We’ve had some fairly high-profile posters - HurricaneDitka, Barack Obama, Budget Player Cadet, SamuelA - bite the dust of late. Are the mods just clamping down harder these days, or did these posters all hit their critical mass/banning-point at the same time?
The latter. They all had previous suspensions, and coincidentally all got the warnings that tipped them over the edge within the past couple of weeks.
[Or maybe we wanted them to be able to spend more time with their families (and we could spend more time with ours rather than issuing warnings) over the holiday season.:)]
WillFarnaby as well. That’s a good question. I think at least with a couple of these bannings bone set into motion before he quit. He admitted to a bias in that quit post but I’ve learned that even explicitly allowed behavior is warnable for no real reason at all so it’s damn near impossible to make a case for fairness or not of various mod actions. They are what they are.
The timing is interesting and all the stickies asking for feedback are interesting as well. I’m wondering if any boardwide changes are going to be announced.
Yeah, it’s just one of those things. They were all walking a fine line and disregarded it.
Best Practice? If a poster has a suspension on his or her record - or even two in a few cases - it’s not a good idea to go forward business-as-usual. We’ve sent the most straightforward message we really can that what one is doing is unacceptable.
Some people will simply not get the message or are, for whatever reason, fundamentally unable to change.
I can honestly say that nothing Bone did was out of the ordinary. He had as much input into bans and sanctions while he was a mod as any of us do. That and no more. Any actions taken since his departure - and I wish him well - he had no input nor influence over in any way.
It’s strange though. If someone else were to post a Clinton or Buttigieg thread would they get warned for trolling? It seems sort of circular logic once you do get sanctioned for trolling that what you are posting may be trolling since you are a confirmed troll.
In the partisan forums, I don’t see how it’s easy to continue to participate once you’ve been sanctioned. That’s just my opinion/observation and why I feel that some of this was predestined merely from the way certain warnings were worded.
I’d say that if you are warned for trolling and continue the behavior that led to the warning then yes, you’re probably going to be banned.
If you instead change your behavior then that probably won’t happen.
That just seems like common sense though.
I agree and that’s why I mentioned the Hillary thread. If I or anyone else posted the same thread it probably wouldn’t have warranted a note. But since it was HD and he’s been warned before that’s proof that the current behavior is in violation of that. That’s why I said it reminded me of circular logic.
And yes I understand that patterns and history matter. Especially with actual rules violations. Believe me, I understand that the mods have a difficult and thankless job. I just think that applying those standards in the partisan forums is bound to inevitably trip folks up.
I’m specifically mentioning this in the context of the partisan forums because it is in those forums in particular that emotions run so high. We are currently in the most heated political climate I can remember and practically every political post or post that debates an ideological point of contention can be claimed by those in opposition to be a post specifically posted to incite anger.
I’ve posted less and less in the partisan forums. I haven’t received a warning which has chilled me from doing so. The fact that others have received warnings for things that appear, at least superficially, very innocuous is chilling enough. The Pit has become the safe space lol!!!
Isn’t that exactly what Barack Obama did? He never struck me as being partisan to one side or another, other than whatever would stir up the most shit.
And you can’t seriously believe that Budget Player Cadet was targeted for being conservative, of all things?
I think it’s akin to probation: If you’re an ex-felon, you have restrictions on you that normal people don’t.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
No. I don’t think he or Barack Obama were too conservative at all. I was mainly referring to Hurricane and Will.
It’s just things that seemingly wouldn’t be bothered with before are coming under a bit more scrutiny now. And the consequences are hitting those with more marks on their official records so to speak. It’s like the mods are cleaning house. That said, with current requests for input on various forums and discussions such as the disputation thread if there has been a change in policy it would be useful for everyone to be clued into it instead of having to infer.
There’s a 2020 election coming up. Stuff is bound to get interesting in Elections and GD at the very least.
Lol. Good point.
Kinda sad to see them get banned.
But I cant disagree with why.
On a related note, I am curious how a banned poster finds out they got banned. Do they just try to log in as usual and then find out “username and/or password does not work?”
That was not my impression at all. I felt the poster Barack Obama was pretty far to the left. (Which makes it amusing that he chose a relative moderate as his namesake.) He may have attacked people like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton - but he was attacking them for being too conservative.
I’ve thought it pretty obvious for a while that certain high profile posters were being more closely highlighted and scrutinised, with the inevitable result always going to be a ban. After all, look hard enough for something and you are probably going to find it.
The problem of course isn’t the mods acting on rules violations, it’s that question of how those posters became high profile in the first place…
There’s no “problem”, all the posters in question had lists of warnings, and, I think in all cases, previous suspensions. Basically, they were all congenitally incapable of not being troublesome. I don’t see how that’s a “problem”
I’ve gotten a warning or two in my time here. The news comes in an e-mail to one’s private e-mail address. I imagine getting bammed would be conveyed likewise?
I think that’s really confirmation bias showing itself, here.
The simple fact is that the vast VAST majority of posters never get a warning, even in Great Debates or Elections. Even of the posters who do get warnings it’s limited to one or two incidents.
To get suspended or banned requires a repeated effort on the part of a poster to consistently break rules. One really needs to work at it to get to that point.
Even with that level of misbehavior, however, it can still be a chore to get sanctioned. To tear back a bit of the veil, here, if a mod issues a warning and realizes the warned poster has many warnings in a shortish amount of time he or she can then bring it to the mod loop. At that point there’s a discussion that happens and one of us can move a vote about banning or suspending.
Even then it takes a majority of mods to enact such a sanction. And tradition says that if any one of us strongly objects it goes back to discussion instead of moving forward.
I’m a pretty combative poster, I know this, I don’t suffer fools or bigots gladly and I have major disagreements about some moderation choices that I’m very vocal about.
But I’ve racked up just 2 warnings and zero suspensions in 16 years here. And I somehow doubt it’s because the mods all love me.
You really have to work at getting banned.