|
On May 19 2018 13:19 Aveng3r wrote:
This seems another case in what is clearly now a miscommunication in what is expected when bringing tweets into the discussion. I am increasingly baffled as to why these bans on well meaning posters keep happening. If this isn't what the mod team wants for the thread than please for the love of god explain why.
Every time one of these ridiculous bans occurs the thread seems to suffer.
what miscommunication? it looks quite straightforward to me; I saw dood's post last night and could see it was clearly a violation of the policy, just a tweet and a one-liner snark.
|
While the mod action is easy to justify I feel 30 days is a bit much in relation to the crime.
|
On May 19 2018 21:32 Nebuchad wrote:
While the mod action is easy to justify I feel 30 days is a bit much in relation to the crime.
perhaps; but the stated justification for the duration seems reasonable.
|
Seems rather disproportionate. Is there any reason that xdaunt gets away with a thread ban for something that would had normally gotten him site banned if posted in the general forum, whilst doodsmack would have a site wide ban for a thread specific rule?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Probably because he doesn't learn from his mistakes after the warning, the second warning, the third warning, the short ban, the medium duration ban, and so on?
|
Norway28599 Posts
if I didn't screw up counting he had 53 bans/warnings before this one. Might be the highest number I've seen for any individual account. (also reflects that none of his transgressions are all that severe, though, as normally a poster would get permed before managing to rack up this many).
|
I can't follow his bans/warning, but no matter how many times a person insists on posting tweets poorly, to ban someone for violating a non-malicious thread specific rules from the site altogether, is disproportionate no matter which way I look at it.
|
United States24632 Posts
I don't agree. Once you make it clear that a particular violation, even a minor one, can't result in a temp ban so long as the person didn't seem malicious, other people will relax their own compliance with similar 'small' rules.
edit: If you are saying a temp ban from the thread was warranted, then that's a decision the mods make after looking at the overall mod history
|
Yes, I am saying it should be a temp ban from the thread. I agree with the tweet content rule and that he should had been temp-banned, just not site wide. Or If he doesn't learn, perm-ban him from the thread. That to me is proportionate.
|
seems proportionate to me; also not sure proportionality is the exact right word the situation; feels like there's something more apt, but not sure what; venue?
|
On May 21 2018 05:28 zlefin wrote:
seems proportionate to me; also not sure proportionality is the exact right word the situation; feels like there's something more apt, but not sure what; venue?
i think you are conflating length and the punishment qua effect. the length may be proportional and yet the punishment is not proportional. the "venue" here has differential effects. its like saying that as long as jail time and solitary confinement are of equivalent length they are equivalently proportional
|
On May 21 2018 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:28 zlefin wrote:
seems proportionate to me; also not sure proportionality is the exact right word the situation; feels like there's something more apt, but not sure what; venue? i think you are conflating length and the punishment qua effect. the length may be proportional and yet the punishment is not proportional. the "venue" here has differential effects. its like saying that as long as jail time and solitary confinement are of equivalent length they are equivalently proportional
interesting thought; but no, it's not that. at least not if i'm parsing your statement as you intended it to be.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36961 Posts
On May 21 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't follow his bans/warning, but no matter how many times a person insists on posting tweets poorly, to ban someone for violating a non-malicious thread specific rules from the site altogether, is disproportionate no matter which way I look at it.
I agree.
Doodsmack has been unbanned. He is now thread banned from the USPMT temporarily.
|
Still, 53 warnings. That's more on one site than I've picked up in my entire internet history.
|
On May 21 2018 17:08 iamthedave wrote:
Still, 53 warnings. That's more on one site than I've picked up in my entire internet history.
Some of us like to take it to the limit.
|
On May 19 2018 12:53 Danglars wrote:I thought he would reform on tweet/article + snarky comment in order to keep up his second love: Show nested quote +Doodsmack wrote: On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote:
The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. Do you think Trump is a bigot? Snarky comments and questions on other posters.
Absolutely nothing snarky about asking whether Introvert believes Trump is a bigot even as he criticizes one media story that would be consistent with bigotry. It’s about the big picture. He claimed that he was only referring to one example of media exaggeration, which implies that he might not really believe a trump is a bigot, and instead it’s just media exaggeration.
Although if you’re saying the question is snarky because it’s obvious that trump is a bigot (which it is), that makes sense.
|
|
|
On May 21 2018 10:12 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't follow his bans/warning, but no matter how many times a person insists on posting tweets poorly, to ban someone for violating a non-malicious thread specific rules from the site altogether, is disproportionate no matter which way I look at it. I agree. Doodsmack has been unbanned. He is now thread banned from the USPMT temporarily.
Thanks.
____________
About taelshin:
On May 18 2018 07:36 Taelshin wrote:
Its a shame calling a horrific gang of monster's animals bothers you, but I really do not care about your feelers. Call them what you want, ill call them what I want.
Not interested in a war on drugs argument and I provided links which show why I am in favor of calling them animals, You telling me you "understand" gang violence does not make those points invalid or carry any less weight.
User was temp banned for this post.
Reason: Don't call human beings "animals" in a derogatory sense. And if someone takes the time to point out the flaws in your logic, then don't just discredit them.
The first sentence doesn't quite match up that we are discussing whether it is or isn't fine to call human being "animals" in the derogatory sense. Even though I personally disagree with taelshin, it is perfectly ok opinion to hold as a discussion.
But I interpreted the ban reason as being: Don't call human beings "animals" in a derogatory sense and then if someone takes the time to point out the flaws in your logic, don't just discredit them.
In other words, the problem would be to ask for an opinion and then to say that you don't care for their opinion in a derogatory sense. The first sentence isn't needed at all and can be done away with. Poor communication, which distracts from the intent of the tempban.
Makes me wonder about that guy who asked whether people are willing to pay for the health insurance of other people, and when I responded that I in fact do so, said that he doesn't care for my answer. He definately should had been warned or banned about that too.
|
Yeah, I throught it was abundantly clear he was banned for being an asshole in that post.
|
Just found out about this thread and read the last 50 pages to get that juicy back-and-forth discussion I had been craving. It did not disappoint.
While there was a lot to take away, the one thing I wanted to point out is that according to brian’s logic when arguing with IgnE, anyone complaining about feeling attacked when people use generalizations like “the left”, “liberals”, and “Democrats” need to stop looking for personal insults where there are none, and/or retreat to their safe spaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
