Are we not allowed to ask for explanation to why we were issued warnings?

[clyde21]

so trex issued me a warning for the following exchange:

funny...you weren't saying this when you were puffing your chest out after Kawhi was leading the league in PER after the first 3 games

Well at least you can't get on Kawhi for load management anymore. Warriors are load managing Curry for ping pong balls this season.

If anything, Curry should of been on load management since 2016. I guess he wanted 73 wins and 2nd place instead.

essentially for using a couple of emojis as a disengage from an obvious bait.

so i asked him specifically which rule I broke (since these things tend to be up for discretion apparently depending on who the poster is) and he throws a temper tantrum and suspends me:

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=64&p=79689363#p79689363 .

Laughing emojis are not a suitable response in any circumstance (other than to an intended joke perhaps). fwiw, your permanent record is literally over-flowing with warnings for this sort of thing, and thus the moderating team may elect to take greater latitudes in responding to similar behavior in the future.

what am i getting warned for exactly? can u show me the exact rule I broke?

then throws a tempter tantrum for daring to ask why and suspends me on top of the strike.

by those standards 90% of the posts here are not constructive criticism

and he can derail the thread by making it about Curry and it's all good but I respond with an emoji and I get written up


Ok

a) You assume no action has been/is being taken against poster you refer to [or others, for that matter], that you've been "singled out". You are incorrect.
b) Does bad behavior justify bad behavior? If someone called my son a name at school and my son hauled off and hit the kid, should I tell him "well, that's OK son. You were provoked." Come on.....

You broke a forum rule (VERY clearly, not even debatable), you've no right to be surprised or indignant about there being consequences. Period. Do NOT push this line of petulance any further; this is a waste of my time and my peace of mind.

there isn't a single rule that says I cant use an emoji as a response, you're megalomania is taking over your thinking

Good day

so, couple of questions:

1) can we get specific rules that say how/when we can use emojis since that seems to be completely arbitrary

2) why is this mod throwing a tempter tantrum for getting asked for his reasoning? are mods not required to explain their choices to the user?

thx,

[trex_8063]

Apologies if it's frowned upon for me to reply in here [as I'm the mod he's making the complaint about], but there's a bit of the exchange missing and only I can provide it (because it's in my personal inbox). RealGM posting function tends to choke if there are too many quotes within quotes within quotes etc, so it cuts some of the exchange out.
I'm not fully comfortable with "airing our dirty laundry" in public like this, but since it's already been done, I feel it should at least be complete. I'll fill in the missing pieces of the PM exchange, as well as comment on some other context wrt the thread in question.....

Firstly: The thread in question had been intermittently problematic in general in no small part due to the contributions of another poster [not clyde21]. It had been locked for just over 24 hours once [about a week and a half prior to this incident] with the suggestion everyone cool down. Yesterday, during an ~2-hour span there were THREE moderator posts made (two by myself, one by PaulieWal)----some of which was in the blue moderator font----indicating our impatience and suggesting again people cool it/behave/whatever. It was within 5 hours of the last of those posts that clyde21 made the post he was warned for, which was as he quoted above:

funny...you weren't saying this when you were puffing your chest out after Kawhi was leading the league in PER after the first 3 games

Well at least you can't get on Kawhi for load management anymore. Warriors are load managing Curry for ping pong balls this season.

If anything, Curry should of been on load management since 2016. I guess he wanted 73 wins and 2nd place instead.

clyde21 says this was a reply to an obvious bait, although when I look at the interior-most post quoted above [from clyde21]---"funny...you weren't saying this when you were puffing your chest out.....", that seems as much a bait as what came in reply, but that's just my opinion.

At any rate, I issued the warning for the mocking emojis, which was accompanied by the following message to clyde21:

Laughing emojis are not a suitable response in any circumstance (other than to an intended joke perhaps). fwiw, your permanent record is literally over-flowing with warnings for this sort of thing, and thus the moderating team may elect to take greater latitudes in responding to similar behavior in the future.

I provided at least some indication of what the warning was for and alluded to his "colorful" personal record, while clearly stating that this record persuades us to cut him LESS slack than we might with others [who have relatively clean records].

He then sent me the first PM, which was as follows:

what am i getting warned for exactly? can u show me the exact rule I broke?

My 1st reply in its entirety was thus:

Forum Rules and Guidelines

Particularly the line regarding "Constructive Criticism", as well as subsequent posts that go into more detail. A line of laughing emojis is not "constructive".

