Threadban immigration thread

[Bubblypop]

I accept I replied to a poster when I had been asked not to, so the threadban is fair enough, I was wrong and accept it.
I would like to point out that the particular poster appears to be replying to my posts, when quoting other people. As some type of get around. Is this permissable?

[Guburnor]

I accept I replied to a poster when I had been asked not to, so the threadban is fair enough, I was wrong and accept it.
I would like to point out that the particular poster appears to be replying to my posts, when quoting other people. As some type of get around. Is this permissable?

Can you link an example, thanks?

[Guburnor]

Ok I see it now, and I take your point.

[Guburnor]

I have lifted the threadban. Please just stay out of each others way. thanks.

[Bubblypop]

I will try.

[ceannairceach]

I have to respectfully register my displeasure this has caused.

I noted a comment in a reply from I think Jequon?

I commented on an inconsistency in terminology. I had no idea who posted the original and had I saw who it was would have thought twice about my comment and I have zero wish to engage.

Whereas on a third occasion now Bubblypop has contravened a direct instruction and gets away with it - adding to the many breaches of the basic cardinal rule.

I’m tired of being dragged into this as it made to look like I am continuing a pointless argument. I’m not looking for a “workaround”. I have no wish to engage full stop let alone find a way.

[Guburnor]

I have to respectfully register my displeasure this has caused.

I noted a comment in a reply from I think Jequon?

I commented on an inconsistency in terminology. I had no idea who posted the original and had I saw who it was would have thought twice about my comment and I have zero wish to engage.

Whereas on a third occasion now Bubblypop has contravened a direct instruction and gets away with it - adding to the many breaches of the basic cardinal rule.

I’m tired of being dragged into this as it made to look like I am continuing a pointless argument. I’m not looking for a “workaround”. I have no wish to engage full stop let alone find a way.

As I said, just err on the side of caution, thanks.

[Bubblypop]

Just wondering Guv if this warning applies to all threads?

[Guburnor]

Just wondering Guv if this warning applies to all threads?

Yes, ignore each other site wide, thanks

[ceannairceach]

As I said, just err on the side of caution, thanks.

I absolutely respect that but like I said I’ve not violated the instruction nor have I sought to violate it, and note it is site wide of course.

I will show caution but I just wanted it on the record that breaches are not equal.

[Guburnor]

I absolutely respect that but like I said I’ve not violated the instruction nor have I sought to violate it, and note it is site wide of course.

I will show caution but I just wanted it on the record that breaches are not equal.

I am going to be blunt here, for clarity. I wish occasionally you could try see things from different point of view other than your own, particularly mine trying to mod your posts and keep the peace.

I commented on an inconsistency in terminology. I had no idea who posted the original and had I saw who it was would have thought twice about my comment and I have zero wish to engage.

This is clearly bullshit, yet you were given the benefit of the doubt in the hope you could just drop it and move on. And here you are, still having a whinge about the unfairness of it all.

Over 75% of the modding here involves you, directly or indirectly, and it is becoming an issue. You seem very keen to pick a fight with anybody who doesn't see things exactly the same way as you, including me, and I am getting sick of it.

[Bubblypop]

I was banned for calling posters “murderers” after they joked about sending British gunboats to “deter” people crossing the Channel. If that was satire, it was the kind that flirts with authoritarian fantasy. My reply was equally satirical it was just aimed upward, not downward.
I get that tone matters. But if the thread permits gallows humour about state violence, it should tolerate gallows humour about the people proposing it. Otherwise, it’s not moderation, it’s mood management.
If the platform tolerates jokes about violent deterrents, surely it can tolerate a sharp rebuke of that idea.
I can post with a bit more restraint, though I can’t promise to laugh when the punchline involves gunboats and state violence
@Guburnor

[Guburnor]

I was banned for calling posters “murderers” after they joked about sending British gunboats to “deter” people crossing the Channel. If that was satire, it was the kind that flirts with authoritarian fantasy. My reply was equally satirical it was just aimed upward, not downward.
I get that tone matters. But if the thread permits gallows humour about state violence, it should tolerate gallows humour about the people proposing it. Otherwise, it’s not moderation, it’s mood management.
If the platform tolerates jokes about violent deterrents, surely it can tolerate a sharp rebuke of that idea.
I can post with a bit more restraint, though I can’t promise to laugh when the punchline involves gunboats and state violence
@Guburnor

Before we get into the context and nuance of satire, jokes and gallows humour, could you clarify this:

Now, we see it. Raise an issue that is the 'wrong' side and the mods retaliate against you. Sounds like something people used to complain about on a different forum

I didn't pick a "side" in this nonsense, nor did I retaliate against you.

