Right. I typed too fast and wasn’t clear on that.
I think it’s the whole “finally being allowed to vote” thing that’s pushed him into chicken impressions and homophobia. Hopefully this is his wake-up call.
I don’t know anything about Qin Shi Huangdi’s other posts regarding Marco Rubio, but his thread-shitting, unsubstantiated accusation about Rubio being a closeted homosexual was why I referred to Rubio as “Mr Homo himself” in my on-topic response.
It was meant as a subtle dig at QSH for what he did. If it was spoken in conversation it would have been clear as satire. However, since this is the internet and no one picked up on it I duly accepted my warning.
I just want to, again, state my intentions, as I later clarified in the thread.
Why does that matter? I don’t agree with you, due to his recent posting history of bashing people who aren’t “manly” (which is what “cuck” is about), but even if he didn’t intend to gay bash, that has no bearing on whether it is acceptable. If your “making fun” is indistinguishable from the real thing, it’s just as hurtful.
Ironic gay bashing is still gay bashing. And using irony on contentious topics-- unless you make it clear that’s what you’re doing–is pretty much indistinguishable from trolling.
I admit the previous Warning could have not been gay bashing. In that particular situation, it could have been a dog whistle or legitimately thinking the guy was gay and that Republicans would have a problem with it. But the latter seems much less likely when you refuse to offer the evidence that convinces you that he was gay. Hence JC’s response.
Qin didn’t argue against the gay bashing claim, though. (The response of JC makes it appear he didn’t do so in private, either.) That’s a tacit admission. At the very least, he didn’t seem to mind that JC thought he was gay bashing.
On a more personal note, may I suggest you take a step back, and see what you’re doing? You’re a poster I respect a lot. But imagine how it would look if you saw a new poster who just came in and started defending Qin for his remarks.
I know you have your reasons. But if you step back, you’ll see you’re playing the classic “find an excuse for bigoted shit” game.
There’s no shame in questioning a warning in good faith, so you can leave aside your concerns about my reputation.
The **Stringbean **warning was plainly wrong and you’re wrong to suggest he’s a bigot for ironically calling Rubio “Mr. Homo.” Qin’s posts were admittedly more ambiguous, but I don’t like seeing ambiguous hate speech modded.
I don’t think there’s much more to say here. I’ll be interested to here Qin’s take on his return, assuming he comes back.
One question, mods - this is Qin/Curtis’ second suspension for trolling - why not a banning?
This wasn’t in GD, this was all in Elections. Your point is valid, though.
I never said a thing about your reputation, and I never once addressed Stringbean’s warning in any way. I never called anyone a bigot, because whether or not someone actually is a bigot doesn’t matter in the slightest.
Qin’s posts were not ambiguous, and I tried to explain why. You are the only person in this thread who seems to think they were ambiguous. And what Qin says when he comes back is irrelevant, as you get Warned for what you say, not what you mean.
And I am responding to a post where you weren’t arguing about Warnings and instead are trying to argue that Qin’s post is ambiguous.
Reasonable people’s opinions differ, that’s not a problem, that’s why message boards exist.
Before I answer that, please note that I’m answering since you have asked. You may not like or agree with the answer, but it’s what the answer to the question is…and that’s mostly this:
He was suspended shortly after first joining, which was five years ago now. After that, he improved by a fair amount and followed the rules pretty much from then on with very little straying from them. It was–at least in this mod’s opinion–one of the bigger improvements I’ve seen a poster have, considering how close it was to banning in a short time the first time.
With that taken into account, we’re not opposed to giving someone a second suspension instead of banning and letting that one be the last if it fails to work. Again, I speak only for myself for this next sentence, but there’s a big difference between that case and a case where someone breaks rules, builds up a lot of warnings, gets suspended, comes back and immediately starts breaking rules and pushing the line again. That wasn’t the case here, however.
You or others may disagree and/or may argue against that reasoning, but that’s what the reasoning was for the decision (factual answer).
Per a previous discussion, you get a 1 week suspension, then a 1 month suspension, and then a ban. Generally.
Actually, this is the exception, not the majority of cases. We typically suspend posters for thirty days from the start. Day and week long suspensions are rarely given out, usually only if the poster is usually seen as a non-trouble-maker and just needs a short “cool off” period.
Also, we will choose to ban a poster rather than suspend then a second time more than suspending a second time, because most of the time it’s the case that I pointed out above: A poster will come back from suspension and start getting notes and warnings fairly quickly again (within a year’s period)…not typically a five year one.
Something else: the first time round, Qin was 12 or 13. I must say that I am saddened by the change in Qin these past 6 months or so.
OK, I guess I misremembered from that thread I started about Terr and BrainGlutton. But this brings up another point… how often do you guys give a poster 2 shots at a 1 month suspension before banning?
We have a quota of 3 a year.
Ok you probably didn’t want the smartass answer. The bottom line is they are all judgement calls. Those that wish for a more orderly universe want a matrix of warnings/suspensions/bannings so the answer would come up the same each time. In reality we have to take in the totality of the circumstances and each case winds up different. In this case if we go one way there will be the “Why don’t you ban after you already suspended for a month” questions. If we went the other way some would say “You always say that old warnings don’t hold much weight but now you go straight to banning for things that happened 5 years ago.” We look at the whole and attempt to come up with the best solution.
Actually, I like the smart-ass answer quite a lot! 
But no, I wasn’t asking for a hard and fast rule, just how common it was of that to happen. Is it very rare? Is it not all that unusual? Just something along those lines.
I would say it’s rare. Most posters who can’t seem to follow the rules tend to flame out pretty quickly after coming back from suspension for whatever reason led them to get suspended in the first place.
Yes, extremely rare in my experience. But we figured five-plus years following his first suspension should earn Qin a bit of slack.
It’s not very common, but it’s not completely unheard of either.
Speaking in generalities and not about any specific poster, a poster who gets suspended either changes their behavior or they don’t. Those that don’t make it clear that a suspension isn’t going to help their behavior, so they aren’t likely to be given another one.
If a person does change their behavior though, and manages to post for some time without causing problems, then we are much more likely to discuss another suspension if they lapse into bad behavior for a second time.
Got it. Thanks.
As I see it this warning was for failure to obey out of thread moderator instructions. Which is falls in the canonical category.
It’s too bad about Qin. He adds value to the board. He also adds diversity as the SDMB tilts towards the upper middle age and higher. I’d be inclined to cut him additional slack, but the mods here are reluctant (with justifiable reason) to take value-added into account.