saulgoode wrote:These members are just as much part of this community as you and the "many others" of which you speak.
We're all adults here, the holier than thou approach won't achieve much among us. A moderator over at the butnut forums could probably use this approach and be successful - here, I doubt it.
"These members" - we're talking one member. One particular member that is not actually part of this community at all - he has an account, but he's here to troll
it. As a result of his actions and yours some of those that are "part of this community" have been alienated. That's not a good result. Maybe some of us were in the wrong, but the troll should have been dealt with first and the rest of us later.
saulgoode wrote:Even if the original question is by any and all standards to be considered "inane", that still does not grant license to you or anyone else to post base insults and derogations directed at the original poster. Such behavior is at least as disruptive to the forums as the original post, and perhaps worse as it particularly hinders the staff's ability to bring quick and an impartial resolution to the situation.
You have a point, but when people are attacked or disrespected they will respond. People like nomko's posts will always draw a response (that's what trolling is all about), so trying to educate people not to respond is pretty pointless. This chap has been rude since he first arrived. From his first thread it was obvious what we were dealing with. I posted one "base insult", I don't recall posting any others? I'm not sure why you're trying to make out that I have a history of this?
saulgoode wrote:As far as I'm concerned, it is just as much a moderator's duty to address inappropriate reactionary posts as it is to address the posts that instigated them. I do not view that as "defending" the instigator, but as defending the goals of these forums and representing the interests of the entire community. Certainly who incited whom in such exchanges plays a role in how such situations should be addressed -- and the staff has shown a great deal of tolerance in this regard -- but behavior which interferes with the purpose of these forums should always be considered inappropriate.
Regardless of how you may view it, your actions were perceived as defending the "instigator". If I got a 1 month ban, the instigator should get quite a bit more. Instead he was allowed to continue posting and celebrating another member's departure as a "victory".
saulgoode wrote:If I may offer a bit of explanation for the disparity in treatment between yourself and JohnDeere630 under pretty much similar circumstances. It is true that both of your postings contained insults and language that I would consider unacceptable to these forums; I would even say that JohnDeere630's language was far worse than yours. The difference which to me was striking is that JohnDeere630 recognized that he was out of line whereas in your post you asserted that you would continue making such posts as long as nomko still continued to post his "idiotic questions".
I'm glad JohnDeere630 wasn't banned, as he said that which needed to be said and I fully support what he said. Sometimes people need to be told - otherwise this place will just turn into another "fluffy" forums where everyone agrees, sucks up the staff and counts beans. nomko was only politely told to "rtfm" when it was warranted. He ignored this, read no documentation, became abusive, used bad language, sent insulting PM's and then began trolling to try and prove his point. My offences were those few facepalm images and that one post - which I get a one month ban for.
saulgoode wrote:Perhaps I read too much into a turn of a phrase but if you truly do not see that your own abusive, profane reactionary postings are just as disruptive to these forums as some inane, idiotic question then there is a disagreement between us I can not reconcile. I will not bear having to deal with pages of inflammatory, insulting, and profane postings every time somebody poses a stupid question.
To say you read to much into that turn of phrase would be an understatement... So where are you getting these plural "abusive, profane reactionary postings" from? From where I'm standing it's you making a big deal of this to justify the disproportionate ban you've awarded me with.
saulgoode wrote:As a resolution to these differences, I will submit a request to the forum administrators to lift your ban, along with my resignation as a moderator of these forums.
I think we both know what the outcome of that will be..?
neddie wrote:For what it's worth, I agree with nomko's original post that the atmosphere in here has changed recently, definitely for the worse, but I really don't know what the solution is.
The atmosphere changed when nomko registered and only affects the threads he posts in.