DescentBB

Lothar wrote:[Admin note: vision, if you troll this thread again, I will ban you. This is your only warning. Don't be a dick.]

HEY ★■◆● YOU BUDDY. I don't give a ★■◆● if you are a mod, you are WRONG to keep deleting my posts here. I'm not "trolling" just because you don't like what I have to say. I will in fact donate one dollar for every post in this thread and it is my right to say as much because funding for PP is relevant to the discussion. DEAL WITH IT. I'm also PM'ing this post to everyone in this thread so they can see what a shitty mod you are (yes, you are exceptionally biased and probably shouldn't be a mod, and I'm not a dick for pointing out you need to ★■◆●ing relax.)

I love Planned Parenthood. I've been a regular customer since hitting puberty. Guess how many abortions I've had? If you guessed zero, congratulations for remembering men can't get pregnant. Not only did I get my vasectomy there, I get tested for AIDS and STDs regularly because that's what responsible adults do, especially before starting a new relationship. All my girlfriends have used PP services their entire lives. Guess how many got abortions? If you guessed zero, give yourself a gold star for being lucky. I'll also give myself a gold star for being lucky and not knocking up my girlfriends. I've had hair on my balls a looooong time.

Current total going to PP from my bank account: $22 and counting (including my two deleted posts). Think I'm Trolling? I'll show you the receipt. Want to defund PP? Might as well lock the whole thread now because my donation is going to keep getting bigger.

Vision has been banned. It will expire in one month (subject to revision later.)

Donate, or don't donate, to whatever organization you want to. That's your business. Announcing that you will be making a per-post donation is an attempt to derail the conversation (like the classic supervillain ploy -- "comply or this will happen and you'll be responsible" -- it's not a contribution to the discussion, but a method for applying pressure to people attempting to have a sensible discussion); repeating the offense after being told not to by an admin is just not smart.

Notice that I did not say something similar to slick, despite his donation being considerably larger. Because he did it in a way that contributed to the thread, instead of trying to derail it.

Lothar, putting the merits of vision's particular posts aside (and I certainly disagree with his position personally), I'm really troubled by this whole sequence of actions here. I mean, you're obviously personally invested in this conversation, and you've been participating in it for some time now, so for you to to go ahead and (from all I can tell) unilaterally ban vision has massive conflict-of-interest potential. Two sites where I've been a long-time staff member have a policy that mods/admins should recuse themselves from making ban-related decisions regarding threads that they've been actively participating in, or at the very least should ask another impartial moderator to provide another perspective before acting. I know we're an extremely small site at this point and that there's not exactly much staff to go around who wouldn't be involved in any particular thread, but it just really rubs me the wrong way to see you act on this in this particular fashion.

(If you want to slice this out into its own thread in Feedback, please do; I know it's not topical.)

I, too, wish to voice my opposition to any banning of vision. His point was made in a light fashion(as noted, the amount contributed is small), but it is actually a germane idea that is seen in reality. The more folks exaggerate(300k abortions total is not PP, that group only performs about 40-50,000 annually), push lies about fetal tissue use, etc, the more people like me, and to a much more massive extent Mark Zuckerberg and others, pour money into their coffers. I agree with the above post, Lothar, sad to say. You are so vested in the thread that for you to use a ban in this case seems to make it seem like you choose to wield administrative power due to personal feelings.

Top Gun wrote:for you to to go ahead and (from all I can tell) unilaterally ban vision has massive conflict-of-interest potential

I already opened a discussion in the moderators' forum asking for feedback, though there didn't happen to be any online at dark o'clock. I generally expect to have conversations with other moderators and admins over actions of this nature, and would have much rather had someone else handle it. However, to be blunt, I did not unilaterally ban him. I unilaterally WARNED him, and then he chose to respond by escalating, knowing the expected consequence. (This is all very meta.)

callmeslick wrote:His point was made in a light fashion ... but it is actually a germane idea that is seen in reality. .... others pour money into their coffers.

I can point to a specific example: the town that donated money to an anti-neo-Nazi charity for every meter marched by a neo-Nazi group.

