Do you support Evergreen's permaban?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

Hey, I'm not leaking anything totally on my own again

[MaxQue]

No, as the fascist posters weren't permabanned with her.

Another proof the mods are controlled by the Alt-Right.

[Badger]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

Hey, I'm not leaking anything totally on my own again

There's nothing to be leaked I assume. It appears what he did was public enough that there are enough Witnesses, so to speak.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

Hey, I'm not leaking anything totally on my own again

There's nothing to be leaked I assume. It appears what he did was public enough that there are enough Witnesses, so to speak.

My understanding is that the final straw was celebrating the attack on the Republican baseball team

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, as the fascist posters weren't permabanned with her.

Another proof the mods are controlled by the Alt-Right.

How are you not an Atlas running joke like BRTD and jfern yet?

[Adam Griffin]

No.

This is just a case of mods a) stalking somebody who had been previously banned, looking for any milquetoast excuse to give them the ax, and b) a result of their "balance" deal-making to get rid of multiple posters simultaneously (the impetus in this situation was Klartext).

[This account no longer in use.]

No.

This is just a case of mods a) stalking somebody who had been previously banned, looking for any milquetoast excuse to give them the ax, and b) a result of their "balance" deal-making to get rid of multiple posters simultaneously (the impetus in this situation was Klartext).

Again, if there was a """"""""""compromise"""""""""", it's far more likely that Klartext was the one chosen to balance out things, as he had been far less pursued by moderation than Evergreen.

[Adam Griffin]

No.

This is just a case of mods a) stalking somebody who had been previously banned, looking for any milquetoast excuse to give them the ax, and b) a result of their "balance" deal-making to get rid of multiple posters simultaneously (the impetus in this situation was Klartext).

Again, if there was a """"""""""compromise"""""""""", it's far more likely that Klartext was the one chosen to balance out things, as he had been far less pursued by moderation than Evergreen.

I suppose we can debate which one of the two was being more aggressively pursued, but at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing broadly.

[Virginiá]

I've said this before, so I can only assume that that either people missed it or I'm simply not trusted, but there was no "fair & balanced" conspiracy. Klartext and evergreen just happened to get active in unacceptable ways on the same day, and they were both on their final warnings.

[Badger]

I've said this before, so I can only assume that that either people missed it or I'm simply not trusted, but there was no "fair & balanced" conspiracy. Klartext and evergreen just happened to get active in unacceptable ways on the same day, and they were both on their final warnings.

Guys. As ambivalent as I am about Evergreens permabanned, and the fact that there are some other folks here that desperately deserve it at least as much in my humble opinion, Virginia is absolutely telling the truth. There is no quid pro quo now or ever regarding trade-offs of banning equal numbers of posters of Divergent ideologies. I can tell you that if earned - at least in the mod caves eyes- - they will readily ban 10 hardcore right-wingers in a row, or vice versa for 10 hardcore liberals in a row. One can debate the merits or lack thereof of Evergreens permabanned, but this is just b******* conspiracy fairies at their worst.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

Hey, I'm not leaking anything totally on my own again

There's nothing to be leaked I assume. It appears what he did was public enough that there are enough Witnesses, so to speak.

My understanding is that the final straw was celebrating the attack on the Republican baseball team

Yes, and since she'd been warned before a couple of times, there was little choice.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, as the fascist posters weren't permabanned with her.

Another proof the mods are controlled by the Alt-Right.

Kay, so we're back on "but XXX is bad too" argument.

Questioning the moderation consistency (and yes, I'm the first one to admit we have a problem here) is a diffrent question than specific ban imposed on Evergreen.

[LLR]

Because we should trust whatever the mods say because they're always honest and right Yes, the mods are a model to transparency who are certainly never trying to cover their asses and they would never lie or twist the truth to gain public approval. Open your eyes...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, what kind of transparency would you like to see? Any more specific proposal?

[LLR]

OK, what kind of transparency would you like to see? Any more specific proposal?

I mean quite literally any transparency would be an improvement... Were we ever even informed what specific posts these two posters were banned over? And if we were informed, it was only after a s[inks]ton of asking on our part...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, what kind of transparency would you like to see? Any more specific proposal?

