-9

I got into an argument with @LessPop in the Bridge, here. It got a little heated, and ended up with me being told off, and I called him a dick. Perhaps that wasn't the best response to that, I admit. The room was put into timeout, and then I got banned for 24 hours. No statements of mine were flagged (although I did flag where @LessPop told me off, and it didn't get validated).

It got heated, yeah. I'm not seeing what would warrant a 24 hour chat ban, though; what in there warrants a ban for me at all, much less such an extreme response? Can someone enlighten me?

locked by Wipqozn Jul 5 '16 at 1:49

This post has been locked due to the high amount of off-topic comments generated. For extended discussions, please use chat.

Read more about locked posts here.

migrated from meta.stackexchange.com Jul 2 '16 at 15:53

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites.

  • 4
    As a sidenote, getting banned during a timeout means your chat box reappears when the timeout finishes. Didn't test to see if I could type in that. Bug, perhaps? – Frank Jul 2 '16 at 15:36
  • It took scanning the comments to realise you do address the obvious reasons as answered by Shog, and if they were the reason, I agree. why wernt they flagged or deleted?. You could maybe do more to highlight that in your question. – user106385 Jul 2 '16 at 23:28
  • 9
    For what it's worth: I lost my cool. My apologies. As for your suspension, I had nothing to do with it. When I said I was leaving to cool down, I meant it. I only learned you'd been suspended when I was reprimanded myself. Not every conversation happens in public. – LessPop_MoreFizz Jul 3 '16 at 23:46
  • 1
    This post was created to address a single incident, which has since been addressed. Frank has been told of the proper channels to pursue this issue further if he wishes, but there's nothing more to be said here, so I'm locking this post. – Wipqozn Jul 5 '16 at 11:59
16

Scanning the question I'm responding to, I'd say "calling someone a dick" warranted the suspension.

Scanning the transcript, I'd say "arguing about politics in chat" warranted the timeout.

I wouldn't really call 24-hours an extreme response. Take the opportunity to, y'know, do something more fun for a day. Maybe play some games.

locked by Wipqozn Jul 5 '16 at 11:53

This post has been locked due to the high amount of off-topic comments generated. For extended discussions, please use chat.

  • 3
    So, wait. A mod gets to tell me off in extremely strong language, and get no penalty, and I get stuck with a 24 hour ban? This seems very one-sided. – Frank Jul 2 '16 at 16:48
  • 11
    Things are not always what they seem. You are responsible for your behavior, and since you asked about your suspension that's what I addressed here. So while we're here, let's figure out how you can avoid problems like this in the future and leave others' to other conversations elsewhere. – Shog9 Jul 2 '16 at 16:50
  • 1
    A mod sets an example, I respond with way less, and I'm still stuck with the penalty. One that, I point out, was not flagged, nor deleted, prior to the ban. Therefore, that was not the reasoning for it. Honestly, though, if calling someone a dick is ban-worthy, we're going to get a whole lot more flags. – Frank Jul 2 '16 at 16:55
  • 13
    I'm beginning to think your question here was not a sincere quest for knowledge. Therefore, I'm going to leave and get some housework done. At least one of us should make productive use of this time. – Shog9 Jul 2 '16 at 17:18
  • 1
    This was a sincere quest for knowledge. Your assertion doesn't hold up, because nothing I said has been flagged (as far as I can tell), nor deleted. At best, that would have warranted a regular half hour ban. It takes a mod to ban for more than that, so this is looking like a deliberate action on someone's part, for no good reason. I doubt it was @LessPop, but I'd like to know what, exactly, warranted a ban of that magnitude. – Frank Jul 2 '16 at 17:53
  • 3
    @Frank you asked why, you learned why. If you don't like the reason, make a meta about that. – Ave Jul 2 '16 at 21:52
  • 1
    @ardaozkal No, I didn't. I learned what Shog thinks it was. Which is incorrect. It takes an actual mod to go beyond the regular half hour, which means it was a deliberate act by somebody else. Which seems extremely unfair. – Frank Jul 2 '16 at 21:56
  • 4
    *sigh* this is not what you asked in the post, your question in post was answered by shog. if you are really interested in taking this forward by saying that it is unfair, use the contact form. – Ave Jul 2 '16 at 22:01
  • 1
    Perks of the job. Though I'd be interested to know what exactly the mod said, since I can't find it in the chat. – Studoku Jul 3 '16 at 9:55
  • 7
    Well, clearly I enjoyed my day away more than you. Oh, well. @frank, you know which moderator handled the situation because his name is on the timeout message in the transcript. If you have specific questions, why not ask? Alternately, if you just want to complain about the unfairness of it all, post a new meta discussion that doesn't beat around the bush. Best option? Propose that the old "no politics or religion" rule be reinstated for The Bridge, so folks aren't feeling baited into bad behavior. Regardless, avoid bad behavior - "but Ma, he started it!" is never an excuse. – Shog9 Jul 3 '16 at 16:42
  • 1
    @Shog9 So, let me get this straight: A mod, one of those who is supposed to exemplify the community and show the best of what we have to offer, is allowed to bait and goad regular users? And then when someone actually responds to said moderator, they get the hammer? And then you blow me off by going, "Meh, you deserved it"? Do you not see the inherent double standard going on here? Mods get so much leniency and good faith trust that unless and until they step out of line egregiously, they are held up as pillars of the community. Pillars they are not. – Frank Jul 3 '16 at 17:33
  • 8
    Drop the innocent naif act, @Frank. There were multiple people involved in that discussion, and - while it was a discussion that shouldn't have taken place in that room - you were the only one who decided to (within minutes) revert to angry name-calling. You were also the only one suspended. I don't hang out in The Bridge, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here... So I started poking around. Turns out, this is your modus operandi - you jump into discussions, get angry, and refuse to drop them. Over and over again. Looks like your luck may be running out... – Shog9 Jul 3 '16 at 19:24
  • 2
    ...Huh? I get told to fck off, and I'm the one at fault? Seriously? How is that posting in bad faith? That seems to be rather good faith, especially when the one doing that is one of your mods. I have no idea how that is bad faith at all. I could have responded better; I fully admitted that. I'm seriously flabbergasted that anyone could think I posted this in bad faith, though. I reiterate: nothing got flagged, nor deleted, until after the ban. If that was the problem, then why was I banned without anything to point to? – Frank Jul 3 '16 at 19:49
  • 5
    It is entirely possible for multiple people to be at-fault in a given situation. And strictly-speaking, you're talking about two of your elected moderators. Regardless, I've no time to spend talking to a wall here; use the "contact us" form at the bottom of the page if you think of something constructive to say. – Shog9 Jul 3 '16 at 19:55
  • 4
    I was banned for six months for responding to rudeness with name-calling. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because somebody else was an asshole first. – GnomeSlice Jul 4 '16 at 22:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .