Disputing mod warning

Gosh my month ban from CA is up already. Doesn't time fly when you're having fun opening browser tabs in private mode.

@Ten of Swords

My ban was lifted beore that acually. The issue is not the ban it's the specific CA cumulative warnings rule that leads to increasingly lenghty bans and eventual total ban.

Has that been scrapped?

No, the scaling ban system is still present. The current rules including the recent ban lifts are in the CA sticky:

Okay thanks, so this dispute is still open then.

I don't understand how mods don't get that the scaling ban system is more serious than a temp ban. Sometimes CA mods give out warnings without any temp ban but add them to one's total warnings. The other way around i.e. a temp ban but no accumulated waring would be less severe.

@Big Bag of Chips Can you please now after 6 weeks address this dispute as as you can see I'm getting nowhere with the mod charged with dealing it (see post above)

@Big Bag of Chips

I don't know why you are both making this more complicated than it is.

This is the dispute resolution forum where I am as per the OP disputing the reason given for the warning. The sanctions that come with the warning are only a secondary issue.

Mods issue warnings in the hope a poster doesn't post in the same way again and in exactly the same way I am disputing the reason given for the warning so that mods don't behave in the same way again. This is the primary issue.

The fact my ban expired after a month (which is what happened not as Ten says was lifted due to all bans being lifted) is irrelevant to the dispute. In respect of the CA accumulating warning issue I don't see how that is an issue for the Help Desk anyway because the warning has not been overruled so as it stands I would have no argument to make to have my CA warnings total reduced.

@Big Bag of Chips

If you are disputing the reason given for the warning then you need to outline why the moderator was wrong to warn you for trolling.

It is abundantly clean from the OP that I am indeed disputing the reason given for the warning, where you will also see I have already outlined why the moderator was wrong.

I don't see what more I would need to add at this stage. The next logical step is for a mod to give a response where I would have an opportunity to elaborate further if need be.

@Big Bag of Chips

@Ten of Swords can you look at this dispute please.

I think after all this time we can assume that's a no.

"Trolling, being a dick" let's be clear on what exactly Necro considered trolling. He said via pm:

I don't see why you think it's a good issue to make those sort of quips though personally. There could be people reading who are struggling with their own identity regardless of your own feelings on the matter so making light of it is, being a dick.

So what he is saying is that my ridiculing of gender ideology using its own gender ideology language is insensitive to trans folk and therefore trolling. 

The warned post:

What's the person in the photo presenting as a woman showing the person presenting as a man? A chart of the 6 human sex's perhaps?

"Presenting as a women" was a ridicule of the gender ideological idea that one can't tell what sex one is by looking at them. I have argued in the gender thread that we are in fact genetically designed to instinctively know whether one is a man or a woman in a variety of different ways. It's not like an opinion. 

"A chart of the 6 human sexes" was a ridicule of the gender ideological idea that there are more than 2 sexes. 

I could just as easily have ridiculed any other gender ideological terms, like people with cervixes or pregnant men etc. And it was relevant, though a bit off topic because the poster I was responding to brought the subject up. 

So clearly I was ridiculing gender ideology for the purpose of defending those who publicly do so as was the context of the post, and not for the purpose of being insensitive to trans folk for the sake of it. Critizing gender ideology and deliberately having a dig at trans people are two completely different things. The latter was not what I was doing.

It is attached in the OP.

Gender Ideology and Transgenderism are two different things. One is a recent invention and the other has always been a thing.

Had I had a dig at transgenderism per se, you would have a point, because the people behind Transgenderims are exclusively transgender people, in which case I can see how I would be behoved be a bit more touchy feely in my rhetoic.

However, the people behind gender ideology and the phrases and terminolgy accociated with it, are the invention of mainly hetrosexual leftists, a disporportinate number of homosexual leftist, left wing political supportes of it, and more general left wing 'we include everybody' types. So when I crititize gender ideology in whatever fashion I do it, it is those people I have in mind. They are the tragets.

Critizing Gender Ideolgoy is NOT THE SAME as critizing Transgenerism i.e is not targeting trans people.

Here's a real life example. A person born female and born sexually attracted to males (quite common), transitions to man and then idenfifies as a gay man, as they remain sexually attracted to males. I as a gay man say feck off you are not a gay man and you could say but your being really insensitive to people struggling with their gender. But in that case I would not be critizing transgenderism - the fact they are transgender, but the Gender Idelolgy that led the person to identify as a gay man, becaues that's where such nonsense comes from.

I am persisting with this dispute not primarly because the of accumlated warnings on my record, but to ensure that a precedent is not set that critizing or even ridicuing Gender Ideology could come with a causing offence warning. It simply doesn't follow that doing so is targeting trans people.

So no I don't agree with your question, becasue the question is fundametally flawed.