Q's Ban (Or, Syne Strikes Again)

[Balerion]

So Q has been banned by the newest Sciforums tyrant for "inflammatory posting." A brief review of his most recent posts reveals, by any objective measure, nothing that fits the description of the ban.

Interestingly, Q's final post was this, from the "thread closures" thread.

Explanation posted for that thread closure. Explanations will be given as a courtesy, and if that provokes more complaints (than the two threads on topic closures so far) there will be little reason to make the effort to extend that courtesy in the future.

Here is one of your "courtesies"...

"Seeing as this thread has gone off-topic, and that I have already answered what was seemingly a direct question to me (as much as I intend to anyway), this thread has served its purpose."

Considering that most threads go off topic at some point, that would you mean you should close them all, but you don't. So, your other reason must be the case. And of course, if we are to read the OP of that thread, the question was not directed at you.


Curious.

Curious, indeed.

 

[Randwolf]

So Q has been banned by the newest Sciforums tyrant for "inflammatory posting." A brief review of his most recent posts reveals, by any objective measure, nothing that fits the description of the ban.

Interestingly, Q's final post was this, from the "thread closures" thread.



Curious, indeed.

More than curious. Some (not me of course) might even say "vainglorious". I so rarely get to use that word...

I doubt this modus operandi will continue for long.

 

[Kittamaru]

*facepalm*

Wrong again, Balerion... it must be tiring to soapbox like that, so I beseech you to cease before you make a fool of yourself.

(Q)'s ban was in relation to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...miracle-of-condensation&p=3164726#post3164726

It is not permanent, and is in fact already almost a third of the way over. A 3 day ban is lenient, considering that, with the two active infraction points (Q) has, it could have been a 14 day ban, as per the infractions and ban system this forum has operated under (last updated in 2010, so it isn't a new policy by any stretch)

 

[Randwolf]

*facepalm*

Wrong again, Balerion... it must be tiring to soapbox like that, so I beseech you to cease before you make a fool of yourself.

(Q)'s ban was in relation to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...miracle-of-condensation&p=3164726#post3164726

It is not permanent, and is in fact already almost a third of the way over. A 3 day ban is lenient, considering that, with the two active infraction points (Q) has, it could have been a 14 day ban, as per the infractions and ban system this forum has operated under (last updated in 2010, so it isn't a new policy by any stretch)

That puts things in a slightly different perspective.

 

[Baldeee]

Out of curiosity, if that post is sufficient to warrant a ban (taking into account active infraction points), how come the post itself is not removed?

 

[Kittamaru]

Indeed, having all the facts can greatly alter the perception of an event... Balerion is continuing a standing tradition of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "argumentum ad misericordiam" (appeal to ignorance and appeal to pity/emotion). Red Herrings and Slippery Slopes occasionally make their way in as well... *shrugs*

Out of curiosity, if that post is sufficient to warrant a ban (taking into account active infraction points), how come the post itself is not removed?

There are two standings on this, one of which is that the post, in some form, needs to be left intact as "proof" of what happened... this is a more recent train of thought given that almost every action a mod or admin takes seems to come under public scrutiny now. The other is, as you said, that it should be removed.

Personally, even as a man of religion myself, I didn't find it all that offensive... but that's just me *shrugs*

 

[Sorcerer]

Indeed, having all the facts can greatly alter the perception of an event... Balerion is continuing a standing tradition of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "argumentum ad misericordiam" (appeal to ignorance and appeal to pity/emotion). Red Herrings and Slippery Slopes occasionally make their way in as well... *shrugs*



There are two standings on this, one of which is that the post, in some form, needs to be left intact as "proof" of what happened... this is a more recent train of thought given that almost every action a mod or admin takes seems to come under public scrutiny now. The other is, as you said, that it should be removed.

Personally, even as a man of religion myself, I didn't find it all that offensive... but that's just me *shrugs*

Personally, even as a rational person, I actually found that a little offensive on the religion forum.

 

[Baldeee]

There are two standings on this, one of which is that the post, in some form, needs to be left intact as "proof" of what happened... this is a more recent train of thought given that almost every action a mod or admin takes seems to come under public scrutiny now. The other is, as you said, that it should be removed.

Personally, even as a man of religion myself, I didn't find it all that offensive... but that's just me *shrugs*

Isn't the former rather like letting a burglar keep their loot once they're released from prison?
Seems... odd.
I could understand it if the "crime" is one of persistent trolling, etc, where to remove would be worse than leaving...
But a solitary post?
There's also nothing in that thread to say that the post led to a temporary ban, or any mod-warning at all??
So what's to stop people copying or replying to it, not to promote the message but even just to pass comment on it?

All seems very odd.

 

[Kittamaru]

What I would have done, and this is just personal moderator preference, would have been to leave a moderator note IN the post to explain why the person was moderated (as in, edit the post itself to add the mod note)

Personally, even as a rational person, I actually found that a little offensive on the religion forum.

Fair enough - like I said, my not being offended was just me

 

[Sorcerer]

What I would have done, and this is just personal moderator preference, would have been to leave a moderator note IN the post to explain why the person was moderated (as in, edit the post itself to add the mod note)



Fair enough - like I said, my not being offended was just me

How are the servers?

 

[Balerion]

*facepalm*

Wrong again, Balerion... it must be tiring to soapbox like that, so I beseech you to cease before you make a fool of yourself.

(Q)'s ban was in relation to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...miracle-of-condensation&p=3164726#post3164726

It is not permanent, and is in fact already almost a third of the way over. A 3 day ban is lenient, considering that, with the two active infraction points (Q) has, it could have been a 14 day ban, as per the infractions and ban system this forum has operated under (last updated in 2010, so it isn't a new policy by any stretch)

Too late. I missed that completely. Apologies to Syne.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Read all abart it! Syne justified in banning! Shock news latest! Get yer paper!

 

[Kittamaru]

*snrk*

 

[scifes]

I kinda like Q, he says what the others are thinking but afraid to say.
not worth responding to, but he's the glowing lights on the airstrip, not that i've landed a plane before.

 

[(Q)]

Ah yes, the banning of (Q). I actually missed it altogether as I wasn't even here for it.

Alas, the image I posted was not even directed at anyone here, but was directed at the article posted about a weeping statue.

Maybe, the image was a little over the top, but a three day ban? That's over the top.

 

[Syne]

As Kittamaru said, I made it a point to be lenient with the ban length (considering active infraction points). I left the post as evidence and as example of inappropriate posting for the benefit of others. It was wholly inflammatory and did not even include any comment that directly engaged the OP (so trolling and potentially off-topic).


Believe it or not, I am taking member complaints seriously. Thread closures will be used more sparingly, and warnings/infractions (where I do not think a simple verbal warning will suffice, considering infraction history), as in this case, will be employed. Just to let you in on my process, if he had also commented on the OP in that post (actually contributed to the on-going discussion), I might very well have merely edited the image out of the post with a verbal warning.


And no worries, Balerion. I am developing a pretty thick skin, and the ban list does not indicate what post garnered the mod action. Honest mistake that you have commendably accounted for.

 

[(Q)]

As Kittamaru said, I made it a point to be lenient with the ban length (considering active infraction points).

Lenient? LOL. That is the difference between you and I as far as moderating is concerned. When I was moderator, my forum was fine and had very little issues because I was lenient. Notice that your moderation style is getting blasted because you have no idea what you're doing and are just abusing your power.

I left the post as evidence and as example of inappropriate posting for the benefit of others. It was wholly inflammatory and did not even include any comment that directly engaged the OP (so trolling and potentially off-topic).

Must have struck a nerve, eh?

Believe it or not, I am taking member complaints seriously.

Therein lies the problem. You need to chill.

Thread closures will be used more sparingly, and warnings/infractions (where I do not think a simple verbal warning will suffice, considering infraction history), as in this case, will be employed.

That would be a biased, personal view on your part making the assumption verbal warnings will not suffice.

Just to let you in on my process, if he had also commented on the OP in that post (actually contributed to the on-going discussion), I might very well have merely edited the image out of the post with a verbal warning.

The image I posted said it all, there was nothing more to be added. Succinct and to the point.

I am developing a pretty thick skin

Yet, not evident in any way.

 

[Syne]

That would be a biased, personal view on your part making the assumption verbal warnings will not suffice.

No, that is demonstrable from my entire history of dealing with you. You have never demonstrated the least inclination to being receptive to any warning from me. But I will remember that, and put it to the test, next time, so you will have your opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

The image I posted said it all, there was nothing more to be added. Succinct and to the point.

That image was an inflammatory hasty generalization that did nothing to address the specific topic under discussion other than with, at best, propaganda. All of which violates several posting guidelines.

 

[(Q)]

No, that is demonstrable from my entire history of dealing with you.

And, that history has shown you to be dishonest, lacking any integrity whatsoever. Many have experienced and commented on that fact.

You have never demonstrated the least inclination to being receptive to any warning from me.

Another lie.

But I will remember that, and put it to the test, next time, so you will have your opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

The kettle's whistling is deafening.

That image was an inflammatory hasty generalization that did nothing to address the specific topic under discussion other than with, at best, propaganda.

Yes, that would be your biased opinion based on the fact you are religious.

All of which violates several posting guidelines.

Such as?

 

[Syne]

All of which violates several posting guidelines.

Such as?

Behaviour that may get you banned

• Hate speech.
• Trolling
• Propaganda, preaching, proselytising or evangelising.

...

Links and images
9. Images that some readers might reasonably find confronting or disturbing should be posted as URL links rather than as images embedded in a post. In such cases, a clear warning should be posted along with the image, including a brief description of the content.
...

Hate speech and stereotyping
6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.
...

Trolling
18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.
...

Propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising
21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument.
- http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=87 [emphasis added]​