Initially I saw the comment about the boats and thought that's unhelpful for encouraging reasonable discussion, and then I saw your comment about posters being hateful murderers and thought that's equally unhelpful.

As far 'sides" go, I thought it was a nil all draw, and I hoped it could be left at that. That's what I meant about you having said your piece.

Now you tell me that you have been retaliated against for raising an issue that is the "wrong" side.

Can you spell that out for me, I feel like I'm missing something?

[Bubblypop]

Before we get into the context and nuance of satire, jokes and gallows humour, could you clarify this:



I didn't pick a "side" in this nonsense, nor did I retaliate against you.

Initially I saw the comment about the boats and thought that's unhelpful for encouraging reasonable discussion, and then I saw your comment about posters being hateful murderers and thought that's equally unhelpful.

As far 'sides" go, I thought it was a nil all draw, and I hoped it could be left at that. That's what I meant about you having said your piece.

Now you tell me that you have been retaliated against for raising an issue that is the "wrong" side.

Can you spell that out for me, I feel like I'm missing something?

Well, if you did feel it was a nil all draw, then why the threadban against me?
If everything was equal and we were both equally unhelpful, which is fair enough, them why one threadban.

[Guburnor]

Well, if you did feel it was a nil all draw, then why the threadban against me?
If everything was equal and we were both equally unhelpful, which is fair enough, them why one threadban.

Because unfortunately it wasn't left at that, you brought it up here and raised some concerns that you thought the comments made should be modded more literally.

So I said to you "to demonstrate the downside from a modding point of view of taking everything literally without context or nuance I will the mod the exchange accordingly."

If you take the comments in the exchange literally, the only modding option was to sanction you. It wasn't a question of sides. In the literal interpretation there is only transgression - your hateful murderers comment.

Now having received the sanction you're claiming it was satire, but that's exactly the sort of after the event claim that you said should not be allowed as it renders the site rules meaningless.

[Bubblypop]

Because unfortunately it wasn't left at that, you brought it up here and raised some concerns that you thought the comments made should be modded more literally.

So I said to you "to demonstrate the downside from a modding point of view of taking everything literally without context or nuance I will the mod the exchange accordingly."

If you take the comments in the exchange literally, the only modding option was to sanction you. It wasn't a question of sides. In the literal interpretation there is only transgression - your hateful murderers comment.

Now having received the sanction you're claiming it was satire, but that's exactly the sort of after the event claim that you said should not be allowed as it renders the site rules meaningless.

I brought concerns re modding of certain posts, to the thread on modding, which is where you have directed them to be. I merely did what you ask posters to do. I don't believe I have done something wrong with that, but if I have somehow picked that up wrong, please let me know.

And, as you have already proved, claiming something is a joke after the fact, is ok. My point was that if a post is satire, and is allowed, then the posts replying to it should also be modded in the same way.
If edgy posts are allowed, then edgy responses should also be.

[Guburnor]

I brought concerns re modding of certain posts, to the thread on modding, which is where you have directed them to be. I merely did what you ask posters to do.

Do you still have those concerns about the modding of the gunboat post or do you now understand and agree why it was modded as I did originally?

[Bubblypop]

Do you still have those concerns about the modding of the gunboat post or do you now understand and agree why it was modded as I did originally?

No I don't have concerns, You explained why you closed the report, I hope you understand that I brought my posts about it, to the thread you stated we should.

Hence my reaction to my being banned. If both posts where equally unhelpful, and you believed it was a draw, I then brought concerns to the modding thread and was subsequently banned from the immigration one.

[Guburnor]

No I don't have concerns, You explained why you closed the report, I hope you understand that I brought my posts about it, to the thread you stated we should.

I'm glad you no longer have concerns, it was worth the time taken then.

Hence my reaction to my being banned. If both posts where equally unhelpful, and you believed it was a draw, I then brought concerns to the modding thread and was subsequently banned from the immigration one.

You were banned from the immigration thread to illustrate the only modding option open to me in addressing the concerns you raised. I'm still not entirely sure if that point has been successfully illustrated but I don't know how else to do it.

[Bubblypop]

I'm glad you no longer have concerns, it was worth the time taken then.



You were banned from the immigration thread to illustrate the only modding option open to me in addressing the concerns you raised. I'm still not entirely sure if that point has been successfully illustrated but I don't know how else to do it.

