Moderation of boards as a whole.

Baggly · 10-07-2019 3:21pm

I think you have couched the process in negative terms there, to be fair.

And while i can respect this might be your earnest experience of the process, i dont believe its everyones.

I also think you will find there are ex-mods who no longer have any skin in the game per se that corroborate some of what is being said here from a mod POV.

However ill do my best to address your points, since you put the time in to make them.

Deleted User wrote: »

i appreciate the take, and i think its fair to note that a post going to DRP is going to be contentious alright.

i think that mods maybe dont appreciate the process from the poster's point of view these days. I can only say this isnt true in my case. I was a poster for a long time before being a mod. I have considered and seen it from the posters POV.

your post is publicly actioned Well its our primary job to moderate discussion, so if a post is actioned, it has to be public. Otherwise the discussion goes unmoderated. But yes, agreed.

you dont have right of reply in thread Well slight correction; in the thread in question. You have options to open a dedicated thread on the site relating to the specific issue (be it help desk or DRP). It would defeat the purpose of trying to keep the thread on track if the right of reply was on thread

the onus is on you to PM the person you obviously disagree with, with whom there is a power imbalance Onus is always on the person wishing to appeal a decision to appeal it. Not just on boards - everywhere in life. I dont see how it could work the other way around.

if its going to DRP then de facto that PM hasnt worked. Well you would be surprised, maybe. A large number of DRP threads i see are opened without consulting the mod first.

Off you go to make your case. Your loss over PM is to be made public Not sure i understand you here. The PMs are made public? Not necessarily. The poster actually has the option to forward on PMs instead of posting them, if i understand correctly.

It is heard by a CMOD, with whom you have a greater power imbalance. I dont understand what you mean by power imbalance?

Often you find yourself pleading a different case to the original. Often the review seems to be little more than a harsher look at the infraction for daring to bother anyone. Id query this. I think other issues around behaviour may be pointed out for the poster to possibly address, but i think the sanction in question is the one that gets addressed, more often than not. So id dispute your use of 'often' here. Id think its more 'unusually....'

Your loss over the appeal is obviously public. you can appeal to an admin, with whom you have an even greater power imbalance. Again power imbalance....not sure what this means in your context.

Often you find yourself pleading a different case again. Often the review seems to be an appeal against the process of boards rather than an examination of your case or countercase. Often your history is brought into it, while context is expressly out of bounds. Id query your use of often here again.

Your loss over the admin appeal is public and final. you may find yourself, after all this, being told that you are lucky to have avoided further sanction for abusing the process. That could be the case. Some moderators are more lenient than others. Thats the same in all walks of life tbh. Some people judge more or less harshly than others. I think there are cases where it goes the other way and admins or cmods reduce the ban too, in fairness.

time and again elements of the above come up as poster complaints. I think its logical people who have had issues with DRP can complain about it. They are allowed to. Its my opinion these complaint issues are a minority and not the majority however. Ive nothing to back that up with - its just my gut feeling on the matter and based on my experience that people with issues complain, while people with no issues are a silent majority.

time and again mods will remind us that behind the scenes there is a scrupulous process and mods are watching each other like hawks back there, but i hope ye can see that there are real issues here that cannot be beaten through repetition of the mantra. Im not trying to beat anything with a mantra. I think that characterisation is unfair to me, tbh. Im trying to engage and respond to you in earnest. Im not reminding you of anything - im telling you my experiences. If you doubt or choose not to believe me because im a mod, there isnt anything i can do about that. But neither is that a reason to change the entire system; a system that seems to be working for the majority of site users.

alternatively, everyone ever sanctioned who has gone through the above and has the above complaints is a dickhead who has been or is in the process of being managed off the site, and rightly so.

I dont think the above 3 comments are fair at all tbf. Especially that last one about people raising complaints being a dickhead.

whats the trend over twenty years (if that is to be the defence against "this might need looking at folks"?)

Could tell you (because i dont know). I also couldnt tell you if moderation is at the root of any trend on boards. I doubt it is however; since the site is largely guided by user content (with mods reacting to that), imo.

