I got banned from a thread (1 Viewer)

[Eddie]

Saying 'fuck you' isn't related in any way to the conversation. It's just a personal attack.

There shouldn't be any reason people would be discouraged by mod actions to join the discussion because, as we've said repeatedly, the ban had absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of the conversation.

"Fuck you" is considered a personal attack on moopy? Then why haven't 90% of the members here been banned at one time or another? I don't see how the context in that thread is any different, even considering the highly emotive subject matter - it was clearly just a flippant response!

 

[gggggg]

Too bad I can’t respond to vespertine’s posts in the war thread because … ffs. Mods! Mods!

 

[Peekaboo]

Sorry but the FANFIC that you had to ban ggggg from the thread because he was stoking the fire and that since then everything has quieten down sits uncomfortably with me, like he was the only problematic poster when there were ad hominem attacks on the previous page. Suedey chose not to kick off but he could have played the victim card and accused the mods of double standards very easily.

Seems like the red line is saying 'fuck you'? which I find it a bit surprising on Moopy CONSIDERING ITS PEDIGREE.

In my opinion if the concern was that the thread was getting heated I would have locked it TEMPORARILY so NO ONE could post for a few hours and give everyone some time out. I'm pretty sure in hindsight everyone could have worded things in a different way.

 

[mulled vespertine]

Too bad I can’t respond to vespertine’s posts in the war thread because … ffs. Mods! Mods!

Only 19 hours to go!

 

[AGinAg (38)]

Well this topic, really is an example of Moopy at it's best and occasionally worst. I may not agree with every single post, but a lot of guiding and intelligent posts here.

I agree with @Star on the matter of posting about it. I know how I feel about but the matter it's quite tough to articulate without spending time researching and knowing who to quote. Like most people when asked about this, there's normally a disgruntled noise suggesting a frustrated lack of knowledge to take a side or even provide nuance.

My normal stance is to be pro-Palestine, with a strong side of being mindful about antisemitism. I've felt guilty about feeling awful about what I'd read about the Hamas attack in early October, having a reasonable knowledge of historical Israeli repression. Of course the actions of Israel are on another level and I feel guilty for not feeling bad enough. But that comes from a place of being exposed to mainstream media.

I want to be able to discuss antisemitism without it being seen as some kind of taking sides and without discrediting Palestinian suffering. I know more about antisemitism, due to being Western educated and having been heavily exposed to the dangers of it. I am naturally inclined to be outraged by it. But intellectually and emotionally I'm against the particular behaviours which lead to Gazan suffering.

My point is, it's nuanced, but this period is also a sharp learning curve for many of us, not previously invested. Many others come into it with a remarkable amount of knowledge from one side and it's natural that tensions will flare when confronted with the other side. That's not to say there's isn't a remarkable amount of nuance provided, which should dull said tensions. Unfortunately even nuance can have hidden dangers, which makes the debate deeply inaccessible and leads to flare ups.

I understand why the mods are attempting to be prompt, but having read this, I think the Moopy rules of a warning, prior to any sort of banning action should be applied, if and when it gets personal. We're a mature enough space to home the debate without either resorting to personal attacks OR censorship.

 

[Beverley]

I can understand why you guys are mad at him being banned for 24 hours. Considering he got banned for something he said to me, I’m not going to offer an opinion on it.

What I will say is that I am grossed by the couple of people who rushed to try and legitimise his accusation that what I said was a slur. Shame on you. And more than that, I am deeply, deeply disappointed and hurt by the people who used this thread to claim that they were too intimidated to post in the main thread. I saw the likes. I know who you are. Would you have posted in that thread if a few of us hadn’t posted so much? No. Would you have felt intimidated if it was a thread about almost any other political issue? No. Maybe what you’re experiencing as intimidation was some other emotion, the fear of not knowing enough perhaps, as others identified in themselves, or an insistence that all topics should be ‘debated’ - which, when thousands have died in the region, is…fill in the blanks yourself.