I understand what you are trying to illustrate, but will point out that it was the only option open to you, based on your belief that the poster was joking. In that case, you could also decide that I was joking. So, still taking one poster side against another, in a case that you yourself said were both equally unhelpful and a draw.
It's still based on what you believe, not as of you are bound to ban me. If you see what I mean ?

[Guburnor]

I understand what you are trying to illustrate, but will point out that it was the only option open to you, based on your belief that the poster was joking. In that case, you could also decide that I was joking. So, still taking one poster side against another, in a case that you yourself said were both equally unhelpful and a draw.
It's still based on what you believe, not as of you are bound to ban me. If you see what I mean ?

This is exactly how I dealt with it originally and why there was no sanction against anybody. You were unhappy with that approach and raised your concerns.

So either both posts are dealt as slightly unhelpful flippant remarks and nobody deserves a sanction.

Or as you suggested, less tolerance for poor humour and flippant remarks, and both posts are taken literally.

If the flippancy is disregarded and both posts are taken literally only one deserves a sanction, as only one mentioned murder.

Hence only one ban.

For the record, the disregard for flippancy and poor humour in preference to a literal reading, is only used in this instance to illustrate the point in question.

We're not banning flippancy and bad jokes on an ongoing basis!

[Bubblypop]

This is exactly how I dealt with it originally and why there was no sanction against anybody. You were unhappy with that approach and raised your concerns.

So either both posts are dealt as slightly unhelpful flippant remarks and nobody deserves a sanction.

Or as you suggested, less tolerance for poor humour and flippant remarks, and both posts are taken literally.

If the flippancy is disregarded and both posts are taken literally only one deserves a sanction, as only one mentioned murder.

Hence only one ban.

For the record, the disregard for flippancy and poor humour in preference to a literal reading, is only used in this instance to illustrate the point in question.

We're not banning flippancy and bad jokes on an ongoing basis!

What you have done with this is to make sure that noone questions anything on the modding thread, because if they do they can be sanctioned for their own posts, when they are merely doing what is asked by mods.
I did exactly as you ask posters to do, chat about mod actions on the modding threads. Then I get threadbanned from a different thread.
Maybe you can see the problem with this

[ceannairceach]

Lol

[Guburnor]

What you have done with this is to make sure that noone questions anything on the modding thread, because if they do they can be sanctioned for their own posts, when they are merely doing what is asked by mods.
I did exactly as you ask posters to do, chat about mod actions on the modding threads. Then I get threadbanned from a different thread.
Maybe you can see the problem with this

You reported a post and I took no action on it.
You then raised it in the modding forum to discuss it further, totally fair enough.

I explained why I took no action - I thought it wasn't intended to be taken literally - it was a joke. A bad joke, a joke in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless. I also mentioned that you said your piece on thread, and I had hoped it could be left at that.

You disagreed and explained why you disagreed, totally fair enough.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with you, and mod the post. And when it was clear I wasn't going to change my mind you became a bit petulant:

So, in that case, everything that is said is ok, because no matter what it is, the poster can claim it's a joke.
So your rules of no racism or hate speech are pointless because even if someone does post something contrary to those rules, they can then claim 'joke'
If that's the rules here, fair enough, so long as we all know what we can say

In response to that, and since I wasn't making any progress with the point I was trying to make, I responded, emphasis added:

No that is not the case, and you know that. You're well aware I have previously modded posters for incitement to violence, hate speech and racism. But there has to be room for context and nuance.
TBH I think this is a bit petulant, the overriding rule is don't be a dick.
But to demonstrate the downside from a modding point of view of taking everything literally without context or nuance I will the mod the exchange accordingly.

And the result was it was your post that was modded. I didn't want to do that.

I didn't mod your post because you had the temerity to raise issues in the modding forum.

I modded your post because you specifically called for posts to be taken literally, and you had called a poster "hateful murderer". It was merely intended to show you cannot have it both ways.

You, and many other posters, have raised issues in the modding forum in the past and I have changed my mind having considered the concerns, and agreed with the concerns raised.

I don't see that because I didn't agree with you on this occasion, that there is a problem here.

The don't be a dick rule applies to the modding forum as much as it does anywhere else.

Can we leave it at that?

[Bubblypop]

I discussed modding on the correct thread, it appears from reading your posts here, that you just didn't like my posts. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but you didn't like the way I posted. (The non existent tone for example)
So then proceeded to teach me a lesson/make an example out of me, then banned me.
But yeah, we can leave it there, I understand .