Notice of change to Warning points system

[James R]

Members are advised that the 'default' expiry time on official Warning points issued as from today will be 6 months.

This is a change from the previous 3 month default expiry time.

We have found that, over time, a number of members have attracted hundreds of warning points. Clearly, the 3 month expiry time has not been sufficient to encourage those members to alter their behaviour. The moderator group is finding that we regularly have to deal with 'chronic offenders', which is a drain on our time and energy. We hope that increasing the expiry period will act as a more effective incentive to certain members to control their offensive posting.

A general description of how the Warnings and bans system works can be found here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-how-warnings-and-bans-work.144904/

Our site posting guidelines can be found here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

 

[origin]

I think this is a good idea. An even longer time period would make sense to me.

 

[Bowser]

Yeah, but you can trigger someone without even trying. I wrote three lines of text the other day and got a six paragraph warning in response. All I did was respond to another member's post. There are tripwires allover the place.

 

[Tiassa]

Yeah, but you can trigger someone without even trying. I wrote three lines of text the other day and got a six paragraph warning in response. All I did was respond to another member's post. There are tripwires allover the place.

Is that so? Wow, what ever did you write?

Tell us about it. We'll look into it, and be happy to report the result to you right here.

 

[Bowser]

Is that so? Wow, what ever did you write?

Tell us about it. We'll look into it, and be happy to report the result to you right here.

It seems that I mentioned "Rape Culture" while replying to a post. To the best of my knowledge, that was the crux of the issue. I mean, there was more fluff in the warning, but I think that's what triggered it in the first place.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Response

It seems that I mentioned "Rape Culture" while replying to a post. To the best of my knowledge, that was the crux of the issue. I mean, there was more fluff in the warning, but I think that's what triggered it in the first place.

You do not get to reiterate a debunked thesis you have shown no good faith effort to defend. And you had your chance to defend it.

If you intend to reiterate discredited and offensive theses for no useful reason, it really doesn't seem useful to pretend you don't know why you're getting warnings.

So I'm putting on my green hat in order to make the point specifically: You do not have infinite license to behave dishonestly.

Recent events and circumstances have made it clear that we can no longer entertain bad faith under a pretense of diversity; there is no point to engaging the incorrigible.

And that includes you, Bowser. Part of having a "discussion" involves demonostrating a modicum of human respect for the people you are "discussing" issues with. Engaging you as a simple fellow participant in the discussion is pretty much futile: The disrespect you show is extraordinary in itself as well as its unacceptability.

So, really, what is the point of writing a black-ink response, as a fellow participant in the discussion, when you're not going to pay attention, anyway? When all you're going to do is posture and manipulate in order to say terrible things about other human beings in order to feel better about yourself?

There's no point in having a "discussion" with someone who refuses good faith.

So we're skipping to the part where we simply hand out flags. When the point is to simply reiterate what one considers so indefensible they won't even properly try to defend for the sake of repeating the indefensible, yeah, we get the point. And it's pointless.

So is the pretense of naïveté.

It would seem an extraordinary proposition that you should fail to be aware that nobody really believes it. We put up with it for a similarly ludicrous pretense of diversity. And in issues where you refuse good faith, we're not bothering with the pretense, anymore. With bullying behavior, we've pretty much run out of cloth for cutting breaks.

 

[Bowser]

So, that's your response for the warning. Is my original post permanently deleted? I mean, maybe we should have another look at the offending content. From my perspective, I was simply having a conversation with another member. She made a statement and I responded.

 

[billvon]

She made a statement and I responded.

Methinks the poster doth protest too much.

 

[Bowser]

Methinks the poster doth protest too much.

Not at all. It's a curiosity because it came out of nowhere. I didn't see the warning coming because, from my point of view, it was an innocent remark, relative to what had been said. I was surprised by the reaction.

 

[Daecon]

Going from your reputation, if you think that your comment was an "innocent" remark, then you have bigger problems than just getting a warning.