ORIGINAL: mind_messing
With, with all candour, seems to be a stretch. The norm (both in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be for a warning first. c.f IanR in the previous thread.
Yet this was not the approach adopted in Alfred's case.
That's correct and I'll explain our normal process and why we sometimes deviate from it.
The normal process is that we issue a warning. If the warning is ignored, then a one week ban. If the forum user still ignores the rules, then a one month ban, if further infractions then a permanent ban.
We always reserve the right to skip steps if the infraction is severe enough. In addition, if the poster has a past history of breaking the forum rules which comes to light too late to take action on, it will still influence the first action taken and likely result in a more severe one being chosen.
Alfred's epic rant was both enough within that thread and in addition he had a history of previous lack of civility that I felt it justified going right to a one week ban. I was hoping this would also give time for both him and Mark and anyone else caught in the crossfire to cool off a bit (that didn't work out as hoped).
For reference, first time I'm seeing that thread, but RJ previously posted one of those in the General Discussion forum and I have warned him not to repeat that as "swastika trolling" is a form of trolling and that's against the forum rules. Doesn't matter if it's actually the Nazi symbol or the many older versions of the swastika going back in history before the Nazis ruined it, it's still designed to provoke a response.
Regarding the responses to Alfred there, his first reply was moderate compared to others I've seen, but yeah he did talk down to the poster and it was not really a friendly reply, but a condescending one. The reason our rules call for civility is to avoid this type of situation.
In my experience, because there is a lack of face or voice communication, on the internet you have to try extra hard to be polite and civil if you want to make sure people will not misunderstand you or potentially take offense. If you go the opposite direction and are much less polite than you'd be in person, it will not end well.
Two comments to this:
- What one permits, one promotes.
- Looking for the primum movens over a period of months will lead to a distorted picture. This is a long running issue, going back years.
I looked back months and saw a consistent pattern. If you have the origin of all this and can share it with me and it shows something else, I'll certainly take that into account.
We ask all posters to be civil, but when I see someone responding poorly to a direct attack, I'm not going to hit them with the ban hammer. I'll hit the attacker and remind the attacked to keep cool and not stoop to the same level. That's also different from someone who takes offense far too easily and imagines attacks in normal posts, in effect creating problems where there are none. That type of behavior can also in effect be a lack of civility.
To be candid, that is extremely unlikely to occur, for two reasons:
- The can of worms has been opened and views on the matter are being expressed. See for example comments from HansBolter, IanR, Alpha77 and others.
- Adopting a more authoritative position in moderation without addressing the previous issues will not resolve the underlying issues. Expecting a clean slate and a return to normality afterwards is naïve.
Well, it's either going to happen or it won't and if folks are not willing to be civil, then to be frank there will be more bans. We've had some issues in the distant past in the WITP-AE community as well and I recall multiple bans ending up being required to restore tranquility to the community. I don't want to go there, but I will if what are fair and reasonable forum rules can't be followed.
If there are unaddressed underlying issues, you have my PM and e-mail to present the evidence of that and I will read through it.
In light of the above, where one is defining the starting point de facto determines he who is guilty.
Change the starting line and the guilty party changes.
That's hypothetically possible, but I've yet to see the proof of that in this case.
This is worth reflecting on in Alfred's context. Alfred criticism in the previous thread was certainly directed at the behaviour rather than the person.
Alfred's criticism has gotten personal quite often, including in that thread and others I've read.
To refer back to my above comments, the can of worms is open. Best dispose of it in public.
You've already made it explicit that there's divided opinion on this matter via PM's, as can also be seen from posts elsewhere.
This has been quite a public dispute, anything other than a public resolution will simply let the problem persist.
I disagree that further public disputes on this subject are helpful, but I welcome those who have more to say to express it directly to me via PM or e-mail.
Regards,
- Erik
; Julia Child
