“Value added” is such a subjective quality, I’m hope the mods don’t take that into account. That would be enough for me to start siding with those who claim bias.
Yeah, gotta admit.
That’s a decision I never want to be in a position to make.
'Cos people like me and Drunky would be out on our asses.
Naah, I wasn’t agitating for his banning, I was genuinely curious about the process, thank for the info.
It seems though like he’s reverting to the way he posted when he first came here. Wonder why?
I know, I know. Probably won’t happen.
I’d make it a consideration anyway. We’re here to fight ignorance and make wisecracks. Posters can be ranked on both criteria. Most of the banned would earn double zeros anyway. Sure it might entail some bias, but so what? Let the whiners whine. Maybe I’d give it the weight of a couple of warnings.
That’s my take anyway. It’s also very much against the consensus of this board’s mods or membership. Won’t happen.
He’s 18 or 19 now, isn’t he?
We’re wandering into discussing the poster instead of the mod action. I think it’s better for everyone that such not occur. Feel free to ask him when he returns.
Has anyone kept track on the effectiveness of suspensions in modifying posting behavior?
Everything is taken into consideration, at least by me. “Value” comes into it on the extreme ends. Some posters join just to troll. They get banned without a suspension. An exemplary poster could be here for years and just have a bad day or something hits a raw nerve and they have a melt down. That poster might get a short break from posting. Most cases fall in between. If a poster continually breaks the rules it’s not going to matter what they bring to other threads.
Someone tried to do that once, but he got banned.
Exactly, if people were referring to Rubio as say “Senator Taco”, the mods, if anything would have said “knock that off, right now” vastly quicker, at a minimum if not immediately jump to a warning even though such a phrase is not inherently insulting to either Rubio or Latinos.
JC said stop that, and they refused to stop.
I don’t find this “ignore the context” argument very persuasive. If we’re in a thread about Barack Obama’s treatment by the GOP and I refer to him as President Kenya of Muslimistan, you’re saying I should be warned for hate speech? Of course not. The context and intent matters.
Obviously, there’s room to argue about context and intent. And I accept that many people don’t see the ambiguity I see here. But to assert that we should ignore context and intent entirely seems foolhardy to me. I note with interest that there is now a thread making the identical assertion about Hillary Clinton without moderation. Why is it hate speech when directed at Rubio, but not when directed at Clinton?
Yeah. “Senator Medianoche” or “Senator Ropa Vieja,” please. We’re all about fighting ignorance.
I think it was the right decision. I actually knew him several years ago from another board and he’s gotten vastly more mature.
This was really out of character for him.
It ranks an 18.7 on a 1 to 23 scale.
Suspensions are also provided for other members, so that we can wave farewell to those on the ban-train.
See post number 3. As I understand it, compiling evidence that Rubio is gay would be acceptable in a thread, provided it was topical. Empty insinuations and smears? That’s something else.
This is also consistent with the board’s longstanding affirmative action plan for conservatives, something I support 200%. It’s a striking example of moderator bias and a crime against humanity, something I support 400%.
Still working on that sarcasm thing eh? They can’t all be winners 
As much as I hate to defend that HRC thread… no assertion was made about her. The OP asked what would happen if she were to come out as a lesbian, as many people have speculated. And it’s true that many people have speculated that. The OP did not call her a lesbian.
Ha, jokes on them. I always carry a Deluxe Comfort Donut Pillow with me.
[quote=“Colibri, post:15, topic:746554”]
As has been pointed out, this involves a suspension rather than a banning. In any case, it is not prohibited to discuss the reasons why a poster was banned with respect to the rules. What we want to avoid is personal attacks on someone who can’t defend themselves.
I’m sorry, but it seems Dex was wrong then. Link.
I gather it will be okay for people to ask why I was banned in an open forum? As far back as I can remember it was always “PM a Mod”