I got banned from a thread

gggggg

Gdryvcguonvxsed
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
449
I used a swear word. I’m sorry it was unkind, but I was presented with a comment I found troubling because it was belittling the concerns of Jews. I don’t regret it, and I’d do it again.

Elsewhere in the thread, responding to my serious explanation of my views, I was presented with comments essentially accusing me of not caring about the people of Gaza enough.

Both of these users remain unbanned from posting.

Later a moderator says they see no evidence of antisemitism in the reported comments.

This is the problem. Concerns about antisemitism are unseen at best, belittled at worst. It is disgraceful and unbecoming of this place. Some people are really letting their biases show and it appears the moderators are unconcerned. Unless you use a swear word. For shame.
 
I haven't contributed very actively to the thread @gggggg but I try to read it and engage with it on the sidelines.

I appreciate what you're saying about the comments made re: caring about the people of Gaza, because not once did you indicate that you didn't.

Regarding anti-semitism, I would be interested to know which comments in particular were anti-semetic/could be anti-semetic, as I hadn't picked up on them. I'm not saying they're not there, just that my own lack of understanding might have shrouded this if they are. If you do want to share these I'd appreciate it.
 
I would note as well that I hadn't seen posts from people on the other side of the debate indicating that they didn't sympathise with the victims of the 7th October tragedy, which was mentioned.
 
The apparent fact that antisemitism is being ‘prioritised’ over other other racial prejudice in general. It is a pernicious characterisation of Jewish ‘control’.
 
To be clear, you weren't banned just for a swear word, you were banned for a targeted personal attack that did nothing but lower the tone of a sensitive topic.

It is temporary and will be lifted in 24 hours. The moderators agree this is proportionate.

We have also looked into the posts you flagged as antisemitic and we do not agree that anything antisemitic has been said.
 
To be clear, you weren't banned just for a swear word, you were banned for a targeted personal attack that did nothing but lower the tone of a sensitive topic.

It is temporary and will be lifted in 24 hours. The moderators agree this is proportionate.

We have also looked into the posts you flagged as antisemitic and we do not agree that anything antisemitic has been said.
Cool.

I’m done.
 
I’m not sure the temporary ban is the best solution here guys, it doesn’t send the best message.

Joanne’s response was all that was needed in that instance.

We’ve all said worse to each other in the past.

That being said, if anyone thinks the discussion is one sided they should absolutely speak up about what the problem is with the discourse. I for one am all ears.
I don't want to clog up that thread with internal chat.

As the thread is so sensitive, we're taking a more hands on approach to moderation than we usually would, due to our experience with the previous thread. This was laid out in the first post in the new thread.

Of course, we do not want to ban anyone, temporarily or permanently, but also we do not want this new thread to devolve like the previous one.

Finally, no one is being banned due to their views or opinions. Only inappropriate behaviour will lead to Moderator action. If you feel like someone has overstepped a line we ask that you report it to the mods so that we can intervene if necessary
 
The apparent fact that antisemitism is being ‘prioritised’ over other other racial prejudice in general. It is a pernicious characterisation of Jewish ‘control’.
I took Bev's point as being that intersectionality/interconnection between racial and sectarian prejudices is being downplayed, but I hadn't considered your point here.

I do think that there are issues online across the board in terms of how people handle discussions, and I can see how anyone with an opposing or divergent viewpoint would be put off having any kind of input on here, and it's something that forum needs to work on. We're not a news site, but it's still important if we're trying to encourage actual discussion and openness.
 
I would just kindly and respectfully ask the mod team to consider whether they are over-policing at the moment. So far the ban has done more harm than the comment.
 
I'd also query the consensus that "nothing anti-semetic has been said" in flagged posts, primarily because I think it's a more nuanced conversation than that and it's important to consider whose perspective is taken into account when making a statement like the above.
 
I keep going into that thread, thinking I’m going to speak up and then realising I can’t be faced with the backlash right now, but sorry, as much as I don’t agree with @gggggg ’s point of view, I vehemently disagree with the censorship of someone with an opposing opinion.

How is telling someone “fuck you” now considered a personal attack worth banning on Moopy? It happens all the time. It’s the poster’s opinion behind that that has caused the ban and that is really not ok.
 
I took Bev's point as being that intersectionality/interconnection between racial and sectarian prejudices is being downplayed, but I hadn't considered your point here.

I do think that there are issues online across the board in terms of how people handle discussions, and I can see how anyone with an opposing or divergent viewpoint would be put off having any kind of input on here, and it's something that forum needs to work on. We're not a news site, but it's still important if we're trying to encourage actual discussion and openness.
Thank you for your sensitive viewpoint.