Kimsang · 10-07-2019 3:34pm

The true delusion is assuming the DRP process is in anyway fair. The point has been made, you have a much better chance of dealing with the mod first instead of going to DRP. The funny thing is, in the DRP, how many messages from mods are shown as "Take it to the DRP". There clearly want to action/sanction a poster and not deal with the fallout. Would this behaviour be acceptable anywhere else?

There is a clear ideological bent to how moderation is actioned/sanctioned, as there is a clear ideological bent with this forum in general. The work of some good mods is hugely overshadowed by the reckless and lazy actions of others. Personally, I had one word deliberately mis-interpreted to justify mod actions.

How one side is allowed to ideologically dominate? Aren't these people in the DRP genuinely making these egregious errors?
Probably, they probably make the slightest error; but what shows the ideological bent is the enforcement of rules.
Thousands of unactioned examples could be pointed to where the other side acted the same if not worse and had nothing actioned against them.

Everyone sees this double standard and this is the elephant in the room. Its easy to point to sanctioned posters and say they're evil, they're just trolls; but you completely avoid the thousands and thousands of posts that literally go unsanctioned, because they are one side of a political/contentious debate.

10-07-2019 3:36pm

ive made points there that arent in any way related to your response baggly, (more bringing in other responses and also my recent experiences with DRP which are negative) so to be fair i should note that anything you feel isnt fair characterisation of your points is probably arising from that

will read through your response again, thanks for responding anyway, but i think its at impasse stage in terms of "this is what problem posters always say" and "this is what mods always say", even if both sides accept as genuine the other in the issues discussed.

Baggly · 10-07-2019 3:38pm

Who is saying sanctioned posters are evil?

Who is saying they are just trolls?

These points are hyperbolic and i dont understand how you can say that the work of a few mods is being overshadowed by others, and then tar us all with the same brush by making such hyperbolic statements?

I dont agree on your point about ideological modding. I dont know what else to say; you seem to have your mind made up on the topic. Happy to answer any questions you have pertaining to my experience, though, if you do want to discuss it.

Baggly · 10-07-2019 3:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

ive made points there that arent in any way related to your response baggly, (more bringing in other responses and also my recent experiences with DRP which are negative) so to be fair i should note that anything you feel isnt fair characterisation of your points is probably arising from that

will read through your response again, thanks for responding anyway, but i think its at impasse stage in terms of "this is what problem posters always say" and "this is what mods always say", even if both sides accept as genuine the other in the issues discussed.

Thank you - appreciate the clarification.

10-07-2019 3:45pm

well tbf I do appreciate the mods/admins that come in and discuss (for them, probably for the umpteenth time) these issues.

not that i dont have the hump about it meself a lot of the time!

Kimsang · 10-07-2019 3:45pm

Baggly wrote: »

Who is saying sanctioned posters are evil?
Who is saying they are just trolls?

Your previous record in the Politics forum was 1 warning, 1 infraction and 1 one day ban. As it didn’t appear that you were amending your posting in any way, the mods applied the next action available to them.

Mod decision upheld.

This is just one example from the DRP of how mod actions consider a posters previous history.

Your point about ideological bent, I have sent you a private message, please let me know what you think if you have time to read it.

TheChrisD · 10-07-2019 3:51pm

Baggly wrote: »

Onus is always on the person wishing to appeal a decision to appeal it. Not just on boards - everywhere in life. I dont see how it could work the other way around.

In real life though, when you appeal you tend to appeal up a level. The fact that DRP here starts with "did you talk to the punishing mod first" can definitely sometimes feel like a bit of a backwards or side step. Since there's no unmessy way to escalate from punishing mod to all mods of the forum via the PM system, it really should go straight up to CMod.

Baggly · 10-07-2019 3:52pm

Kimsang wrote: »

This is just one example from the DRP of how mod actions consider a posters previous history.

Your point about ideological bent, I have sent you a private message, please let me know what you think if you have time to read it.

I sent you a response there.

I dont think the quoted text there demonstrates anyone saying sanctioned people are evil or just trolls. I think the process takes continued bad behaviour into account, yes; but noone is inherently labelling people. Mods have to make decisions around whether posts are trolling or ill intentioned; yes; and cumulative instances will be punished yes; but you have said mods are making people out to be evil and trolls - im not seeing where that is the case (in your quote or in general).