But the setting matters. That action creates an unwelcoming environment for neo-Nazis to march in that particular town ever again. Creating an unwelcoming environment is totally appropriate in response to neo-Nazi marches. It's not really so appropriate on a message board where we have relatively open discussions of diverse opinions. Your open declaration that you've just written a large check to PP is cool; phrasing even a tiny donation in a way that is designed to provoke or intimidate other board members is not.

HERO MOD PROTECTS OUR FRAGILE MINDS! What would we do without Lothar. We're all children, after all.

Vision has stated on more than one occasion that he troll posts in the E&C because there is nothing worthwhile there. Yet for some reason he keeps hanging around in that same forum. So he got banned for trolling once too often and now people want to come to his defense. So far all I see are people in his clique defending him.

I find it ironic that a member was told to stop trolling a political forum because he was making a political statement.

I'm not in anyone's "clique," nor did I agree with what he was posting in that thread. What concerns me is seeing someone get moderated by an individual who's been actively participating in a debate against them, since it at least provides the opportunity for the status of moderator to be used as a bully pulpit. (And no, I'm not saying that this is what Lothar did in this case.) I feel very similarly about the mods deleting multiple posts in a discussion without any real context: I understand the intent behind it, but when everything's just completely swept out of public view, there's no way to get a sense of how warranted it was. At one of my other haunts I mentioned we try to avoid deleting content except in the most extreme circumstances, precisely because it automatically cuts the overall board population out of the loop.

And Lothar, I appreciate that you did put out a call for more eyes, and obviously there weren't going to be many other people on at that hour, but in that case wouldn't it have been a possibility to just wait a tick until someone else chimed in the next day, or at least just temp-ban him until more discussion could be had on the total ban length? I don't want to come across like I'm telling you how to do your job, and I apologize if that's what it sounds like; I'm just thinking of things in the context of the moderation policies I'm familiar with, and wondering if they'd apply here.

I'm also with slick and Top gun on this one, Lothar.

I'll agree that Vision is a dick, but he's a dick to certain people. Mostly because they bring it on themselves. But a month? That's way too harsh. Even Krom, when he banned thunderbunny, only gave him two weeks -- and that was for a FAR more serious offense.

If I were in your shoes, I would have given him two days. enough for him to calm down. But a month is excessive and it sets a dangerous precedent.

Top Gun wrote:at least just temp-ban him until more discussion could be had on the total ban length?

Ferno wrote:I would have given him two days. enough for him to calm down. But a month is excessive and it sets a dangerous precedent.

I set it to a month only because it was the easiest thing to click other than "permanent". People can still weigh in on total ban length; it's easy to revise. I'll even leave it to Krom, or Foil/Jeff, to decide in order to remove some potential conflict of interest.

I'll agree that Vision is a dick, but he's a dick to certain people

Speaking of dangerous precedents, "it's OK to be a dick as long as it's to people I don't like" is a pretty bad one. But it's more than merely being a dick -- a lot of people are dicks sometimes in some ways, and we mostly tolerate that. It's the intentional poisoning of a conversation that really matters. He didn't poison that conversation because we all deserve it; he poisoned it because he wanted to discourage PP's detractors from posting. There were plenty of available alternatives, which he chose not to take.

Might be best to leave it to Krom. He seems to be a solid overall admin.

he wanted to discourage PP's detractors from posting

That's the thing. It shouldn't be enough to discourage anyone. But that's just me.

The counter troll in me would fill the thread with a good 100,000 posts of "+$1" and make him eat his words.

As for the ban, I generally think most of the people who post and argue in E&C are all dicks anyway and I'm sure many of them view me the same way (and I'd even agree it would be deserved). A lot of us probably block it out more or less entirely thanks to that, we are desensitized. So if I was going to ban people for being dicks or jerks or assholes or whatever, I'd probably end up banning almost everyone including myself. Which is why I try to keep my banning policy a consistent and professionally detached one instead of throwing it around just because someone pisses me off, although I wouldn't say I always succeed.

