Here is my statement/open letter defending Warbler here:
When in the course of forum events, it may sometimes become necessary for forum members to be banned, temporarily or not, by the moderation of the forum. It is my opinion that a miscarriage of justice was committed when Warbler was banned on Sunday.
While Warbler’s posts regarding the issue of the National Anthem may have been inflammatory, such is the nature of an argumentative discussion. A certain level of leeway must be allowed, as long as all people feel comfortable in the discussion. As I did not see any complaints of legitimate offense during the course of our previous discussion, I feel that it is safe to say that all people felt comfortable in that discussion. Angry, yes, but comfortable. If certain people did not feel at ease because of Warbler’s presence, my opinion may have been different.
Next, I feel that there is an amount of contradiction of actions by the entirety of the moderation on this board. While many other, more inflammatory members have continued to roam free on this forum for many months, and in some cases, even years, Warbler got punished simply, in my opinion, on a first offense. This also leaves open the door to the question of if this action has belied prevailing political opinions that some may have.
Interesting discussion requires a reasonable variety of viewpoints. Some viewpoints, such as white supremacism, are unacceptable, and I am not saying that those viewpoints are within that reasonable variety. However, I do believe that Warbler’s viewpoint, at this moment, was in that reasonable variety.
I do respect the right that the moderation have to discipline any member however they see fit, for any reason, or for no reason at all. I 100% believe in that right, and would fight for it. However, I do also believe in the right to voice grievances of the leadership of any organization. These are my grievances, and I hope they are considered by the leadership here.
I am in agreement with many of your well-made points - though a ‘miscarriage of justice’ may be laying it on a little thick somewhat.
Since making your post you have likely read the reasons as to why Warbler was given a couple of days off in the form of a cool-off temp-ban (I have got to come up with another way of stating this - as I think I’m wearing down these specific keys on the keyboard too much). The decision to do so taken after he had stated he stopped listening to everyone, and when asked to once again explain himself in a better fashion he stated it would be a waste of time - and continued to post inflammatory posts (and likely would have posted more).
I took the decision to put those posts to a halt - partly for the reasons given since, partly as he wasn’t engaging in any meaningful conversation with other posters, and as a moderator I have a duty to the site to try ensure some level of reasonable discourse; I certainly wasn’t comfortable with the was the thread was heading.
On your next paragraph re ‘amount of contradiction of actions by the entirety of the moderation on this board’… as said elsewhere I can’t comment on those past things - I haven’t seen them, I wasn’t a mod at the time and am unaware of the history thereof. Was this at a time when the ‘Off Topic’ section was unmoderated? I can’t speak for the other mods. Everyone else in that thread was told by me (in the very same post that I let Warbler know he was being given a couple of days off) that the same cool-off temp-ban would apply to them if they did the same as what he did on Sunday night. If Warbler had written his posts in a reasonable non inflammatory manner, he’d still be here - regardless of political opinion. Other posters on the ot.com may have received similar to Warbler, though it may not be publicly known to members in general.
Variety in viewpoint is indeed a requirement for interesting debate and should be encouraged. His viewpoint in the main was fine - the delivery was not, nor was his stance at being asked to explain himself better.
Re your final paragraph - I agree with the mods having the right to ‘discipline’ any poster they see fit - though I disagree with it if it were for no reason at all. I do completely agree with your assertation in the belief to the right to voice reasonable grievances of the leadership of any organisation too.
I hope I have answered your questions both adequately and satisfactorily - though accept you may not like or agree with (some of) the answers given. Please feel free to PM me if you have any further questions - thank you.