Baggly · 10-07-2019 3:54pm

TheChrisD wrote: »

In real life though, when you appeal you tend to appeal up a level. The fact that DRP here starts with "did you talk to the punishing mod first" can definitely sometimes feel like a bit of a backwards or side step.

If a Guard catches me for speeding (not that i would obvs) the first thing i would do is apologise and promise not to do it again. This is the equivalent of PMing a mod, in my mind.

Miike · 10-07-2019 3:56pm

The irony of me posting this thread, forgetting, not getting any notification of it and now I'm so far behind I feel like I need about 6 weeks to revise the thread to catch up. Well.... feck

Kimsang · 10-07-2019 4:04pm

Baggly wrote: »

im not seeing where that is the case (in your quote or in general).

I've sent you more pms, let me know. I agree that evil and such were just hyperbolic, but you get my point I think.

Boom_Bap · 10-07-2019 6:19pm

TheChrisD wrote: »

In real life though, when you appeal you tend to appeal up a level. The fact that DRP here starts with "did you talk to the punishing mod first" can definitely sometimes feel like a bit of a backwards or side step. Since there's no unmessy way to escalate from punishing mod to all mods of the forum via the PM system, it really should go straight up to CMod.

I personally was/am happy to have someone open a dialogue with me about a card or action that I have taken. Firstly, I could have misinterpreted what was actioned, or secondly, I may want a second opinion on the matter.
Someone could come in with a genuine apology and admit to a brain fart or being over emotionally in a topic and taken it out on someone rather than the topic.
It can also lead to opening a dialogue with co-mods and CMods on something and lead to a change in policy in modding.....there could be any number of outcomes from this.
I've overturned a bunch of stuff from this type of discussion and openly admit that I was wrong in some cases and happy that I learned something from the exchange.

10-07-2019 8:50pm

I have recently noticed moderation that left me scratching my head. And something else which I will get to in a minute.

There's a great thread at the minute in AH where we all have a go at posting pics of who/what we think each of us resembles. Its great fun and in a way brings us together. Unfortunately one person was given a yellow card for a pic that was completely in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

I just don't understand how that can be? We had pictures of posters who weren't at all active in the thread, even references to re-regs. Why was a card given for a funny and harmless picture?

Now the 'something else'. I was going to open a discussion specifically on this in Feedback but I felt it would draw undue attention to the thread. That the mods would say "oh it's too much trouble close it down". Maybe that's my own paranoia. I don't know. The second thing is I'm hesitant putting it here because its discussing moderator action in a specific instance. If seems that isn't always ok to do.

Basically more and more I'm finding it difficult to understand what is and isn't allowed. We should be open and ask questions and have our issues discussed and addressed in a meaningful way.

Ken. · 10-07-2019 8:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have recently noticed moderation that left me scratching my head. And something else which I will get to in a minute.

There's a great thread at the minute in AH where we all have a go at posting pics of who/what we think each of us resembles. Its great fun and in a way brings us together. Unfortunately one person was given a yellow card for a pic that was completely in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

I just don't understand how that can be? We had pictures of posters who weren't at all active in the thread, even references to re-regs. Why was a card given for a funny and harmless picture?

It was probably me that gave the card. All I will say on the matter is just because 99 out of 100 laugh at something doesn't mean that the 1 might not be offended.

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 10-07-2019 8:54pm

Did somebody complain about that picture though? That’s all the mods can act on.

10-07-2019 9:04pm

Nosnon wrote: »

It was probably me that gave the card. All I will say on the matter is just because 99 out of 100 laugh at something doesn't mean that the 1 might not be offended.

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Even though similar posts were not carded? So if I am offended by a post you will give the poster a card? Surely there needs to be a bit of reasonableness.

Baggly · 10-07-2019 9:54pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote:

Did somebody complain about that picture though? Thatâ€™s all the mods can act on.

What do you mean?

Beasty · 10-07-2019 10:02pm

TheChrisD wrote: »

In real life though, when you appeal you tend to appeal up a level. The fact that DRP here starts with "did you talk to the punishing mod first" can definitely sometimes feel like a bit of a backwards or side step. Since there's no unmessy way to escalate from punishing mod to all mods of the forum via the PM system, it really should go straight up to CMod.

More disputes are resolved and cards/bans rescinded through discussion with the relevant mod than go to the DRP

banie01 · 10-07-2019 10:06pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even though similar posts were not carded? So if I am offended by a post you will give the poster a card? Surely there needs to be a bit of reasonableness.

By the logic expounded it would appear that it's perfectly ok for 1% to impose a sanction on something 99% thought inoffensive at worst, and amusing at best.

A more appropriate action in this particular instance would have been removal of the "offensive" post with perhaps a word to the offended party to steer clear of those rude degenerates on that awful awful thread....

TheValeyard · 10-07-2019 10:09pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have recently noticed moderation that left me scratching my head.

We've all been there. I've learned there's no real point arguing it anymore.

dudara · 10-07-2019 10:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Even though similar posts were not carded? So if I am offended by a post you will give the poster a card? Surely there needs to be a bit of reasonableness.

It’s hard to comment as I don’t know to which post you are referring. But if you ever have a question, contact the mods, CMods or Admins. There is no great secrecy here or persecution. If people keep their thoughts to themselves, how will we know how they feel?

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-07-2019 10:51pm

dudara wrote: »

It’s hard to comment as I don’t know to which post you are referring. But if you ever have a question, contact the mods, CMods or Admins. There is no great secrecy here or persecution. If people keep their thoughts to themselves, how will we know how they feel?

Heres the post with the image removed

Pretzill wrote: »

Right back atcha Deja...

Maybe someone can explain what was so "offensive" that the poster was carded?

Was there a report or did the mod take it upon themself to be offended?

Steve · 10-07-2019 10:53pm

dudara wrote: »

It’s hard to comment as I don’t know to which post you are referring. But if you ever have a question, contact the mods, CMods or Admins. There is no great secrecy here or persecution. If people keep their thoughts to themselves, how will we know how they feel?

I make this point to my OH all the time... the answer I always get is 'You *should* know.....'

She's always right of course.

Sorry, just some light hearted input into an otherwise serious thread.

We're not all heartless monsters...:D

Beasty · 10-07-2019 11:01pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Maybe someone can explain what was so "offensive" that the poster was carded?

The mod acted on a report. The gif the mod removed was considered offensive (and I can certainly see why). I'm not going to say anything further as the user has a right to appeal if they wish

10-07-2019 11:12pm

Beasty wrote: »

The mod acted on a report. The gif the mod removed was considered offensive (and I can certainly see why). I'm not going to say anything further as the user has a right to appeal if they wish

There are pictures on that thread likening people to Fred West, Ku Klux Klan, overweight alcoholics, scarecrows etc. I mean really now.

If I reported any of the images would the poster be carded? After all Nosnon believes that one person taking offence is enough to deliver a card.

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-07-2019 11:19pm

So much for CA for "serious" topics and AH for "lighthearted" topics.

Kill the thread lads because it's obviously gonna happen sooner or later. Another nail in the boards.ie coffin.

banie01 · 10-07-2019 11:29pm

I'm a little bit shocked that a zoom gif on an old face with "booooo" text (iirc) is now deemed offensive.

The ridiculous act of actioning that particular post, and leaving others that are in actuality much more "offensive" and then justifying it with "ah well if someone is offended, and beauty is in the eye of the beer holder"

Really!?

There is much more on that thread that could be taken as offensive, either personally or vicariously.
What if some poor soul was to report every image posted?

I mean I myself was portrayed as Ginger in one of the posts!
An actual Ginger!!!

If I report it, will it be removed?
Will the person who dared insinuate that I have been tainted by the brush of gingervitis by appropriately sanctioned for bruising my ego?

Or...
Could ya know, common sense actions and adult behaviour be expected to prevail over posts that very clearly had no I'll meaning?

10-07-2019 11:37pm

A compromise of sorts would have been better. Instead of carding the poster maybe a pm explaining that feelings were hurt and would they please remove the image. That way the aggrieved feels like something has been done, the poster receives no card, and none of us are any the wiser.

The other option would have been to say "Take a moment to think to about this, lots of people are at the receiving end of funny pics. I see no reason to issue a card in this instance".

