Right that was the dust up. You say he cant post without insulting so im asking you to show stuff, before, the latest dust up since he has been back.
Outside of this since he has been back his posts had no insults afaik. But i could of missed stuff.
Feel free to take your own advice and ignore me.
So you want some examples besides the Covid thread, the bailout thread and this thread? Lol what is the point? You are going to handwave it away no matter what is posted.
2 Likes
The point is since he has been back outside of this latest back and forth his posting has not had insults. Meaning for months there were no issues.
Calling posts “giant” is really not an insult. If someone is offended by their posts being called “giant” then they might consider writing more succinctly. They might also consider whether they are self-conscious about the length of their posts relative to the quality of the content provided.
It also appears that nunnehi has two standards of condescension: what qualifies as such when directed at him and what qualifies as such when directed at others by him. They differ wildly.
2 Likes
It was a shot at his posting. Your walls of text won’t convince me otherwise.
3 Likes
Right and there seems to be one person around here who takes personal offense to shots at the content of their posting and equates them with personal attacks on a postere’ character, professional ability, intelligence, etc.
1 Like
We used to have a thread for moderator actions. Maybe this was it. @Watevs seems to have been temp banned. Maybe some posts were deleted. Whatever happened should be reported to the community imo. This should be done for any ban of any length of anyone imo.
3 Likes
That dude has issues.
1 Like
So he took it well?
4 Likes
Are there exceptions? Maybe we don’t need to vote on it if the banned person requested said ban and a mod obliges their request?
I would basically say no. There aren’t enough bannings that this is a burden for mods and this should be transparent. It’s a community owned and operated site right? Right @moderators? Right @admin? I think the community should see bannings happen and why they happen.
The only exceptions I can think of that is agree with are obvious buycheapviagranow spam or if the user requested their banning be private.
2 Likes
A timeout seems fine under the circumstances. Any further action probably needs a vote would be my take though.
At the very minimum the mod should make a post itt describing what happened and the action s/he took.
Otherwise we’re back in 22 land.
2 Likes
I think mods should be empowered to give timeouts of up to a day without a community referendum. Holding a referendum open for longer than the proposed punishment seems absurd, and I can’t imagine most people really being arsed to vote in something like that.
19 Likes
Yeah, otherwise there’s really no point in having mods.
5 Likes
In a perfect world there wouldn’t be any mods - in the real world they should only exist here to mop up spam and enact the wishes of the community, though I’m not opposed to an exception for very short bans if accompanied by a post here describing what happened.
1 Like
And, I suppose the corollary to this is that, in instances where one up to 24 hr timeout is insufficient to get someone acting out back in line, then it’s likely that a community conversation is going to be more productive than the crude cudgel of escalating ban times, so longer and/or additional actions should be discussed.
How do you even shove a forum account up one’s ass?