I mean quite literally any transparency would be an improvement... Were we ever even informed what specific posts these two posters were banned over? And if we were informed, it was only after a s[inks]ton of asking on our part...

OK, here's a pickle. Quoting infracted post had been considered trolling in the past, so wouldn't it be inconsistent for mods to do this?

Ftr, I'd gladly show the post(s) in question (as well as some parts of discussion), but I just don't know if I'm allowed to. I'm not going to act on my own again.

[LLR]

Wait... quoting an infracted post in an official context to further transparency and increase trust in your team - clearly a good cause - might be considered trolling? Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Wait... quoting an infracted post in an official context to further transparency and increase trust in your team - clearly a good cause - might be considered trolling? Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

For your info, I started a topic on the mod subboard on the matter. If it were up to me alone, I might as well pull BK and give you my password so you can see how slow, boring and devoided of any sinister motives the process is. I'm genuinely unsure what the proper line of proceeding is here. I'm not sure whether Dave would be pleased to see moderated content surviving online, even in this form.

[muon2]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

In Apr after multiple moderated posts she was issued a formal warning for personal attacks and other infractions. That did not result in a significant change in behavior and at the end of Apr she was given a 7-day tempban. In the weeks after the end of the tempban there were at least two formal warnings issued for infractions of the ToS related to profanity and abusive behavior towards other posters. On the morning of the congressional baseball shooting she had more than a dozen posts that had to be deleted or modified. That led to the permaban.

[This account no longer in use.]

Because we should trust whatever the mods say because they're always honest and right Yes, the mods are a model to transparency who are certainly never trying to cover their asses and they would never lie or twist the truth to gain public approval. Open your eyes...

Cool, I didn't know Alex Jones posts here!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Because we should trust whatever the mods say because they're always honest and right Yes, the mods are a model to transparency who are certainly never trying to cover their asses and they would never lie or twist the truth to gain public approval. Open your eyes...

Cool, I didn't know Alex Jones posts here!

No. Alex jones is funny.

[This account no longer in use.]

Good point. It's just sort of depressing seeing LLR's progression from a great poster to Whiny AAD Edgelord #238.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Good point. It's just sort of depressing seeing LLR's progression from a great poster to Whiny AAD Edgelord #238.

I don't think LLR would likely ever say 'f*** smilo', which I've seen some AADians say.

[Mr. Morden]

Wait... quoting an infracted post in an official context to further transparency and increase trust in your team - clearly a good cause - might be considered trolling? Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

For your info, I started a topic on the mod subboard on the matter. If it were up to me alone, I might as well pull BK and give you my password so you can see how slow, boring and devoided of any sinister motives the process is. I'm genuinely unsure what the proper line of proceeding is here. I'm not sure whether Dave would be pleased to see moderated content surviving online, even in this form.

I think the idea is that if a post is offensive enough to be deleted for violating the ToS, we don't want it to be re-posted.  If it's not appropriate for the forum, then it shouldn't be on the forum.

However, I don't think that precludes mods discussing what the basic genre of an infracted post was, without quoting in verbatim.  E.g., describing it as "a post advocating violence against members of Congress", or something like that.  If mods so desire, they could also summarize the genre of posts that Evergreen tended to give in the past that led to her ban (since it's not just this one incident).  E.g., was the pattern of violating the ToS mostly because of advocating violence, for personal attacks on other posters, or something else?

Lacking the complete list of Evergreen's infracted posts over the years means that regular posters can't necessarily come to a completely informed position on whether the ban was justified, but I'm not sure why they need to.  Getting a summary of a few sentences should be good enough.  I've never heard of a message board where admins give more than that when a poster is banned.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes. Her latest post that I reacted to ("hahaha" on Scalise shooting) was inappropriate and, quite frankly, disgraceful. And this was not the first post of that manner from her. This is something beyond or above politics. It has something to do with basic respect to other human beings. I think it's very sad when there is no such respect only because somebody is from the other party. There should be no room for such kind of posts, no matter how many "good posts" there are from this specific user.