Yeah there's that.

Ever since the DBB started, and some of you know this to be true because you've been around here as long as I have, is that we were always kind of dicks to each other. That's how we did things in this corner of the internet. It wasn't destructive, or even toxic. It's just how we were. And we used to give people a hard time for complaining about it.

Ferno wrote:we were always kind of dicks to each other.... It wasn't destructive, or even toxic.

We always allowed a certain form of dickitude. But not every form.

We're gamers; we expect a certain amount of trash-talk and friendly ribbing -- but we also recognize that it can cross the line, and we'd step in if it became either full-fledged flaming or obviously-unwanted harassment. We'd let people throw comments like "noob" around, but we wouldn't let people call KodeKeeper a "fag" in spite of how flamingly fabulous he was (and we tolerated his calling other dudes "honey" from time to time, but eventually had him tone it down when it became too prevalent and obnoxious.)

We've always allowed people to be critical of others' opinions. But draw the line when it became too personal -- when it went from "your idea has the following problems" to "you're an idiot" (though we've become a little more lax about that, the moderators will still step in on that sort of personal dickitude from time to time.)

In fact, a fair summary of our historical precedent might be "don't be toxic". We allow deep disagreement on subjects most forums won't even let you talk about, but if it turns into name-calling or threats or harassment or telling people to stop posting or anything else that's likely to make people leave a discussion for reasons other than "the other person's argument is too strong", that's what gets people banned. Intentionally making people uncomfortable about genuinely attempting to contribute to discussion is a high offense (whereas making people uncomfortable for sniping, cheap shots, egregious willful ignorance, or other non-contributions is a board tradition.) Most people, most of the time, get that. A few people occasionally need a reminder from a moderator. Almost all of them choose to respond properly to those reminders -- either by backing off (at least for a while), or by having a reasonable conversation with the moderator to figure out what's allowed, or by voicing disagreement with other moderators and eventually coming to an understanding of what does and doesn't qualify as toxic behavior (sometimes we even decide the moderator was wrong -- but even then, we're generally more sympathetic when someone voices that disagreement calmly than when they decide to flame.)

Vision wrote:... Want to defund PP? Might as well lock the whole thread now because my donation is going to keep getting bigger.

Conflict of interest or not, Lothar is right about this one. For what it's worth, it is my considered opinion that Lothar is big enough to handle this kind of potential conflict of interest. Not that Top Gun is wrong at all in his thinking, I just don't see any evidence that it's a problem here.

Poisoning topics that he particularly doesn't like is Vision's M.O., which is why I have had him on ignore going back a ways.

Krom, you're such a dick. *Waits in apprehension for retaliatory custom title*

ITT: people acting banning someone for anything other than marketing spam or illegal content linking is somehow reasonable...

Isaac wrote:ITT: people acting banning someone for anything other than marketing spam or illegal content linking is somehow reasonable...

More like, mods showing that if you choose to pick a fight with them, you will lose.

I have a hard time with the "Vision is a dick to people that bring it upon themselves" argument. If having a different viewpoint than his constitutes "bringing it upon themselves" then I suppose you're right. What I see is trolling any viewpoint that disagrees with his, no matter how cogently it's presented. It's earned an ignore from me, too.

Lothar if you'd like an impartial opinion on this, you could show me some of the posts in question. I've gotten pretty good at evaluating posts for trolling in the couple years I've helped moderate a very active hockey forum.

Avder wrote:Lothar if you'd like an impartial opinion on this,

Avder wrote: I've gotten pretty good at evaluating posts for trolling

Avder wrote: couple years

To everyone else,

If you ban for any reason other than marketing spam or illegal content you lack what it takes to lead any group of people to follow the forum's intended theme. Mod tools are the crutch for the lazy or incompetent mod. You shape your forum culture through words.

Isaac wrote:You shape your forum culture through words.

You shape forum culture through both words AND enforcement. (This isn't my first rodeo.)

Now, you're allowed to run this forum however you want. I'm allowed to say you're not doing it right if that's what I see. If you don't like it, sorry. I'm not here to keep you in good spirits. With that being said...

