yhwx

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

I thought we already discussed that some people may not necessarily consider it a slur when applied abstractly or not directed at a real person.

informal, offensive very foolish or stupid: in retrospect, it was a totally retarded idea.

My dictionary, at least, agrees with me.

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think it’s fair to take his posts, that at the time he made them were not considered to break the rules, and retroactively use them as a justification to ban him over something completely unrelated.

You don’t think “Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable” and “Do not harass other members, either publicly or via PM. Any unwanted contact after a request to stay away will be considered harassment” have been rules?

The problem is that Frink was only banned immediately (more or less) after the r-word incident, and neither Jay not his mods clarified it was about the rest of his behavior on that day. In my view, moderators here typically notify users publicly when they’re on thin ice, and that never happened before Frink was banned with his earlier behavior that day.

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

Frank your Majesty said:

I just don’t see how Frink was the only one who should have been banned in that situation. Either ban all offending parties or noone. So much for equal treatment of every member.

Agreed.

The apocalypse has been a slow burn.

Darth Lucas said:

I’m a male who is very confused what happened to this thread.

Yeah, that’s how I’ve been feeling since I first read this thread.

TavorX said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

You could try banning yourself and see what happens. 😉

Only an administrator can ban a moderator.

Is it possible to learn this power?

Not from a Jedi.

https://twitter.com/seanilling/status/942975588435943424

I sat down with Jill Stein during the campaign. Interviewed her. Trust me when I tell you: her campaign was a sham. She was a sham. The whole damn thing was a sham.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/the-senates-russia-investigation-is-now-looking-into-jill

Update, Wednesday, December 20, 2017, at 8:30 P.M. EST:

Added:

• Misbegotten Movie Concepts.

Changed:

• The mention of the number of Off Topic threads in the first paragraph is now accurate, as of the time of this posting.

State law says the winner of a tied House race will be determined by lot — leaving the fate of the chamber to what is essentially a coin toss.

I don’t buy the assumption that Virginia is “bluer than California.” Clinton won by five-point margin in Virginia last year, similar to how Obama performed. Meanwhile, in California, Clinton beat Trump by a whopping 30 points, seven points wider than Obama’s victory over Romney there in 2012. Similar gap in their 2012 Senate elections. While you could say that Virginia is a blue state, it’s not bluer than California.

Turns out my deduction was wrong.

chyron8472 said:

You could try banning yourself and see what happens. 😉

Only an administrator can ban a moderator.

I think I’ve been able to deduce how it works.

There’s a file, request.js, that I assume is invoked every time you visit a page. If the status ban is true for a user, it requires reauthentication. That brings you to /models/user.js, wherein if that user shows as being in the Banned Users category in the authentication process, the login operation fails and emits the message “This account has had its login privileges revoked.” Users are added to the Banned Users category with the ban function.

I assume that login access is revoked even for your current session, because if it wasn’t, you could just keep your browser window going and keep on posting.

JEDIT: Er, it might just be that authentication is required when you’re trying to ban a user. If so, that makes my theory invalid.

JEDIT 2: https://github.com/jaysylvester/comitium/issues/164

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

It was known for about two minutes that Frink was banned before he posted. I assume it’s just some technical glitch that allowed that to happen.

Oh.

When you’re banned, they restrict access to your account so you can’t log in (speaking from experience). I imagine adding someone to the Banned Users group is a separate step in adminCP compared to restricting their login. So maybe he knew (and posted) because there was a 2 minute window between them adding him to Banned Users and blocking his login access.

Looking through the code (it’s publicly available; don’t worry, I’m not a hacker), it seems that when you’re banned, your login privileges are also automatically revoked. That being as it is, I’m not sure how Frink could post there. Voodoo, I guess.

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Still, all I’m asking for is more transparency. Had the mods made it clear he was on thin ice, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But if he did things that came close to breaking the rules yet the mods never said anything, they can’t just retroactively use them as a strike against him.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Jay decides to ban me after reading that thread for similar reasons.

I like how we’re making two separate points but eventually landing at the same conclusion. Your point is better, though.

Yeah, about that…

ChainsawAsh said:

Frink? Whoa…

TV’s Frink said:

Been nice knowing you guys.

It was known for about two minutes that Frink was banned before he posted. I assume it’s just some technical glitch that allowed that to happen.

chyron8472 said:

Why is it our business to know he was on thin ice, though? Ought that to be between him and the mods?

The mods have no problem with notifying people of their on-thin-ice-edness in public.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Even if so, the rules are still not being applied equally.

You don’t know that. You assume unequal treatment because you don’t have enough information to ascertain why one was banned and the other was not. There may be a legitimate reason, just the mods aren’t communicating it.

Alright. The mods just aren’t communicating it. That’s also a problem.

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Even if so, the rules are still not being applied equally.

DominicCobb said:

ray_afraid said:

Warbler said:

Did the guy even get a warning for using the r-word?

No, but he did make a large public apology and agree to never use the word again.

He apologized only after Frink was banned, presumably to cover his ass. Frink was banned without being given a chance for an apology. Neither were given warnings, far as I can tell.

Further evidence to the unequal treatment case.

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Knowing nothing about Jay’s occupation that’s assuming an awful lot about his free time. How often do you even see him post here compared to us mods?

All I assume is that he has enough free time to be the admin of a Star Wars forum.

Does he though? I barely see him post.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.

Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?

Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?

I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.

I don’t understand why it really matters how it was taken in the past. The thing is that we’re talking about. A thing that happened now, December 2017. The past shouldn’t really matter in that conversation.

It matters because this is a discussion board and language changes over time. the severity of the epithet changes over time, it seems. I was unaware of it being so severe as to warrant an immediate, no-warning instaban.

Well now you know. No need to discuss it in a committee.

Yes, because the other guy didn’t get banned yet.

Just to clarify, I was talking about the status of the word not the status of that member.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.

Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?

Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?

I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.

I don’t understand why it really matters how it was taken in the past. The thing is that we’re talking about. A thing that happened now, December 2017. The past shouldn’t really matter in that conversation.

It matters because this is a discussion board and language changes over time. the severity of the epithet changes over time, it seems. I was unaware of it being so severe as to warrant an immediate, no-warning instaban.

Well now you know. No need to discuss it in a committee.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Ok, if I am understanding things correctly, someone described a character in TLJ by using the r-word. It of course pissed off Frink and he responded using the f-word and other things and got temp banned for it. Did the person using the r-word get banned or disciplined at all?

No, and that’s what I think is the real injustice.

They only said it once. And they did get warned that it’s not acceptable.

How many times they said shouldn’t matter. The point is, the rules say that any use of slurs results in an “immediate and permanent ban with no prior warning.” Jay should at least apply his rules equally.

I agree, but here is the problem: what constitutes a slur in terms of Jays rules? Obviously people can not read Jay’s mind and know he thinks is and is not a slur. It is possible Jay does not think the r-word is a slur.

Yes, so I think Jay should tell us what counts as a slur, and we can go from there.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.

Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?

Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?

I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.

I don’t understand why it really matters how it was taken in the past. The thing is that we’re talking about. A thing that happened now, December 2017. The past shouldn’t really matter in that conversation.