My main concern is that the antisemitism is unclocked. If you replace the term in those posts with any other kind of racism, it would be deemed inappropriate. Yet antisemitism gets a pass repeatedly and people just don’t see it. And you wonder why Jews feel unsafe, it’s like shouting into an empty chasm.
 
I keep going into that thread, thinking I’m going to speak up and then realising I can’t be faced with the backlash right now, but sorry, as much as I don’t agree with @gggggg ’s point of view, I vehemently disagree with the censorship of someone with an opposing opinion.

How is telling someone “fuck you” now considered a personal attack worth banning on Moopy? It happens all the time. It’s the poster’s opinion behind that that has caused the ban and that is really not ok.
Agreed.

People should be allowed to give their views and swear without being banned from the thread.

The thread is very intimidating for anyone who doesn't agree completely with the main posters in it, but now there will also be a fear that anyone who is not of the exact same opinion will be censored.
 
The mod team were asked individually whether we thought that a temporary ban was a measured and proportionate response. I absolutely agreed that it is in this instance because the conversation got personal very quickly. Nobody else received a temporary ban as nobody else took it to that level.

@Rowan Tree 🌳 to your point about the consensus about whether content was antisemitic - again, we all assessed it individually and that was the conclusion we reached. For my part, how I read the post was that antisemitism and islamophobia are equally abhorrent. Since that's not only my own stance but the stance of Moopy as stated in the first post of the topic, I won't in good conscience support action being taken against the person who made the post.

@gggggg is welcome to return to the conversation after the temporary ban is lifted. It needs to be underscored that the discussion and the content of the posts in that thread weren't the issue, nor would they be.
 
@Rowan Tree 🌳 to your point about the consensus about whether content was antisemitic - again, we all assessed it individually and that was the conclusion we reached. For my part, how I read the post was that antisemitism and islamophobia are equally abhorrent. Since that's not only my own stance but the stance of Moopy as stated in the first post of the topic, I won't in good conscience support action being taken against the person who made the post.
I understand that you as the mod team have your opinion and that it is complicated to find the line at which you should act.

My point though is that in saying you've all come to consensus that something isn't anti-semitic, you're taking ownership of your understanding of the term and the intricacies of it. Is that an appropriate statement to make given the complexity?

I didn't read Bev's post as anti-semitic either, and I very much doubt Bev did, but I am not someone who has experienced anti-semetism and I definitely think that more should be done than an assessment within less than an hour followed by a declaration. That seems inappropriate.

It's certainly worth a conversation if people involved and offended are willing to have one.
 
Just to clarify, I also don't think either you BT or ZG meant to imply that you have a full understanding of anti-semitism when that statement was made. I just think it should be reconsidered.
 
The mod team were asked individually whether we thought that a temporary ban was a measured and proportionate response. I absolutely agreed that it is in this instance because the conversation got personal very quickly. Nobody else received a temporary ban as nobody else took it to that level.

Hold on, I would argue that Tesco was far worse than that I would say and yes, whilst reprimanded, did not get a ban at all.

This quite ridiculous ban, temporary or otherwise, should be removed immediately. The general Moopy consensus appears to be entirely that it was a mistake, so I see no reason why it should continue.
 
It needs to be underscored that the discussion and the content of the posts in that thread weren't the issue, nor would they be.

I think it needs to be equally underscored that there was no issue at all. Not a banning one anyway. This is not what moopy was or is about.

Mod team listen to the room. You’ve got this one wrong.
 
I also think that any discussion in that thread which hasn't the followed the opinion of the main posters has been shut down, ridiculed at worst or belittled at best. That makes me uneasy.

And, again, that is as someone who actually agrees with those main posters in that thread, almost entirely.
 
Mod team listen to the room. You’ve got this one wrong.

Genuine question, do you think anything needed doing as a result of the posts tonight? Or should it just be left to run? But then could it then turn like the thread the other night? When should a mod step in?

I am way too scared to post in that thread because I don't know enough to comment.
 
Frankly, the mods should have stepped in earlier to diffuse the comments that led to my appalling outburst.

If you are blind to that, then you need a serious look at yourselves. When it gets to that stage, being blunt gets the point across better than politely and subserviently pointing it out.
 
Genuine question, do you think anything needed doing as a result of the posts tonight? Or should it just be left to run? But then could it then turn like the thread the other night? When should a mod step in?

I am way too scared to post in that thread because I don't know enough to comment.

But what made you "too scared"- because you don't know enough or because of opposing opinions?

We should not stifle debate or even arguments. I agree that personal insults cross the line, but then that should be applied consistently and I don't see a "fuck you" in the wider context of what people say on Moopy as an issue.
 
