You started a thread here that’s already been taken down. In my view, it was just disrespectful and provocative, which usually warrants a warning. However, the rest of the team opted for a lighter touch by simply deleting it. Since we’re all on the same page about needing a sanction, I’m going to override their decision and issue a formal warning... The thread will stay deleted, as most nonsense does.
I'm locking this since you've received a response.
Forum threads get archived once they hit the 10,000 post mark, and a fresh one is launched. Anything beyond that limit gets moved over to the new thread. It looks like the moderators followed that same protocol here.
Why would I ever ban you? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don't see anything in your posts that actually violates our community guidelines. 🤷Let's just take a step back here...
To be clear, I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned "advisors." But moving on. I did tell you to stop preaching, because that was exactly what you were doing. Honestly, I don't care whether you choose to post here in the Psychology section or not. If you do decide to participate, my only requirement is that you respect the purpose of this space. This isn't a place for relentless crusades against established medical treatments. Just like we don't allow that in the Health section, we won't allow it here when discussing psychiatry, which is a recognized field of medicine. I want to make a distinction between being a contrarian and offering reasoned, constructive criticism. One is welcomed; the other isn't. It’s all laid out in the rules, and you've already been warned about them before—yet you seem to disregard them simply because you disagree with them.
P.S. Even if I wanted to, I can't see any reason why I should feel ashamed...
Sandra Brown18 said:Xavier showed up for the first time yesterday in the Tourism subforum (in all nine years of moderating, she hasn't left a single post in Tourism or on any "Canadian" topics in other sections) and just dropped a few posts that are completely off-topic. I really wish she had at least contributed something on-topic. That makes a massive difference...
I’ve been following this discussion, and even though I don't have much to do with Tourism, I feel I have to respond to the idea that someone's participation should be judged by what, when, or where they did or didn't post. Using that as a relevant criterion for involvement is something that affects the entire forum. Honestly, that kind of attitude just isn't in the spirit of this community. Everyone chooses when and what to write; no one is obligated to participate, so you shouldn't hold someone's lack of activity elsewhere against them. Exceptions exist for specific things like classified ads, but those are covered by the rules and aren't what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, everyone has to start somewhere. If we approach people this way, that starting point might just become their exit...
Generally speaking, retiring a current nickname and activating a new one for a specific topic can happen right away without much of a wait. Of course, it really depends on the individual circumstances and the specific guidelines our moderators follow in their handbook. But as a rule, it shouldn't be anything you have to wait long for, nor is it an issue...
I'd suggest any of the moderators step forward here, then coordinate amongst yourselves to let the user know the decision... There's really no need to pull the admin into this. As long as the whole mod team is on the same page regarding the activation of the second profile, we can avoid anyone accidentally handing out a sanction just because they weren't kept in the loop.
Brenda Taylor13, complaints about the warnings are our starting point.
Regarding those other rude and provocative posts I had to delete—yours and your colleague's—you both got lucky this time and escaped a warning. If you keep going like that, you'll be facing an immediate penalty with a much higher point deduction...
Which interlocutor? She’s talking about herself, admitting she'd be a fool to pay for something she already knows is low quality or lacks taste, just to prove her point...
Paul Kern12 said:Regarding the thread on the US elections, there are posts filled with nothing but hate—calling the elected President of the US "Hitler," an idiot, and so on... I honestly don't understand why the moderators are being so lenient, especially since we usually get warned for much smaller things here. One specific post was the final straw for me, where a user is basically calling for or wishing for the assassination of Donald Trump:
I didn't use the report button (I know I should have), but I'd like an admin to clarify if this kind of hate speech and labeling is allowed only in this specific thread, or if there's been a change in the forum rules?...
The post was made today at 4:02 PM. You're opening this thread at 5:33 PM and implying that hate speech is being permitted, simply because the post hasn't been sanctioned yet. It was written at 4:02 PM, and you didn't even report it...
Next time, someone's getting a massive warning for something like this. It was a borderline case for a sanction, though...
Just because something happens often doesn't make it a rule. It’s all pretty subjective... Trolling probably won't get you a ban after ten days, but if someone deserves a massive penalty or a permanent ban, that'll eventually happen too.
I’m not sure if this is the right place for it, but I was polite enough in my response, so please don't be rude. I don't see any reason to keep being civil when you're acting like this. This isn't even the first time something like this has happened. There was an issue with posting on the FBI forums once before. We actually had a report about it months ago. What I know for certain is that nobody here issued you a 50-day ban from the FBI. So, feel free to laugh at whoever you want...
The bottom line.
P.S. After two weeks, you won't even be able to post on the FBI site anyway, since the ban will have expired. A three-day ban is worth 100 points. Only those who are currently banned can post in the Corner for the banned. The name says it all...
Jessica Kelly4 said:William Bennett53, I’m tagging you because I feel like you were actually serious a few months back when you started that thread about balancing political moderation.
I got slapped with a 50-day ban (!!) with zero right to appeal—they even locked me out of the Corner for banned users—just for a bit of sarcasm regarding Joe Biden (based on how he handled a certain previous tragedy): Link:
By the way, I noticed a lot of people who were criticizing Joe Biden during the heat of the election campaign suddenly went quiet or were "subtly" pushed away from discussions, but that’s not even my main point.
While I was being sidelined, there was an entire thread started by a moderator that used pretty blatant sarcasm right in the title (#bridgeconstruction).
Or look at one of your fellow mods calling a public figure literal filth in a massive hate speech post (people already discussed it over on the POTUS board, so I won't hunt for the link). Usually, moderators hand out heavy penalties for using that kind of language.
So what’s the deal here? Hypocrisy? Double standards?
Were you just playing it safe when you said you wanted balanced political moderation, or do you and Nica simply have no control over your own staff?
A few technical clarifications: - A 50-day ban isn't even an option in our system. It just doesn't exist. - Being locked out of the FBI means you have a partial ban on this entire PDF (POTUS), which isn't what happened here. We handle decisions for this specific board as moderators, not the Politics mods. A sanction on a different board, regardless of its length, won't block your access here. Plus, we wouldn't issue a 50-day ban. Like all partial bans, it would be permanent, maybe eligible for review after six months, and if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to post here at all.
Either it was a server glitch, or you misread the situation...
To my fellow "paratroopers" whose posts vanished—if there are no links, the posts are gone. Next time, you'll get a warning. Please, start actually reading the rules for the board you're posting on.
No, that doesn't apply in the context you used it... What offends you or doesn't is irrelevant here.
Your post is just a provocative comment meant to mock someone else's input, which adds nothing constructive to the discussion. And just to get ahead of the question—yes, posts should be constructive...
Being insulting isn't just a minor procedural slip-up. I closed your appeal because of the disrespect, and I’ll do the same for any future posts involving insults, provocation, or any other behavior we don't tolerate here... I'm not reviewing your case personally. That's being handled by whoever is in charge of the PDF where you received your partial results. Right now, that's rustydrifter10.