Kimsang · 11-07-2019 1:15am

I'm appreciate Bagglys help via pm. He/She spent a lot of time with me; unfortunately we weren't ultimately able to get to the heart of the issue. If any Mod or Admin is interested in seeing what evidence I have of political bias I'd be more than happy to send them evidence, if they dispute this is happening. I'm sure just posting it up here would be seen as an attack or whatever.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 11-07-2019 9:36am

The debate about the picture thread seems odd. It always had the possibility of trending towards being insulting if not policed, and the only way to police it is by the reporting system, as the mods can’t tell what is insulting or not to someone.

11-07-2019 10:36am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The debate about the picture thread seems odd. It always had the possibility of trending towards being insulting if not policed and the way to police it is by reports as the mods can’t tell what is insulting or not to someone.

A bit of cop on needs to be used. Read Banie's post above. People are going to be offended about stuff on boards, that's life. A moderator should be able to read the tone of a thread. We should not be a "safe space" and pander to every little offence a person takes.

Beasty · 11-07-2019 10:46am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are pictures on that thread likening people to Fred West, Ku Klux Klan, overweight alcoholics, scarecrows etc. I mean really now.

If I reported any of the images would the poster be carded? After all Nosnon believes that one person taking offence is enough to deliver a card.

If there was a picture put up with reference to yourself and you reported it as particularly offensive would you expect the mods to act?

11-07-2019 10:57am

Beasty wrote: »

If there was a picture put up with reference to yourself and you reported it as particularly offensive would you expect the mods to act?

If it was obvious that the picture was posted with no malice intended and was obvious that it's in keeping with the rest of the thread, I would be able to take a step back and accept a deletion of the picture instead of the poster being carded.

banie01 · 11-07-2019 11:51am

Beasty wrote: »

If there was a picture put up with reference to yourself and you reported it as particularly offensive would you expect the mods to act?

I gave the example of being presented as ginger...
I genuinely have serious and possibly deep seated psychological issues with being presented as such.
I know that's irrational, and seemingly silly but it's true.

Yet I did not report the post, or find it offensive because of the actual humourous intent, the motivation was not to insult and I could appreciate and accept that.

As Persepoly has said, is boards now to just be a safe space?
One mod has already confirmed that the outrage of 1% outweighs the acceptance or at worst ambivalence of the 99% and that the card given was warranted.

Is that where Boards is at?
I know it's not a free speech site, nor do I expect it to be but a glorified nanny site where people can cry wolf at a perceived slight?
Surely malice is required for a post to be considered an attack? Hurtful or trolling?

Where is the common sense?

Gimme A Pound · 11-07-2019 11:23pm

This has been going on for years. Always one, or a small handful of people either from the loyalist community in Northern Ireland or contrarian folk down here, just out to wind up.

My issue is not the community they come from (once they don't support sectarianism/paramilitarism) or that they are proud to be British/protestant - personally I would like to see such folk making actual contributions here.

My issue is with their modus operandi - to just be provocative and whatabout, and that's it.

It's frustrating when the current two people do nothing other than make inflammatory remarks with thinly veiled bigotry and downplaying of atrocities committed against members of the nationalist community. Nothing more. Not interested in discussion. I mean, sauntering into an Irish forum to wax lyrical about the 12th and to pretend there is a nationalist/republican equivalent. It's tiresome.

Various such folk have come and gone - some banned, some stopped posting - but there always seems to be at least one.

I just think their posting style doesn't offer anything to the community as it's simply a form of trolling and derailing, even if they could just be warned to post constructively.

osarusan · 12-07-2019 8:21am

When I first started posting in AH years ago, this was one of the first things I noticed. And not just from the loyalist side, from the republican side also.

It went something like this.

On a Monday for example, a thread would be started on, say, an investigation into British forces collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. Somebody would reply that we need to remember X, Y, and Z attacks by Republican paramilitaries around the same time. Posters would point out the whataboutery, say that this thread was about one specific thing and that if they wanted to talk about X, Y, and Z they should start a new thread about it.

Not too long later, a thread would be started on, say, an anniversary of a Republican bombing that killed some innocent people. Somebody would reply that we need to remember A, B, and C attacks by Loyalist paramilitaries around the same time. Posters would point out the whataboutery, say that this thread was about one specific thing and that if they wanted to talk about A, B, and C they should start a new thread about it.

That stuff just went on and on. Posters seeking moral high ground and invoking a spirit or mature and principled debate at one moment, but instantly abandoning those morals and principles when it suited them to do so. Not an ounce of good faith posting between them.

