Moderation happened in the above thread, starting at post #99
The hijack continued.
@What_Exit issued a warning:
And then Hari_Seldon issued a warning:
It seems to me that this is two warnings for the same offence. Hari’s “insulted every other poster” is already covered by WE’s “completely beligerent tone”
I agree that it was worth a warning, but not two. I think the second warning should be rescinded.
A new poster has contributed nothing of value to the board in his brief stay, hijacked a thread for his own pet conspiracy theories, ignored mod instructions, and insulted posters…and your first thought is “we should totally spend time arguing about two warnings versus one.”
I hope the mods give this all the attention it deserves.
My mod note in the subject thread was being violated just as I needed to go out to take care of some time-sensitive personal business. The errand took about an hour. I’d have dealt with the situation myself, but it had to wait until I got back.
In that time, four separate flags arrived due to @dolfinwriter 's posts and rules violations. They were for different rules violations. @What_Exit handled some and @Hari_Seldon handled one.
My view is that a poster who ignores and violates multiple rules shouldn’t dodge multiple warnings just because he received one a few minutes earlier.
In this particular instance, I think both warnings were not only justified, but necessary.
My thoughts exactly. I mean, exactly.
I agree. I don’t know why this board allows new posters. They seem to bring nothing of value.
What’s precedent? You guys’d know better than I would. Have multiple warnings typically been issued to posters who broke multiple rules in one post or in a short series of posts?
We’re not in a courtroom and mods are not bound by precedent. However, if there are other instances, I wouldn’t be aware of them. I’ve not paid a lot of attention to moderating until fairly recently.
Here’s a link to the specific rules for P&E.
With those in mind, I think the onus is on you to explain why we’d be precluded from issuing multiple warnings if we feel circumstances warrant it. I will allow that such circumstances are – and hopefully will always remain – rare.
It’s too late for that. The fact that this thread exists is proof of that.
You are bound to stability and consistency, though. At the very least, you ought to be concerned with it. Doing things differently than you have previously lends itself to chaos, confusion, and distrust.
See above.
This thread is evidence that you can’t please everybody all the time.
Of course we are.
You’re welcome to demonstrate that this is the only instance of multiple warnings to a poster in short succession that has ever occurred in the history of SDMB moderation. I simply stated that I, personally, am not aware of them. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and it doesn’t mean we were wrong to issue them in this instance.
Other mods can weigh in at any time if they wish – or they may choose not to. I will state that I don’t see any reason to personally continue responding to this thread.
I think you’ve misunderstood me. All I said was, in essence, do what you normally do.
“New poster” is irrelevant. “Contributed nothing of value” is irrelevant (but sad). “Hijacked a thread” is a daily occurrence around here.
But “ignored mod instructions” and “insulted posters” (in the wrong forum) - those’ll get you modded no matter who you are, especially when it’s not just a one-off or momentary lapse of judgment. And those count as two offences, not one.
I think it was worth it just to watch him flounce: You’ll see! YOU’LL ALL SEE!!
Agreed.
But the point is, W_E included both “ignored mod instructions” and “insulted posters” in his warning.
Then Hari came along and issued a warning for “insulted posters” which had already been warned.
Also, note, the original mod instruction said:
This instruction was disregarded by @GreysonCarlisle, @Bobot, @Temporary_Name, @Procrustus, @Ann_Hedonia, @Sam_Stone, @Johnny_L.A. and @iiandyiiii, all of them continued responding to the hijack, and none of them received a warning.
Clearly, “ignored mod instructions” is insufficient to merit a warning on its own in this case.
I think you are being unduly harsh on him because he is clinging to a belief that you do not share. We should be trying to fight his ignorance, not punishing it. I’d be interested in discussing the matter with him. I’d like to understand why he believes what he believes. That’s not likely to happen if you drive him away, is it?
Hari has history of completely ignoring previous moderation. Hari will do what Hari will do.
He’s controversial.
You can be belligerent without being insulting. And the poster was, escalating the discussion and, well, being belligerent. Then, in addition to that, in their final two posts the poster accused everyone else in the thread of being brainwashed.
The mods got it right here. What would set a bad precedent would be to let a rules violation slide because they already got a warning for a different one, which seems to be what is being requested in the OP. I strongly oppose that and I’m glad the mods do too.
He didn’t strike me as someone to whom you could successfully appeal with facts and reason. He came to witness for QAnon, not to have his ignorance challenged.
What? I have a single post after that, which I immediately deleted.