I felt the last line in particular was pretty darn self-evident, and figured that would likely be the end of it, particularly considering I included a link to the Rules/Guidelines and some vague directions of which sections to scrutinize. I'd also at this time note there's nothing above that could even remotely be interpreted as a "temper tantrum".


clyde21 sent me the following 2nd PM in reply:

by those standards 90% of the posts here are not constructive criticism

and he can derail the thread by making it about Curry and it's all good but I respond with an emoji and I get written up

Ok

NOTE: I felt this was getting a little silly by this point, to be made to explain [presumably to an adult] why bad behavior is bad. Here was my reply in it's entirety:

a) You assume no action has been/is being taken against poster you refer to [or others, for that matter], that you've been "singled out". You are incorrect.
b) Does bad behavior justify bad behavior? If someone called my son a name at school and my son hauled off and hit the kid, should I tell him "well, that's OK son. You were provoked." Come on.....

You broke a forum rule (VERY clearly, not even debatable), you've no right to be surprised or indignant about there being consequences. Period. Do NOT push this line of petulance any further; this is a waste of my time and my peace of mind.

Points a + b illustrated the logical fallacy in how he was viewing this situation, and I again state that forum rules were broken, feeling [again] that should pretty well close the book on whether the warning was justified (particularly considering some of the context alluded to above).
I also think it's not until the very last line that I've allowed any impatience/irritation to show thru [fully justified at this point, imo; though still far from a "temper tantrum"].


clyde21 sends a THIRD PM as follows:

there isn't a single rule that says I cant use an emoji as a response, you're megalomania is taking over your thinking

Good day

By this point I was feeling sort of harassed. From my point of view the warning was perfectly standard in the circumstances, and definitely compliant to forum rules/guidelines [other PC mods have reviewed and agree, fwiw]; but I've now been assailed with three increasingly venomous PM's in relation to it (this last actually resorting to a blatant character attack).
I sent the following [3rd] reply:

A row of mocking/laughing emojis is obviously not constructive; and when it's clearly not posted in "good fun" or in a sense of comradery, it's fairly obvious the intent is to taunt/bait/humiliate. This is a no-brainer, so you can stop being willfully ignorant.

Further, this EXACT type of posting is covered in post #5 of the Forum Rules thread I already referred you to.

You've crossed a line in not letting this drop and spamming me via PM with this childishness (after being warned not to do so).

^^Here I have made an increased effort to explain [again] what was inappropriate and not in compliance with rules/guidelines (because although it seemed very self-evident to me, it apparently was not to him). I further point him to the specific post in the Forum Rules/Guidelines thread that literally cites the EXACT type of post he'd made as an example of what is inappropriate. I mean, the example is seriously EXACTLY the same as his post if I'm not mistaken......and it's in the Rules/Guidelines thread (which he's been referred to twice now).

By the point of this third reply I had explained why the warning was issued [to a pretty high degree of detail by the end] FOUR TIMES, if including the original message that came with the warning (which makes this thread seem a bit superfluous to me, fwiw).

Anyway, considering the bizarre lengths this exchange went to, including a flurry of unnecessary and obstinate PM's, and culminating with a personal attack, yes: I then issued a suspension. I'll leave it at that.

[clyde21]

you felt harassed by those PMs? what a croc of bull. i am asking for an explanation for why you issued a warning. if you're going to issue warnings and strikes, you need to know exactly what you are issuing the warning and strikes for, it needs to be underlined by a rule, it's not up to your whims of whatever you're feeling that day.

the idea that you can just point me to a rule (which doesn't cover ANYTHING about emojis, btw), without needing to explain why what I said broke said rule, then you need to stop being a mod. how the **** am I supposed to 'fix my behavior' if I don't know how or why my post broke your rule? and this isn't the first time you've targeted me with this nonsense as well.

my post was pretty straightforward, nothing 'baiting' about saying a poster was 'puffing his chest before'...it's highlighting a change in behavior/hypocrisy, the post then responded with a complete tangent and bait by derailing the thread, so I disengaged with a laughing emoji...and this dude writes me up and then **** suspends me for questioning him.

if you need to bully people online to get some self validation let me know ahead of time and I promise I won't question your authority trex.

at this point I don't even know what to post anymore, I'm getting written up for emojis.

[trex_8063]

you felt harassed by those PMs? what a croc of bull. i am asking for an explanation for why you issued a warning. if you're going to issue warnings and strikes, you need to know exactly what you are issuing the warning and strikes for, it needs to be underlined by a rule, it's not up to your whims of whatever you're feeling that day.

the idea that you can just point me to a rule (which doesn't cover ANYTHING about emojis, btw), without needing to explain why what I said broke said rule, then you need to stop being a mod. how the **** am I supposed to 'fix my behavior' if I don't know how or why my post broke your rule?