When it gets to that stage, being blunt gets the point across better than politely and subserviently pointing it out.

Maybe so. We get a lot of abuse at work from angry people. I personally I find it's those who speak with a little bit of dacorum to get their point across, that will end up with a better result. But that's based on my own life experiences.
 
Oh I don't know enough so I find that thread really intimidating.

In some ways, I feel that way too- but that's because of the dominance of the main posters in that thread (and I reiterate my point about the shutting down and belitting of other opinions) rather than the debate, no?
 
In some ways, I feel that way too- but that's because of the dominance of the main posters in that thread (and I reiterate my point about the shutting down and belitting of other opinions) rather than the debate, no?

I'm happy to leave the dominant posters to have their discussion, I feel they need to get it out.

It's such an emotive topic though, it's just a tough one to manage.
 
Genuine question, do you think anything needed doing as a result of the posts tonight? Or should it just be left to run? But then could it then turn like the thread the other night? When should a mod step in?

I am way too scared to post in that thread because I don't know enough to comment.

Well it’s my personal opinion but no I don’t. I might be a little too old school and I am proud of the way moopy has evolved for the better on the whole, but forums don’t need mods wading in with censorship punishments over a bit of angry chatter. We’re already way more ‘safe’ and ‘protected’ than the reddits etc of this world.

I also don’t think the likes of Beverley and gggggg need mods speaking up for them. I’ve been on the wrong side of both in the past and they can be cutting and condescending but I haven’t ever needs mods to step in for me - I can give it back if I need to.

A bit of sniping and backchat to make a point is not a crime. gggggg clearly knew what a minefield he was getting himself into in that thread, chose to do so anyway, and we ban him for it?

That just doesn’t feel very moopy to me.
 
Already on the first day of the attack it was obvious which direction the discussion in the Moopy thread was going to take (as manifested by a couple of posts).

It’s a sensitive subject that people feel strongly about (and rightly so), so for the sake of good, I think that, unless you want to participate in the echo chamber, it’s wise to completely stay away from the discussion.
 
I think it's just finding that line between letting people discuss and when to step in so it doesn't become too much?

No one else can know what does or doesn't upset someone else. A post which may look fine to me could equally upset someone else. And they have every right to feel that way. So do we rely on reports to judge the overall feel? Is that the best way forward?
 
Maybe every Mod ban/suspension should be followed by an anonymous poll to see if the rest of Moopy agrees with the decision.

People need to give the mods a break. They're not perfect. We might just need an extra layer of checks/balances.
 
There's a difference between someone saying "fuck you" in a disagreement about your favourite Kylie album and someone saying it in this extremely sensitive and emotive topic. The initial thread was closed due to personal attacks and it was made very clear in the first post of the new thread that they would not be tolerated again. I posted a reminder of this shortly before the comment in question.
 
Maybe every Mod ban/suspension should be followed by an anonymous poll to see if the rest of Moopy agrees with the decision.

People need to give the mods a break. They're not perfect. We might just need an extra layer of checks/balances.

This is a productive post. Thank you. Anyone else got thoughts like this for the mod team to consider?
 
It’s worth pointing out also that 95% of the posts in those threads, and probably 100% before the wider discussion took hold, are about the tragedy of the Gaza civilians and the recklessness of the Israeli government. The thread is about the war - it’s in the thread title - which happened after the Hamas attack. There is no attempt by ANYONE in that thread to belittle or dismiss the Hamas attack, or blame Jews, or make it about a wider existential issue on prejudice. That’s only when people have come in to counter the conversation (which they are entitled to do)

The majority is about the helplessness some of us feel towards the innocent civilians of Gaza and the war crimes being committed. That’s all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COB
Maybe every Mod ban/suspension should be followed by an anonymous poll to see if the rest of Moopy agrees with the decision.

People need to give the mods a break. They're not perfect. We might just need an extra layer of checks/balances.

Nah sorry. This is not an attack on the mods, let’s not turn this into a big drama. The mods are great. We’ve said this time and time again. But they are also not perfect; none of us are. We are also allowed to speak up when they get it wrong.

If mods need a break, they shouldn’t be mods.
 
I think part of the issue though is that inflammatory comments were made on the prior page (which have been highlighted) that went untouched/unaddressed.

I think everyone appreciates that mods have a hard job and it's hard to find a line between action and inaction, but I think it's fair to question whether the same action is being applied fairly and for the correct reason when comments made on the other side of the argument go unchecked.

I do think there's a bias. There's always bias in any situation, and it should be reflected on, whether its explicit or implicit. And I think it's fair to raise this.

It isn't an attack on the mods either - again, it's a tough (and quite thankless) role.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom