Double standards when it comes to jerking off

So...
I just got slapped with a 100-point penalty because I told a certain female user that her posts give off the impression of someone lacking intelligence.
Fine.
I insulted her.
The official explanation also claims the penalty is for spamming the thread and trolling.
I can't say I agree with that part, but whatever. The moderator seems to be operating on a double standard, and honestly, what's the point in arguing?

Now, here’s the kicker: in a thread about why Lilith is eternal, she posted an entire message in all caps—which violates both our site rules and basic internet etiquette.
I reported that post, yet not a single penalty was issued.
Why is that?

Why isn't there any enforcement of the policy of being cardboard when it comes to insults?

lilith forever said:Listen, honey, you're the only one here who's actually arrogant, self-important, and clueless.

Why are you so obsessed with whether someone else's policy of being cardboard is intact or not? Besides, that post on Policy is already part of the policy of being cardboard—and it isn't the only one.

Charles Fox10 said:Why are you so obsessed with whether someone else's policy of being cardboard is intact or not? Besides, that post on Policy is already part of the policy of being cardboard—and it isn't the only one.

They interest me because they put me in a corner. They force my hand until I feel compelled to respond in kind, and then suddenly, I’m the one who gets flagged and banned.
So, tell me—did anyone trigger the moderation after I posted that above?

We allow certain users to troll without restraint, hurling insults and spinning blatant lies over and over again. Then, when I finally snap and give them a taste of their own medicine, I’m the one facing the ban hammer.
And now you're asking why I track who has been targeted by the policy of being cardboard and who hasn't.
😢

For starters, what kind of metric are we using here? By what logic is telling someone, "You give off the impression of an exceptionally unintelligent person" worth 100 points, while calling someone a "small, arrogant, and self-important ignoramus" only nets you 30?
Both are insults, certainly, but surely there’s a distinction in the sheer intensity of the blow.
I am genuinely curious to hear the reasoning behind this.

Matthew Young35 said:They interest me because they put me in a corner. They force my hand until I feel compelled to respond in kind, and then suddenly, I’m the one who gets flagged and banned.
So, tell me—did anyone trigger the moderation after I posted that above?

We allow certain users to troll without restraint, hurling insults and spinning blatant lies over and over again. Then, when I finally snap and give them a taste of their own medicine, I’m the one facing the ban hammer.
And now you're asking why I track who has been targeted by the policy of being cardboard and who hasn't.
😢

That second thread isn't even relevant to what you asked. It’s more about how the mods handle reading and managing topics.

I can't really address your second point regarding the ban, since you didn't receive that notice from the New York Times.

Matthew Young35 said:They interest me because they put me in a corner. They force my hand until I feel compelled to respond in kind, and then suddenly, I’m the one who gets flagged and banned.
So, tell me—did anyone trigger the moderation after I posted that above?

We allow certain users to troll without restraint, hurling insults and spinning blatant lies over and over again. Then, when I finally snap and give them a taste of their own medicine, I’m the one facing the ban hammer.
And now you're asking why I track who has been targeted by the policy of being cardboard and who hasn't.
😢

Now, if I may offer a little defense for the moderation team... 😬

The reality is, there aren't enough people logged onto the forum 24/7 to jump in the very second a report comes in.

I was thinking about writing a bit more to defend them, but honestly, I think I've said enough for one day... 🙂

James Patel20 said:Now, if I may offer a little defense for the moderation team... 😬

The reality is, there aren't enough people logged onto the forum 24/7 to jump in the very second a report comes in.

I was thinking about writing a bit more to defend them, but honestly, I think I've said enough for one day... 🙂

I realize the mods have lives outside this forum and aren't online around the clock. However, the reality is that action was only taken after I made a scene. And why did I have to make a scene? Because when I push back, I get banned within ten minutes, whereas for certain individuals, the moderators seem to be nowhere to be found for days at a time.

Charles Fox10 said:That second thread isn't even relevant to what you asked. It’s more about how the mods handle reading and managing topics.

I can't really address your second point regarding the ban, since you didn't receive that notice from the New York Times.

🤷
Then let the moderator explain themselves.
Penalties and warnings ought to be applied consistently. Why should one insult carry three and a half times the weight of an identical insult directed at another user?

Just wait for the moderator. Who knows, maybe they turned in early since they have an early start tomorrow; they might show up this afternoon, at work, or... whatever. I just happened to be online to reply, though I could have easily missed it until tomorrow myself.

And let me tell you one more time: I didn't issue any ban after your question on Amtrak. That's all I have to say about it.

Well, here we go... I’ll just keep talking. This post was from 4:00; it's 6:00 now. Maybe they'll finally wake up by ten.

It doesn't really matter, though. I just wanted to make sure the nonsense from the "other side" gets documented—all that spamming and trolling—since I've already been penalized myself.

Matthew Young35 said:🤷
Then let the moderator explain themselves.
Penalties and warnings ought to be applied consistently. Why should one insult carry three and a half times the weight of an identical insult directed at another user?

You haven't actually asked yet. That warning was basically a cumulative strike for insults, trolling, and spamming across several posts in that thread, not just one single instance. Which is exactly what the warning description states, anyway.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:You haven't actually asked yet. That warning was basically a cumulative strike for insults, trolling, and spamming across several posts in that thread, not just one single instance. Which is exactly what the warning description states, anyway.

I don't accept that explanation.
I wasn't spamming or trolling those threads. Does persistent, factual refutation of other users' blatant lies not count as spamming or trolling? Because if it doesn't, I don't know what does.
I didn't even insult Precise.

But fine, whatever. I got banned because I hit the first 100 points. I’m just wondering why the same standards aren't applied to everyone else on this forum.
As far as I know, insulting users usually nets you well over 30 points—at least, that was always my experience.
Why did Lilith only get 30 points for such a blatant insult?

Matthew Young35 said:I don't accept that explanation.
I wasn't spamming or trolling those threads. Does persistent, factual refutation of other users' blatant lies not count as spamming or trolling? Because if it doesn't, I don't know what does.
I didn't even insult Precise.

But fine, whatever. I got banned because I hit the first 100 points. I’m just wondering why the same standards aren't applied to everyone else on this forum.
As far as I know, insulting users usually nets you well over 30 points—at least, that was always my experience.
Why did Lilith only get 30 points for such a blatant insult?

Do you want me to pull up the quotes?

As for that colleague you're asking about, she actually got banned tonight. She finally hit her limit on points.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Do you want me to pull up the quotes?

As for that colleague you're asking about, she actually got banned tonight. She finally hit her limit on points.

Quotes from what?
Fine, go ahead. But make sure you include the context they were responding to. Let the community decide if this is actual trolling or just mindless spamming. I've already admitted to the insults.

Matthew Young35 said:Quotes from what?
Fine, go ahead. But make sure you include the context they were responding to. Let the community decide if this is actual trolling or just mindless spamming. I've already admitted to the insults.

"Stop acting like an idiot and pretend you actually believe they're going to make ten-year-olds wear condoms.
God, your brains are seriously scrambled." (first)

"Was your mom sending you to Walmart for groceries when you were fifteen, and you just picked up some Vatican pamphlets and misread them as political manifestos?
There isn't even a mention of the stuff you're bullying people about in the health class curriculum.
Grow up. Come back when you're a little older than fifteen." (second)

"Get lost with this idiocy.
No sane person is going to buy the story that teachers are going to sit kids down and talk about gender roles in pornography.
But hey, clearly you aren't sane." (third)

"Reading your posts, I get the impression you're an incredibly unintelligent person.
It's not because you're right-wing, either—I've run into plenty of smart conservatives—but you personally radiate a heavy lack of intelligence.
Maybe you have a good heart and wouldn't step on an ant, but intelligence and comprehension definitely aren't your strong suits.
Friendly advice: try reading slowly and attempt to understand what the author meant before you comment." (fourth)

We're looking at four separate posts sent within an hour of each other. Individually, they're worth more than a hundred insults. None of these people actually went after you with personal attacks, so honestly, you got off pretty easy.