I posted so much in that thread because I felt I needed to direct my grief and anger somewhere. Sharing what was happening on the ground was a way or what we could do to write to our MPs was a way of feeling useful. It was a way of bearing witness, stating opposition, keeping vigil. So many of us have spent the last 20+ years watching brown people getting bombed by and blown up by Western states and wondering what it means for our lives here. Three of us in that thread have origins in states that the West has been bombed. Say what you want about the banning, but the other comments that came with it were a last straw for me. I won’t be back for a while.

 

[Roe-st Potato 🥔 🌳]

Bev, I hope I was clear that I didn't perceive your post to be antisemitic and in turn addressed how I had read it.

I was trying to make the point that regardless of my feelings, other voices deserve to be listened to and for a (to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong) non Jewish group of moderators declaring emphatically that there is zero antisemitism at play in any posts flagged is problematic, particularly in the space of an hour.

I really appreciate reading your posts in that thread and elsewhere, and apologise for any hurt. I do tend to not post in the other thread, but in so much as I agree with Star: I'm not sure I have enough intelligent words to say. I engage with it by reading.

 

[Star]

And more than that, I am deeply, deeply disappointed and hurt by the people who used this thread to claim that they were too intimidated to post in the main thread. I saw the likes. I know who you are. Would you have posted in that thread if a few of us hadn’t posted so much? No. Would you have felt intimidated if it was a thread about almost any other political issue? No. Maybe what you’re experiencing as intimidation was some other emotion, the fear of not knowing enough perhaps, as others identified in themselves, or an insistence that all topics should be ‘debated’ - which, when thousands have died in the region, is…fill in the blanks yourself.

You know what, for me, I don't get involved in things I don't know the facts. I will very rarely post in any political thread because I just don't know enough about it. I won't like posts because I don't know if they're right or not.
All I know is that loss of innocent life is wrong.
But for someone like you, who is so passionate about things like this, you should be able to talk and educate people like me. Because I will read it and learn from it, even if I don't comment.

 

[AGinAg (38)]

I know it probably seems ultra hypocritical and rather light considering the subject matter, but reading these conversations, makes my inner Miss World contestant just want everyone to get along in the most basic way possible. I don't want anyone to leave and I don't remotely enjoy seeing so many of my favourites not getting on.

Haven't we already lost enough in terms of posters?

 

[gggggg]

I can understand why you guys are mad at him being banned for 24 hours. Considering he got banned for something he said to me, I’m not going to offer an opinion on it.

What I will say is that I am grossed by the couple of people who rushed to try and legitimise his accusation that what I said was a slur. Shame on you.

I realise you won’t see this, and maybe it’s bad form to reply in this circumstance, but I can’t leave this unchecked.

You have never entertained the notion than what you said could be perceived as offensive. It never crossed your mind because you were so certain that you were in the right, and couldn’t possibly say anything inappropriate unconsciously or not. That is a problem, and one you should seek to address.

I’m sorry you felt the need impose a ban on yourself, but I understand. I find it disappointing that Suede felt the same. Engaging in these things is hard, I have used a cover of flippancy in most of my interactions as I knew my sincere opinion would be questioned in ways that would offend me. And it came to pass, inevitably.

To be on the outer rim of acceptable opinion is fine with me, I knew what I was entering into. SOME balance was needed. I hope in future you can reflect on your comments and try to understand why I responded how I did.

 

[funky]

You have never entertained the notion than what you said could be perceived as offensive. It never crossed your mind because you were so certain that you were in the right, and couldn’t possibly say anything inappropriate unconsciously or not. That is a problem, and one you should seek to address.

I think everything in your post is fair to say but it’s the highlighted bit there that I think is an example of what is winding people up. You’re not the only one doing it but we need to stop questioning each others knowledge and agendas when trying to debate the facts.

I can certainly be snarky when someone is snarky at me but I would always try not to belittle someone’s personal passion and perspective on the subject. It’s never going to be the same as mine, not with something like this.