Lothar wrote:(This isn't my first rodeo.)

Banning people to spare energy on working problems out with them is lazy. If you've been doing that this whole time, decades of doing it wrong isn't something worth boasting about.

Edit:

Unban Vision. You didn't help anyone by doing that.

Banning people who won't follow the rules is a form of discipline, with the idea of teaching the user to stop breaking the rules, or if they refuse to do that, stop having to deal with them altogether.

The thing is, Issac, there are people on the internet who don't really want to talk. They want to agitate and be dicks for no other reason than to be a jerk. These people are called trolls. And as much as you hate it, the only thing standing between the trolls running the internet and being able to have an actual discussion like we are now, are moderators. Moderators enforce rules, like a minimum level of etiquette. What you seem to want is anarchy where everyone is out for themselves.

Isaac wrote:ITT: people acting banning someone for anything other than marketing spam or illegal content linking is somehow reasonable...

It's perfectly reasonable unless you want an utter cesspool of a forum where people can make shitpost after shitpost and make the entire place worthless. We can debate about what level of moderation is the best, or about certain moderation policies, but expecting the moderators to throw up their hands and take an anything-goes approach is a terrible idea.

Isaac wrote:I'm allowed to say you're not doing it right if that's what I see

Of course -- and I'm allowed to continue to disagree with your opinion. It's not about liking or disliking, but about convincing or not convincing.

decades of doing it wrong isn't something worth boasting about

I haven't done things exactly the same way every time and in every place, nor have all of my co-mods/admins. I've learned a lot about things that work and things that don't, both from direct experience and observation. Of particular note, I know what sort of board you get when you take an "I will never enforce anything but anti-spam/virus rules" approach (Avder and TG both know too.) You're welcome to run your own board that way, but that's not the kind of board we want here.

The best discussion forums I've seen, by far, are the ones with rules like "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity." or "uphold the tension between civility and rigor, and readily exercise self-criticism." and which enforce those rules with warnings, deletions, and temporary and permanent bans when necessary. Some people learn merely from the words of administrators and other posters; others learn from penalties; others have no intention of upholding the standards of a community, and their choice not to belong sometimes needs to be enforced.

You changed my mind Avadar. You did it. I now think banning users that are bad is logical. They're bad, so they should be banned. Thank you for your post. Your experience shows. My view is changed and a new road in life has opened up to me. Thank you Avadr.

Top Gun wrote:It's perfectly reasonable unless you want an utter cesspool of a forum where people can make shitpost after shitpost and make the entire place worthless.

Jump to the last section of this post. It addresses both you and Lothar.

Lothar wrote:

Isaac wrote:I'm allowed to say you're not doing it right if that's what I see

Of course --

BUT YOU TEMP BANNED ME FOR DOING EXACTLY THAT THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE. My position hasn't changed at ALL.

Lothar wrote: and I'm allowed to continue to disagree with your opinion. It's not about liking or disliking, but about convincing or not convincing.

Exactly. Convincing a user has nothing to do with your mod tools.

Lothar wrote: I haven't done things exactly the same way every time and in every place, nor have all of my co-mods/admins. I've learned a lot about things that work and things that don't, both from direct experience and observation. Of particular note, I know what sort of board you get when you take an "I will never enforce anything but anti-spam/virus rules" approach (Avder and TG both know too.) You're welcome to run your own board that way, but that's not the kind of board we want here.

Then you guys haven't seen how it's suppose to work.

Lothar wrote: The best discussion forums I've seen, by far, are the ones with rules like "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation.

It should read "Be civil, but don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation", because that would be the reality.

Lothar wrote: Avoid gratuitous negativity."

How about, "don't panic at the sign of confrontation."

Lothar wrote: or "uphold the tension between civility and rigor, and readily exercise self-criticism." and which enforce those rules with warnings, deletions, and temporary and permanent bans when necessary.

"Because if you fight on the internet and die, you die in real life."

Lothar wrote: Some people learn merely from the words of administrators and other posters;

Everyone is capable of verbal control. It doesn't work for you, because you reach your limit when saying "don't do that because it's bad" doesn't work. This is why you think my style would be chaos...

I had a user that was banned on every subreddit. He came to mine. I explained that he could continue do whatever he wanted, but that he could easily get our cool subreddit shut down. And I let him decide to remove his own post. He did. I empowered him. I let the fate of the community rest in his hands and one of the worst trolls became a good users immediately. He even scolds people that break the rules. My subreddit is his house. He was the worst troll I've ever seen and now he follows the rules via common sense. Most trolls just want someone on the net to recognize them as valuable. He got that from me.

It works for him and it works for every single user I've confronted as a mod in all 22 of my subreddits.

These are people on the other side of these Internet connections. They still function like people even here. Have a little more faith.

Lothar wrote:"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity."

Vision, here is much safer to offend Putin, than the members of this forum, that provoke you

Isaac wrote:BUT YOU TEMP BANNED ME FOR DOING EXACTLY THAT

No, I did not temp ban you for disagreeing with me.

I temp banned you for trolling the people you were in a conversation with, and not complying with my directive to respond to them reasonably. You made a series of statements, got a series of thoughtful responses, and then continually responded to them with things like "blah blah blah" and "tl;dr".

I in fact did empower you to solve your own problem. I gave you the option, and the expectation, of giving a serious response to the people you were in a discussion with. You chose to again respond with something akin to "I skipped the wall of text". So I gave you some time off. You responded with a similar non-response, so Krom also gave you some time off.

Obviously you learned nothing from that ban -- not even the reason you were banned. Since it was explained, I have to conclude it's willful ignorance. Since you believe everyone is capable of verbal control, tell me, what should I say to you in order to stop you from behaving inappropriately on this board? What should I say to you in order to get you to stop posting non-responses to other people?

Convincing a user has nothing to do with your mod tools

Some users can be convinced with words. Others need to be convinced that the words are backed up with enforcement.

Lothar wrote: Avoid gratuitous negativity."

How about, "don't panic at the sign of confrontation."

There's actually a fuller description of the meaning of this guideline. It comes from a place that allows a great deal of confrontation and disagreement, but has chosen to enforce the expectation that when you are negative or confrontational, you're still adding value to a discussion. (It's only rarely moderator-enforced; the community typically enforces via heavy downvoting.)

Everyone is capable of verbal control. It doesn't work for you

It works for me with the vast majority of posters, on the vast majority of forums. But some people choose not to respond to verbal control.

There was actually a multi-year period on this board where I didn't have mod/admin powers of any sort. Nobody knew I was just an ordinary user, because the majority of my modding style has always been to convince people to stop being jerks. The present reality, though, is that the people on the other end of some of my current modding actions have chosen not to respond to verbal comments about appropriate behavior. I asked you to change your behavior in the prior thread and you chose not to, and I asked vision to change his behavior in the thread that spawned this one and he chose not to. Do you believe I could have simply asked more nicely and affected change? I don't -- both you and vision have indicated that you'll behave how you want to behave, that you won't be controlled verbally or otherwise. Which is fine -- if you want to act that way, "there are other places you can go to do that." You don't need to be on this board; I could choose to spend hours of my time arguing and pleading with you to follow our guidelines, and I'm certainly willing to do it if you show signs that you're interested in doing so, but if you show signs that you're going to obstinately and flagrantly violate the guidelines, I'm more than happy to show you the door.

We're going in circles and my principles are about as deep as your stubbornness to stop and admit error. So if you reply to me you'll be having the last word in this. I'll read it, but I'm done with wasting my time lecturing to the deaf.

lothar wrote: No, I did not temp ban you for disagreeing with me.

I temp banned you for trolling the people you were in a conversation with, and not complying with my directive to respond to them reasonably. You made a series of statements, got a series of thoughtful responses, and then continually responded to them with things like "blah blah blah" and "tl;dr".[/lothar]

People? You mean, Aveder? I like how you specifically chose the word "people" rather than person.

lothar wrote:I in fact did empower you to solve your own problem. I gave you the option, and the expectation,

Did you mean to write that as a joke?

