Political Sarcasm

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?

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?

Look, I'm not going to defend the penalty since it wasn't my call, but strictly speaking... you just got a penalty for 50 days (that's how they all work, whether it's 30, 50, 60, or 90...) rather than a full ban. Your actual ban lasted three days...

And anyone can get into the FBI section unless you have specific credentials there, though you really have to put in some serious work if you actually want to earn them...

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.

I issued you a three-day ban with a 50-day point penalty. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure why it landed on 50 days instead of 30, 10, or 275; had you asked me back around September 7th, I might have had an answer for you, but right now, I haven't the slightest clue. As for your claim regarding the lack of appeal rights, I’m equally lost. And just to be clear, I didn't personally set the ban duration to 50 days.

Michelle Evans said: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.

A server glitch? How convenient. 🤣
Two weeks after getting banned, I tried posting and kept getting rejected. At least ten times. Eventually, I gave up.
Don't insult my intelligence. Besides, I don't even care; call it a server error if it makes you feel better.

But think about it—why do moderators hand out 100 points for simple sarcasm while they write openly offensive posts and start threads with insulting titles?
It's hypocritical, to put it mildly.
In the 12 or 13 years I've been on this forum, I've never seen a worse group of political moderators.

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...

When we issue a ban on a specific subforum—though I am specifically referring to the POTUS section since I moderate there and know our rules inside out—that individual receives a private message notifying them of the disciplinary action taken. If we set aside those instances where certain perennial troublemakers and their clones repeatedly spam threads with predictable intros, the actual list of people currently facing bans in the POTUS section is remarkably short. Getting a ban here is difficult; one would practically have to abuse the forum's appeal system to merit such a measure. It is highly unlikely that such an action was directed at you (and I see no reason why it would be), so there is really nothing to debate on that front. It is possible the server has glitched, or perhaps it is your computer. Both scenarios seem improbable, but given that the server has been known to exhibit some rather "eccentric behaviors" in the past, I wouldn't rule it out.

To prevent similar issues in the future, I ask you (and anyone else encountering this) to reach out via private message to one of us immediately. Your best bet is Nica, as they serve as the admin, but you can also contact me or Michelle Evans, as we are in constant communication regarding POTUS-related issues. If even that proves impossible because the server has completely lost its mind, your remaining options are to email the admin directly or use the report function on a post to flag the technical problem.

Regarding everything else, unless my colleagues have already clarified, I must say that I am firmly in favor of maintaining consistent criteria, even if I admit we occasionally struggle to ensure perfect uniformity. It is an active balancing act—one that cannot be perfectly achieved, but rather something we constantly strive for, case by case. As for this specific ban, I would need to review the entire discussion that led up to it. After all, Charles Fox10 is certainly not a moderator known for being hasty with disciplinary actions (a fact noted by users of various political persuasions), so resolving this would require significant retrospective analysis.

Should the issue with the appeal function recur, please, utilize one of the alternative contact methods suggested above.