We need to stop pushing people away. Keeping posters around is more important than us trying to educate each other on something that none of us can actually fix ourselves.

 

[gggggg]

I think everything in your post is fair to say but it’s the highlighted bit there that I think is an example of what is winding people up. You’re not the only one doing it but we need to stop questioning each others knowledge and agendas when trying to debate the facts.

I can certainly be snarky when someone is snarky at me but I would always try not to belittle someone’s personal passion and perspective on the subject. It’s never going to be the same as mine, not with something like this.

We need to stop pushing people away. Keeping posters around is more important than us trying to educate each other on something that none of us can actually fix ourselves.

I understand.

The issue I have, particularly with Beverley’s attitude, is this is exactly how unconscious bias can seep through the cracks of acceptable opinion.

Back in April the Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson published an image that contained antisemitic tropes - of which he and the paper were entirely unconscious of. His response was thoughtful and worth reading: https://www.martinrowson.com/words-poems

 

[ZenGiraffe]

The mods have discussed the action taken in the Israel/Gaza war thread, and subsequent discussion on it in this thread.

Mindful of the competing (and often contradictory) demands placed on moderators, we have decided that the ban on replies will stand until its expiry at 7pm today.

We recognise that many will disagree with this, and many thought provoking points were raised in this thread. We know we're not always going to get everything right, and how we responded to this instance doesn't necessarily inform how we'll respond in future. However, we feel it's important for trust and consistency that we stand by the decisions we make.

In particular, in future mods will work harder to ensure any action taken is, and is seen to be, fair to everyone engaging in the thread, regardless of opinion and position. We do not want to shut anyone out of the conversation if it can be avoided, and we will do our part to try and stop things escalating to that point.

We remind everyone to engage respectfully with each other in that topic, and whilst we will try to allow the thread to take its course as much as possible, moderation may still be more hands on in that thread compared to others, given the sensitivities involved. This is also in keeping with the first post in the new thread.

Finally, we remind you to please reach out to us in the moderation thread, via PM, or using the report function if you have any issues or concerns. We're human beings and we sometimes get things wrong, but we are committed as a group to take all concerns seriously and do our best to act in good faith and with respect for all of our posters.

 

[funky]

I’m not going to argue the actual decision any more but just to highlight that you haven’t actually stated how or why you came to that decision. Which I think speaks to the frustration that some of us are feeling. It just doesn’t make any sense.

We’re told time and again that other people sometimes put in complaints privately. What about the dozen people who agreed with Sheena’s post on the first page? Even Star said it looks like you might have to reconsider based on feedback.

The banning doesn’t even matter now it’s only a few hours more. The principle however does.

 

[Sheena]

I’m not going to argue the actual decision any more but just to highlight that you haven’t actually stated how or why you came to that decision. Which I think speaks to the frustration that some of us are feeling. It just doesn’t make any sense.

We’re told time and again that other people sometimes put in complaints privately. What about the dozen people who agreed with Sheena’s post on the first page? Even Star said it looks like you might have to reconsider based on feedback.

The banning doesn’t even matter now it’s only a few hours more. The principle however does.

You literally took the words out of what I was just typing.

Except to add that again, every single argument I brought up (mostly against poor old VoR ) has not been addressed.

 

[Sheena]

“However, we feel it's important for trust and consistency that we stand by the decisions we make.”

Is this now a blanket policy? Because not being able to admit you’re wrong and stand down on something is a serious flaw in a moderation panel for me.

 

[Kaleen]

The banning has created WAY more issues than if it hadn’t happened. I think it’s a shame that you’re doubling down on your decision and not listening to the rest of Moopy about this.

I do understand the difficult decision you’re in but you guys are elected to represent us.

 

[ZenGiraffe]

“However, we feel it's important for trust and consistency that we stand by the decisions we make.”

Is this now a blanket policy? Because not being able to admit you’re wrong and stand down on something is a serious flaw in a moderation panel for me.

I do understand the difficult decision you’re in but you guys are elected to represent us.

We will never be inflexible or obstinate. We have in the past, and I am sure will again in the future, change course when we make a mistake. However, this has to be balanced against changing tack every time there is a loud outcry, which is not necessarily the majority opinion. Especially in a thread that is and will continue to be contentious.

 

[Sheena]

We will never be inflexible or obstinate. We have in the past, and I am sure will again in the future, change course when we make a mistake. However, this has to be balanced against changing tack every time there is a loud outcry, which is not necessarily the majority opinion. Especially in a thread that is and will continue to be contentious.

But it is the majority opinion, right?

Unless there’s literally 15 people private messaging you about this and I’m afraid I have to cast doubt on that.

 

[Kate]

As the post says, IN THIS CASE we have decided to stand by the decision. The feeling that we are wrong about it is by no means unanimous.

Also as the post says, this does not mean that such action will be the norm in future.

In the past mods have been criticised for not taking enough action. Here we've been criticised for taking too much. Finding a happy medium requires some time and consideration.

 

[funky]

In the past mods have been criticised for not taking enough action. Here we've been criticised for taking too much. Finding a happy medium requires some time and consideration.

This is totally true and totally fair.

But so is moopy’s right to criticise. I’m not saying a poll is appropriate in this instance but if there was one I fully believe you’d be asked to reverse your decision.

I’m flabbergasted by the doubling down here if I’m honest. Moopy is not a PTA forum. The policing lately is so alien to me. It seems to have come out of nowhere.

 

[ZenGiraffe]

But it is the majority opinion, right?

We don't know that. There are 100+ regularly active users on the forum. We know that there is a chunk of people in the thread criticising the decision. We know there are people supportive of our decision, or were otherwise requesting something being done beforehand. We know that most users have given no indication either way. Modmins need to be mindful of all that when we make a decision, and when we choose whether to stick by that decision. Leading to our statement above.

 

[Sheena]

We don't know that. There are 100+ regularly active users on the forum. We know that there is a chunk of people in the thread criticising the decision. We know there are people supportive of our decision, or were otherwise requesting something being done beforehand. We know that most users have given no indication either way. Modmins need to be mindful of all that when we make a decision, and when we choose whether to stick by that decision. Leading to our statement above.

Oh come on! By that logic, the Tories didn’t win the last election because lots of people didn’t vote. You are siding with the side that you as a mod team feel aligned with, hell, that I’m aligned with, and have instigated a ban based on your own beliefs rather than anyone’s actions, have ignored an (arguably) worse post from a poster on the “opposing” side and have seen argument after argument for your reasons to do so dismantled, against a majority of Moopy posters’ opinions.

And you’ve not only failed to admit or stand down from it, you’ve entirely ignored requests for transparency.

Whilst I absolutely accept that moderating is a tough and thankless task and I have zero interest in it myself, I am really disappointed by this and for me, this is a catastrophic failure in judgment that has already seen two posters leave.

I therefore wish to use this post to request my vote of faith in the current moderating/ admin team or whatever it was we voted for recently is removed.

 

[Kate]

The policing lately is so alien to me. It seems to have come out of nowhere.

Are you referring to other incidents here or just this one?

If anything, it's a combination of the (I think) unprecedented sensitivity and volatility of this subject matter, and the fact that we lost two beloved posters a few months ago over an incident for which we were slammed for not acting quickly enough. That is still very fresh in my mind anyway.

 

[Sheena]

Are you referring to other incidents here or just this one?

If anything, it's a combination of the (I think) unprecedented sensitivity and volatility of this subject matter, and the fact that we lost two beloved posters a few months ago over an incident for which we were slammed for not acting quickly enough. That is still very fresh in my mind anyway.

I still don't think anyone would mind about that reaction- I'm sure I've said about 5 times already that we're all human, we all make knee jerk reactions, we all make mistakes- but what I can't understand is the utter refusal to stand down given the evidence in front of you and the overwhelming tide of opinion against this.

 

[funky]

Are you referring to other incidents here or just this one?

If anything, it's a combination of the (I think) unprecedented sensitivity and volatility of this subject matter, and the fact that we lost two beloved posters a few months ago over an incident for which we were slammed for not acting quickly enough. That is still very fresh in my mind anyway.

I feel like the rulebook is being wheeled out with increasing effect. It’s just a feeling, I might be wrong. But given what’s happened in the last 24 hours I felt the need to say it.

That separate incident is just that - a separate incident. If the mods came to the conclusion that they didn’t act quickly enough then, surely that’s not impetus to then act impulsively on or overthink everything else in the future?

Anyway I’m boring myself with this topic now. Mods might feel that we’re the vocal minority but I always felt that we when it comes to protecting moopy freedom of expression me and Sheena here are representing the silent majority. I don’t know if that’s true or not but it’s not made a single bit of difference on this situation so I may as well just shut up. But this ban is going to have bigger long term impact on moopy than the post that gggggg made, mark my words.

 

[Jark]

this whole saga is a hot mess but the poster who was banned for 24 hours was being deliberately antagonistic in a very sensitive discussion, and it's a fucking shame that miss Bev now feels unwelcome or unwilling to keep adding vital perspective. if you come into a thread using language expressly designed to be provactive, don't act surprised when you manage to provoke. this is basic psychology.

the accusations of anti-semitism being tossed around are wild and reckless.

 

[funky]

if you come into a thread using language expressly designed to be provactive, don't act surprised when you manage to provoke. this is basic psychology.

You’re absolutely right. So much so that it also applies to Beverley. And Me. And anyone else in that thread. gggggg wasn’t the only one being antagonistic

the accusations of anti-semitism being tossed around are wild and reckless.

…but should still be acknowledged and considered in the same way any other forms of prejudice are raised.

 

[Sheena]

this whole saga is a hot mess but the poster who was banned for 24 hours was being deliberately antagonistic in a very sensitive discussion, and it's a fucking shame that miss Bev now feels unwelcome or unwilling to keep adding vital perspective.

I presume it was an oversight that you failed to mention that equally valid and loved poster Suedey has been made to feel unwelcome or unwilling to contribute as well after someone came for him in a thread being deliberately provocative...

 

[Jark]

So much so that it also applies to Beverley. And Me. And anyone else in that thread. gggggg wasn’t the only one being antagonistic
1

I don't know if you're honestly saying that everybody in that thread was being antagonistic or provocative, but that is clearly not the case. a ludicrous generalisation funks. if that was the case we wouldn't have been able to have a functioning dialogue for as long as we did. I agree that some posters were a bit dismissive to those with views that opposed the majority, but that is not antagonism of the kind proudly displayed by ggggg on his/her/their mission to explode the discussion.

it's also good that we have a system in which people can raise it if they feel they've encountered prejudice or unacceptable dialogue, but the thread was not anti-semitic. pointing out that the Israeli government, which is very much not the same as the Israeli people or the Jewish people, is lying relentlessly to try to control the narrative of this "war" in the media is not anti-semitic, it's the truth. posting truthful accounts and lived experience from people on the ground is not anti-semitic. I despise the turn this has taken and think some people have really shown their asses here. an unfortunate reminder that some things can't be discussed even in a safe space like ours.

 

[Jark]

I presume it was an oversight that you failed to mention that equally valid and loved poster Suedey has been made to feel unwelcome or unwilling to contribute as well after someone came for him in a thread being deliberately provocative...

I posted on that page of the thread in support of suedey. nice try though.

 

[gggggg]

Fwiw I don’t think I should have been banned. If I was then others should have been too, or the thread shut.

I was prepared to leave it alone after my final post, I’d had enough of what I was seeing after sincerely responding in good faith earlier.

It has ultimately caused more damage, and that’s a shame.

 

[Sheena]

I posted on that page of the thread in support of suedey. nice try though.

My point stands. There was antagonism on both sides.