You're wrong about everything in this and your arguments are mostly to justify your actions. You're not big enough to admit you've made mistake here, but merely meander around doing whatever current emotion you're feeling happens to dictate.

You wouldn't believe the amount of respect I'd have for you if you simply owned up to making the wrong choice and unbanned vision.

Isaac wrote:I'm done with wasting my time lecturing to the deaf

I think that's a big part of your problem -- you're here to lecture, rather than to converse. I think you're wrong overall, but I also think I might be able to learn some things from you, so I listen. You clearly don't have the same opinion of me.

lothar wrote:I in fact did empower you to solve your own problem. I gave you the option, and the expectation,

You're wrong about everything in this and your arguments are mostly to justify your actions

Of course I'm justifying my actions. I took them for reasons, which I believe are good reasons. You don't have to agree with my reasons, and your choice to respect me or not respect me is your own. Feel free to run your own forums according to your own standards.

As I said before, I'm not unbanning vision. I set his ban to a month, which is probably too long, and I leave it to Krom, Foil, and Jeff to decide if they want to shorten it and to what degree, specifically so that there's no conflict of interest in determining the actual length of the ban -- neither "you banned him for too long because of COI" or "you relented on the ban too soon because you let the personal criticism get to you". It's out of my hands now.

The problem is…trolling may have a definition, but any given comment can be disputed, as to whether it is trolling or not.

In this case I didn’t see visions remarks as trolling, but making a political statement, that somebody (Lothar) didn’t like.

Then Lothar pushed visions buttons by threatening to ban him, and used this to get what he wanted, given visions propensities.

The idea that pro life people would be dissuaded from posting is a bit silly, the fact is…vision made a political statement, then got taunted into being banned for it.

But the initial warning had nothing to do with "trolling", per Lothar's explanation--it had to do with addressing actions intended to manipulate/shut down the discussion. I do get a bit of a kick out of the fact that your version has Lothar playing Vision like a fiddle.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But the initial warning had nothing to do with "trolling"

... actually, I did use the word "trolling" in my initial warning. It's generally the term I use for taking actions meant to be provocative/manipulative rather than informative. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute the fact that vision posting that he would donate $1 to PP for every post in the thread (without any additional commentary) was a form of trolling -- there's no information there, just an attempt to manipulate the thread into a non-discussion.

I do get a bit of a kick out of the fact that your version has Lothar playing Vision like a fiddle.

Spidey wrote:Lothar pushed visions buttons by threatening to ban him, and used this to get what he wanted, given visions propensities

I have the same reaction as Thorne. You seriously think my goal was to ban him? You think I figured out exactly which buttons to push on a guy I don't really even know in order to trigger an over-the-top reaction? Really? Those aren't skills I associate with The Spectrum.

In my entire life, in every board I've been a moderator or admin on combined, you can count the number of real people (ie, not spambots) I've perma-banned on one finger. Counting the number of people I've temp-banned will take you one or two fingers onto the other hand. If I was in the habit of banning people I don't like, the number would be much, much higher.

I don't taunt. I don't even taunt if I'm kicking your ass at Descent; I consider it poor sportsmanship (seriously, ask my wife.) I give warnings, and I expect people to heed those warnings -- if I say "you're going to get banned if you keep doing X", I assume you're going to stop doing X. You might argue with me privately, or argue publicly, or ask for another mod's opinion, but I don't expect you to keep doing the same thing, and especially not to flame me in the process. When vision responded by cussing me out, I was shocked -- but it also seems pretty obvious to me that, no matter what forum you're on, if you respond to an admin saying "stop or you'll be banned" with "★■◆● YOU BUDDY" and then repeating the same thing, you're opting for the ban.

Lothar, one thing I would do in the future is if you are involved in an exchange, it's generally a good idea to let another mod make the call and implement any punishment. At the very least it will give you a second perspective that will either validate your own or point out any personal bias of yours that you may not be aware of.