Post #5 in the Rules/Guidelines forum (which you were DIRECTLY informed of in my third pm reply, and which I have mentioned more than once at this point):

I'm just going to piggyback some thoughts on this, mostly pertaining to #1 and #5 above.

I often get the feeling that some posters don't seem to know what a personal attack is, particularly when it comes to what I'd call insinuated attacks or "proxy attacks". When a poster states his opinion and you reply by saying that his opinion is stupid, or asinine, or [insert derogatory adjective].....you are "by proxy" calling him stupid or asinine or [insert derogatory adjective].

Someone's comments or opinions may seem ridiculous to you, but there are ways to express this without resorting to insulting the other......

Example (super-common) of how severe disagreement is stated:
Poster A: [states opinion A, B, C, on topic on hand (usually with limited details or supporting evidence/arguments)]
Poster B replies: "That's the dumbest thing/list I've read on this forum in quite awhile, lol. " Or another common one is just replying with a line of baiting emojis (e.g. ).

Examples of how this could be rephrased in a constructive manner:
Poster B replies: "Wow, I strenuously disagree for reasons X, Y, Z [detailed in response]."
or
Poster B replies: "Hmmm.....that seems like a pretty untenable position, at least based on any kind of objective indicators or evidence. I mean, consider evidence X, Y, Z. How can you reconcile that with your position?"
or even
Poster B replies: "Seriously? No offense, but I'm struggling to come up with a decent semi-objective argument to support your stance. When I look at X, Y, Z, it almost seems like a no-brainer to me. Am I missing something?"

Do you see the difference? The rephrased examples clearly state Poster B ardently disagrees (with supporting evidence as to why) WITHOUT resorting to insulting Poster A, and thus encourages some meaningful discussion. The first reply above is merely a jab and will likely only result in Poster A taking a jab back [if he replies at all]......and too often we then see the thread devolve into a flame war.


That might seem like it's policing tone (and we've had some backseat mods telling us we shouldn't be trying to control the tone of discussion); but I would say tone is absolutely among the things we should be moderating. If posters have an even marginally contentious or polarizing opinion, they'll be much less likely to state it openly if what they're seeing is that posters insult, degrade and otherwise rip into each other while the mods do nothing to discourage it. They may feel they don't need the frustration of being openly insulted; so rather than risk that, they just keep quiet.

Unchecked derogatory and inflammatory tone is precisely the kind of thing that will subtly undermine meaningful discourse. So check your tone (as stated in OP: be civil); if you can't, don't be shocked if your tone eventually earns you warnings and/or suspensions.

I'll also quote part of ravenrod's OP in that same thread:

Users who cannot comply with these risk getting Board Banned from this forum.

And post #4 in the thread, quoting PaulieWal (some sections that maybe bear relevance here):

1) Attacking others posters (including mods) will not fly and is never acceptable.

2) Backseat modding (and this has become an issue lately) will earn you a warning and a suspension. If you have a problem with the actions of a mod, PM the mod or another mod or the site admins. Also, for the most part you do not know who is getting warned, suspended, or otherwise communicated with behind the scenes; so don't assume you are being singled out.
PS. If you are a user with 5+ warnings on your profile---not uncommonly from 4-5+ different mods (perhaps even on multiple forums)---maybe you should sit back and consider the likelihood that it is your posting style that is the problem, and not the mods.

3) Replying to an insult with an insult will not be tolerated. Example, poster A: fanboys of player X are dumb , poster B: you are an idiot, you are a kid who never saw player Y in action . Both of those posters will get a warning.

and this isn't the first time you've targeted me with this nonsense as well.

Actually it is. There is ONE warning on your record issued by me (the one that came yesterday). There is ONE suspension on your record issued by me (the one that came yesterday). Howard can verify this by a quick skim of your record.

Nor have we ever exchanged PM's prior to this (scanned my inbox and sent messages to verify).

The most I could have done would have been a soft/informal in-thread suggestion to adopt a nicer tone. Though if I do so I usually document it in the poster's record, and there is no such documentation in yours, up until yesterday. Doesn't mean I haven't done so at some point, though almost certainly not to a degree that could have made you feel targeted or harassed, considering you've just stated I'm too soft-skinned if I felt "harassed" by a series of three PM's which ended in a personal attack.

[Howard Mass]

Thank you for answering this trex_8063.