Sadly, only one side was taken by the moderating team.

 

[Tisch]

Voice from the "silent" here.

I don't think it should be assumed that those who are silent have sided with the mods just through being silent. I myself haven't haven't liked, reported or posted anything on the topic simply because it's all been far too hot for me to want to partake.

I would hope in future if there was a similar ban and there was similar outcry, can the mods consider lifting the ban while it is discussed.

Ggggg's ban was for 24 hours, the mods decision took 24 hours, by which time his ban was fully realised before the mods decision was finalised.

 

[Kaleen]

the accusations of anti-semitism being tossed around are wild and reckless.

Shooting anti-semitism accusations down is ‘wild and reckless’. Are you Jewish? Thought not.

 

[gggggg]

but that is not antagonism of the kind proudly displayed by ggggg on his/her/their mission to explode the discussion.

Please.

the thread was not anti-semitic. pointing out that the Israeli government, which is very much not the same as the Israeli people or the Jewish people, is lying relentlessly to try to control the narrative of this "war" in the media is not anti-semitic, it's the truth. posting truthful accounts and lived experience from people on the ground is not anti-semitic.

No that’s not antisemitic, nor did I say it was. I objected to the apparent ‘fact’ that antisemitism was being ‘prioritised’ .. which is absolute fucking weapons grade bullshit.

some people have really shown their asses here.

Yes, they have.

 

[RJN]

I genuinely do not think that Beverley’s post was anti-Semitic, but I also don’t think non-Jews need to decide what is and isn’t anti-Semitic

 

[VoR]

And you’ve not only failed to admit or stand down from it, you’ve entirely ignored requests for transparency.

With respect, no we haven't. We've explained our position on multiple occasions, you just don't seem to want to accept the answer we've given.

There are clearly people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly about it. Whatever we do, somebody is going to get hurt. We are hyper, hyper aware of this. I would remind you again that just a few months ago we had an incident where a good poster left the forum because of an incident where the mods were accused of doing too little. Now we're being accused of doing too much. The answer, as with all things, probably lies somewhere in the middle, it isn't a zero sum game.

We're not just stonewalling you here. We have been discussing this intensely in the mod forum. We all have jobs, some of us are on holiday, some of us have family commitments, but we're still putting in time to agonise over this and try to come to a solution. That's not a complaint, we all signed up for this. But I wish you'd remember that instead of throwing around accusations.

The fact is, if we lift the ban, it may satisfy some of you, perhaps even a majority of you, but others will accuse us of playing populism and bending to pressure. That's simply not a sustainable way for us to do our jobs.

After intense and ongoing discussion, we came to a consensus that given the ban was only for 24 hours, and it was centred in one thread, and the poster involved has total right of reply here and elsewhere on the forum, the least-worst option was to own our decision and stand by it, but listen carefully, take the criticism on board and commit to doing better in future. That's what we're trying to do here.

You may completely disagree with your approach, and that's absolutely your right, but please, please stop accusing us of lacking transparency or of not doing our jobs. This has been one of the toughest 24 hours I've had in God knows how many years as a mod, and I know others are feeling the same or even worse. It is very dispiriting and it doesn't help anybody.

 

[ButterTart]

My point stands. There was antagonism on both sides.

Sadly, only one side was taken by the moderating team.

I’ve been trying to keep out of this thread as it’s not good for my mental health but I need to respond to this.

We took action on an inflammatory, targeted post in a volatile thread which received reports from other forum users. I strongly object to the suggestion that any of us are taking sides.

 

[Sheena]

I’ve been trying to keep out of this thread as it’s not good for my mental health but I need to respond to this.

We took action on an inflammatory, targeted post in a volatile thread which received reports from other forum users. I strongly object to the suggestion that any of us are taking sides.

And I repeat- this was after a similarly inflammatory post was given a "mild warning" in the thread- that would have negated anyone reporting it as people would have thought it was not necessary as it had already been dealt with.

It's inconsistent at the absolute best.