From your account tho, it sounds like vision was committing suicide by mod cussing you out like that. You are absolutely right that if an admin tells you to stop doing X, you either stop doing X or face the consequences.

Anybody that doesn’t have a pretty good read on how a particular person will react to a situation, probably should not be a mod.

Most people on this board are as predictable as clocks, and I could give you a list of people who will tell you to go ★■◆● yourself if you threaten them. (but I won’t)

Avder wrote:Lothar, one thing I would do in the future is if you are involved in an exchange, it's generally a good idea to let another mod make the call

The first post I removed was before I was involved with the thread. But I agree, once I got involved it would have made sense to ask another mod to weigh in. That was a mistake on my part.

Spidey wrote:Anybody that doesn’t have a pretty good read on how a particular person will react to a situation, probably should not be a mod

What happens if a new guy joins the board? Nobody can be a mod because we don't know how he'll react? Guy's been on the board for a long time but happens to have a pet peeve that sets him off ("you used italics? RAAAAGE!"), nobody can be a mod because they don't know that pet peeve? I have a pretty good feel for a lot of people on this board, but not that one in particular, so I shouldn't be a mod? I don't think that's a reasonable standard. It's certainly not the standard we hold in any other arena -- if someone flips out, that's their own responsibility, and placing the blame on someone else for "triggering" them or "making" them flip out is asinine. Expecting the people enforcing the rules to walk on eggshells so they don't "make" someone flip out is asinine. Expecting moderators to refrain from telling people to get their behavior under control so they don't "force" someone to lose control is asinine.

A moderator's job is to communicate the rules, model the rules, and enforce the rules. It might be a bonus to know specific details about how different people will react, in order to better communicate with them -- but ultimately, you have to place the responsibility for listening to the rules and following the rules on the forum's users. Even if I was wearing a skimpy dress, that doesn't mean I was "asking for it" and he "couldn't control himself". He was in control of himself and he knew exactly what he was doing.

Politics not part of mod’s job…duly noted

And JFTR I wasn’t trying to imply that a mod needs to know the temperament of a new member, of course that would be impossible…so whatever. (strawman)

Spidey wrote:I wasn’t trying to imply that a mod needs to know the temperament of a new member, of course that would be impossible…so whatever. (strawman)

Just an attempt to grapple with the concept you'd put forth, by pointing out the already quite significant exceptions (I could have added "dude is having a bad day but I don't happen to know about it" and many others.) The degree to which I expect moderators to be able to predict peoples' actions is apparently much less than what you expect -- I knew vision wouldn't be happy, but I don't think it's fair to expect me to know that he would blow up and "suicide by mod" as Avder termed it.

That happens when you threaten people, I have seen this many times in RL.

In fact, most people I know don’t react well to being threatened. (it's just human nature)

The last time I seen it was when I threatened the owner of the property next to mine with a law suit, because he keeps lying to me about cutting his trees, unfortunately he is leaving me no choice, but the response when I threatened him was classic. (he called me names, and counter threatened me by stating that he would never cut the trees now)

Spidey wrote:That happens when you threaten people

Most people have the good sense to recognize when a threat is genuine, and weigh the consequences. People aren't animals; even when they choose to blow up, they usually know what they're doing. Your neighbor might very well call you names, but it's unlikely he'd talk that way to a cop who showed up and told him to trim his tree; he'd probably have the sense to STFU. People can react calmly even in spite of their emotions; on the rare occasion when they actually lose control, it usually ends up on those "wildest police videos" shows or youtube, where we all shake our heads at the meltdown.

Usually when I tell people that they're in danger of having a moderator take action against them, they choose a different path, because that's a consequence they don't want. If you think I played vision like a fiddle and made him react, you must think very little of him. I don't think he lost control or that I forced him into anything; he chose that consequence in the moment, probably because he mistakenly thought he had something to gain by it. I think he had a lot more to gain simply by posting a complaint here, and so did the rest of us. But he chose what he chose, and now he and I and all the rest of us are dealing with the results.