It was a foreshadowing of the 'score cheap hypocritical digs under the guise of mature and principled discussion' that has pervaded so much of the content on boards.

begsbyOnaTrain · 12-07-2019 1:03pm

<SNIP>

Please note that there is a minimum criteria whereby a user must have been a member for at least 3 months AND have posted at least 100 times, before you can post in Feedback.

dudara

Discodog · 11-08-2019 4:45pm

I think the moderation in Current Affairs isn't working. I can understand & suggested that it should be a softer touch than, for example Politics, & more in keeping with AH. But it's filling up with more & more unpleasant & often personally insulting posts with so much repetition. In some threads it's killing any opportunity for actual discussion.

MrFresh · 11-08-2019 6:07pm

The current racist dogwhistle/thread is just ridiculous. Calls for armed response, deportations of three generations of families, segregation of colours. Derogatory terms such as "dindu nuffins" and "new Irish" used to describe black people. I don't know if this stuff is breaking any specific rule but I can't imagine it's what you'd consider good discussion.

end of the road · 11-08-2019 6:30pm

their gunk isn't good discussion, but they are showing their true colours and exposing their bile and showing the nation exactly the type of people they are, which, IMO is no bad thing.
debunk their nonsense or just ignore them and discuss around them. they will only be a problem if you make them one.

Sonny noggs · 11-08-2019 6:35pm

MrFresh wrote: »

The current racist dogwhistle/thread is just ridiculous. Calls for armed response, deportations of three generations of families, segregation of colours. Derogatory terms such as "dindu nuffins" and "new Irish" used to describe black people. I don't know if this stuff is breaking any specific rule but I can't imagine it's what you'd consider good discussion.

They aren’t Irish, so I can see why ‘new Irish’ would be offensive to real Irish people.

MrFresh · 11-08-2019 6:42pm

end of the road wrote: »

their gunk isn't good discussion, but they are showing their true colours and exposing their bile and showing the nation exactly the type of people they are, which, IMO is no bad thing.
debunk their nonsense or just ignore them and discuss around them. they will only be a problem if you make them one.

You can't reason someone out of a position that isn't based on reason.

Sonny noggs wrote: »

They aren’t Irish, so I can see why ‘new Irish’ would be offensive to real Irish people.

Take it up with the Constitution.

Faugheen · 11-08-2019 7:08pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

They aren’t Irish, so I can see why ‘new Irish’ would be offensive to real white Irish people.

FYP

Sonny noggs · 11-08-2019 7:24pm

Faugheen wrote: »

FYP

Trying to put words in another posters mouth with this FYP crap should be a cardable offence.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-08-2019 7:43pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Trying to put words in another posters mouth with this FYP crap should be a cardable offence.

Why?

What's your definition of a "real Irish person"?

dudara · 11-08-2019 7:46pm

Do not bring the debate from Current Affairs into Feedback. There's enough of that in Current Affairs.

dudara

MrFresh · 12-08-2019 2:39pm

A yellow card for this blatant racism is just ridiculous. Surely ye want this site to have some kind of standard?

10fathoms wrote: »

A lovely race doing what they do best

Mr E · 12-08-2019 2:50pm

Yes, it was 100% racist and he/she got warned for it.

It was their first mod action in that forum.
If they do it again, red card.
After that, ban.
After that, longer ban, and so on.
Build up enough punishments, they get 3 months probation.
Any cards/bans anywhere on the site in that probationary period will result in a siteban.

It's a standard escalation of punishments. What do you want me to do? Jump straight to the end and siteban them?

MrFresh · 12-08-2019 2:53pm

Mr E wrote: »

Yes, it was 100% racist and he/she got warned for it.

It was their first mod action in that forum.
If they do it again, red card.
After that, ban.
After that, longer ban, and so on.
Build up enough punishments, they get 3 months probation.
Any cards/bans anywhere on the site in that probationary period will result in a siteban.

It's a standard escalation of punishments. What do you want me to do? Jump straight to the end and siteban them?

Recognize the difference between an inadvertent or minor breach of the charter and deliberate racism and hate speech. Escalation is important but so is recognizing severity.

Moderation of boards as a whole.

Comments