, are for offenses that, cumulatively, are banworthy, and therefore really shouldn’t be all that time-sensitive.

If I called some black poster a nigger, it shouldn’t matter if I did it 2 weeks ago and no-one noticed until today. There’s no way the mods would just say “Oh, it’s been 2 weeks, no warning issued” for that level of offense.

[Grotonian]

@raventhief

It seems to me that “context” in this sense includes more than simply the other words surrounding the statements. In this type of environment, your posting history is likely to be a factor in how any individual post is read. Make a habit of skating right up to the line and that’s likely to affect how a moderator interprets your words.

I am not a moderator, of course, so take that for what it’s worth.

Skating right up to the line is perfectly acceptable; that’s why there’s a line. What’s ridiculous is pretending a line has been crossed when it hasn’t.