JJ Husker Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The religion of peace meets karma thread got shut down in an awful hurry. I can see where the sentiment expressed by the op about wanting a bigger crane was sure off color but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what board rule was violated. Especially if you consider the seemingly more expansive latitude given to those who typically attack Christianity on this board. Can somebody help me out here? Am I missing something important or did zoogs swoop in and shut 'er down maybe prematurely? Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 That guy obviously woke up one day this week and decided to push things until he got banned, so I suspect the mods were a little more ready to pull the trigger on one of his threads than they might otherwise. zoogs did quote the exact rule violated too. Maybe you don't agree with it but I don't see how you can have trouble figuring out what was clearly stated. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 That guy obviously woke up one day this week and decided to push things until he got banned, so I suspect the mods were a little more ready to pull the trigger on one of his threads than they might otherwise. zoogs did quote the exact rule violated too. Maybe you don't agree with it but I don't see how you can have trouble figuring out what was clearly stated.You might be right, I have not noticed any other posts by that guy. He may very well have pushed it and warranted a short leash. But if we're relying on the wording about behavior not "offending" based on race, creed, etc., then I would say the policy is not remotely being evenly applied. If he had worn out his welcome, okay, but if it was just the op I saw, like I said, thought it was premature. I've seen dozens way more offensive than that in the P&R forum over the years. Link to comment
NUance Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) One place (this thread) calls it overzealous moderating. Another place calls for assumes the guy who started that thread to will be banned. LINK So the moderating must be just right. btw, I believe the guy is suspended, not banned, which seems appropriate. Edited September 12, 2015 by NUance Wordsmithing for ZRod. lol Link to comment
ZRod Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Hey! I didn't call for him to be banned! I said I thought he got banned. Either way I don't remember anyone insinuating they would have liked more christian, jews, or hindus to have been kill at some point in time. The guy was trolling hard this week, just go look through his history in here. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The religion of peace meets karma thread got shut down in an awful hurry. I can see where the sentiment expressed by the op about wanting a bigger crane was sure off color but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what board rule was violated. Especially if you consider the seemingly more expansive latitude given to those who typically attack Christianity on this board. Can somebody help me out here? Am I missing something important or did zoogs swoop in and shut 'er down maybe prematurely? When did someone post they were happy a bunch of Christians were killed? 4 Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 It's one thing to debate the merits of a religion. It's another to celebrate the deaths of innocent lives on the basis that they were Muslim (or Christian, for that matter). I'm sure that anyone who would like to do that, will be able to find other internet outlets. 6 Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 That said, this was solely my call. If the other moderators feel differently, he can certainly appeal for reinstatement. He's suspended, not banned. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 13, 2015 Author Share Posted September 13, 2015 Hey, I knew I was probably stepping into the cross hairs on this one. And the last thing I want is for anyone to think I'm defending the sentiment expressed about wishing for a larger crane. Like I said, if was definitely off color and really has no place being expressed. But, I thought "technically" what he posted could've cleared the hurdle. Meaning, what he actually wrote, in and of itself, was not bad. It is only after a person follows the link and knows what it is that the op meant does it become clear that it was an opinion that we really don't need to see around here. The more I think about it, the more I think my initial thoughts are probably wrong. I guess it is fair to place his comments in the context they were intended and then to apply the "offending" standard to them. So, I am sorry zoogs. I've changed my mind and would now say that it was the correct decision. Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 No worries, JJ. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the discussion is good. There's some discussion internally too about whether this was too harsh, so I wouldn't say you're stepping into any crosshairs at all. I hope I didn't suggest that you were defending the sentiment; I don't think that at all. GBR 2 Link to comment
krill Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Although I spend most of my time on this forum reading threads about athletics (rarely contributing), I have enjoyed posting in this section because it's fairly tame and reasonable compared to most politics forums on the Internet. The individual who was banned was the archetype angry Internet guy that rants about everything, while contributing nothing useful or interesting, and generally ruining it for people that expect a modicum of civility. Link to comment
Saunders Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I agree with zoogs. We've got pretty lax rules, but the no bigotry thing is gonna be enforced. He pulled a No True Scotsman argument to justify his post of "karma" regarding people's deaths. Link to comment
Landlord Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I agree with zoogs. We've got pretty lax rules, but the no bigotry thing is gonna be enforced. He pulled a No True Scotsman argument to justify his post of "karma" regarding people's deaths. Yeah, any time you need to start arguing for a technicality it seems pretty obvious that someone needs to go. The rules only exist so far as to help common sense - seemed pretty clear to me that the guy's intent was anything but having a real conversation. Link to comment
RedRex Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I agree with zoogs. We've got pretty lax rules, but the no bigotry thing is gonna be enforced. He pulled a No True Scotsman argument to justify his post of "karma" regarding people's deaths. As a Scotsman I take offense at the reference of this stereotype. Ach mun, ha' ye no shame? *cue bagpipes* 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I agree with zoogs. We've got pretty lax rules, but the no bigotry thing is gonna be enforced. He pulled a No True Scotsman argument to justify his post of "karma" regarding people's deaths. As a Scotsman I take offense at the reference of this stereotype. Ach mun, ha' ye no shame? *cue bagpipes* I agree with zoogs. We've got pretty lax rules, but the no bigotry thing is gonna be enforced. He pulled a No True Scotsman argument to justify his post of "karma" regarding people's deaths. As a Scotsman I take offense at the reference of this stereotype. Ach mun, ha' ye no shame? *cue bagpipes* But no true Scotsman would take offense to the statment. Link to comment
Recommended Posts