ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Out of interest, what's the criteria for a thread/post to be "old" and beyond action?
Ideally, 24 hours, but we've gone back as far as 48-72 in some cases. We should act as soon as we either see a problem or have it reported to us. Given weekends and holidays and occasional all hands on deck release launches, that's where longer than 24 hours can come in.
Happy to concede that there's much unseen, but there's no denying there's been a problem here for a while, and the criteria on what is going to be actioned and what isn't currently feels appears quite arbitrary.
The rules themselves are publicly available. Hopefully over time consistency in moderation actions will establish the bounds more clearly.
The absence of politeness does not equate to the presence of rudeness. The best term I've heard for Alfred's explanations is that they were clinical. That's still not rudeness.
Sorry, I'm sure that was true in some threads and discussions, but being "clinical" was not what got him banned and I think that's clear from the threads we've discussed here.
I'd repeat the same point with regard to sharp language. Being critical does not equate to rudeness.
This, I feel, is a key point that has been exceptionally overlooked.
Certainly, being critical is not the same as rudeness. Attacking people personally however is rudeness for sure. While I suppose in some sense you could put personal attacks in the very broad category of "being critical", that's akin to sophistry. We're not defining constructive criticism as rudeness here, nor did Alfred violate the forum rules simply by being critical. Personal attacks are simply against the rules.
The key issue behind Alfred's perceived rudeness is the inability to separate being critical of the idea and being critical of the person.
That's what happened to Alfred. The threads are all there.
As I said in the first post, I don't know where exactly all this starts, nor unfortunately do I have time to do a forensic investigation thread by thread and post by post. It should never have gotten to the point it did. What I can offer is that the rules will be fairly and actively enforced going forward.
From memory, your public statement was to the effect that Alfred's ban was for a week, and that he'd be welcomed back, a fresh start etc. From reading between the lines, this was either:
- inaccurate, or
- additional conditions were imposed.
It was incomplete. I did not mention that it's standard practice for us to contact the poster at the end of the one week or one month and just confirm that they will follow the rules before we reactivate their account. It's extremely rare that someone is unwilling to confirm that. This was not a special additional request for Alfred.
This, fundamentally, has been the issue driving my above comments regarding equity in implanting the moderation policy.
Good to know. I disagree strongly with much of what you say about Alfred when it comes to holding him blameless or only a victim as it contradicts the clear evidence I have seen otherwise. However, as I said in my first post, he clearly could also be helpful. In that spirit, I'm mulling over whether it would be reasonable to give him a second chance.
On principle and precedent, returning someone to the forum who hasn't agreed to follow the rules they broke does not sit well with me. However, we've let some other things slide here (temporarily) in the interest of not blindsiding people who weren't used to the rules being enforced or didn't even know what they were. I do believe in fair warning and an informed community. In that spirit, I'm considering this.
Regards,
- Erik
; Julia Child
