If you're going to bring me into something -- I'm going to respond.
I took time to type it up so I'm posting it.
I have no idea how you got that from anything contained in my post, but for clarity's sake, the board's most vocal advocates against the things you described are some of the same people you'd indict as having not taken them seriously.
It's weird how often these things actually go hand in hand ... being an advocate does not make one immune.
|I couldn't tell you how many times we've brought up in discussion the wisdom of AP having its own rape smiley, an issue that I watched Jason laugh off and defend for two years. |
Equating the two situations is tenuous at best, especially given that this was rectified soon after I was finally given access back to my database that housed such a name. And let's not pretend that saying "well so and so did so and whatever" and think that that is the end all to any argument. As I have stated, many times, I have a very high-tolerance for virtually everything that goes on in these threads ... which is why it takes a lot
for it to become an issue I believe is worth moderation. My mistake two years ago does not give anyone carte blanche to cross the line.
|It's the same Jason Tate who argued in the Politics thread that women aren't funny,|
This is flat out (willfully?) distorting an entire conversation about an Adam Corolla incident.
|as though humor were some kind of fucking biological trait only prevalent in men. |
... never once said this ...
|That makes these calls for sensitivity and the doling out of punishments pretty hypocritical, particularly since most of the instances of insensitivity you'd point to in this thread were almost assuredly misinterpreted. |
If they're your friends its "misinterpreted" if it's someone you don't like it's offensive. It can't work that way. However, the moderators are going to have to make a series of judgement calls every single day. Not all of them will be right, but given the amount of posts on this website they have to do the best they can. The posts brought to the staff attention in the aforementioned thread crossed the line, and were not misinterpreted.
|Anyone who's taken two seconds to get to know those who post in this thread would get a good sense for the kind of people they are and the kind of views they hold. |
And this is why they've been given countless warnings, infractions, and PMs and weren't simply kicked off the website the very first time it happened. It's why I talked to moderators and staff that knew a variety of these members to talk to them 1 on 1 to let them know what was going on and what was not ok to continue to do. I could have told the staff that asked me to ban certain members weeks ago: ok, just do it -- but instead we tried to reach out and get things settled -- we tried to make it better ... and no one listened.
|These aren't people who signed up yesterday, these are people with some of the most posts on the site. They have long track records here, they're established posters. The fact we're lecturing them and acting like we don't have a sense of who they are is absurd. |
They are not immune simply because of longevity.
First, this wasn't something that just happened based upon once incident and you continue to act as though one thing led to someone's banning. This is not the case.
|This is part of the problem of having people in power who haven't been around very long and/or aren't familiar with or well-respected by the general community. I can't explain to you how comical it is watching Jake Denning play the role of authority figure around here. Most of the people on staff don't respect him, you can not expect the rest of the board to. |
You don't have to respect staff, but you do have to follow the site rules and not bully people.
The banning that took place tonight was after countless infractions and warnings ... and the final infraction was not given by Jake Denning, it was given after a lengthy discussion by ALL staff and comes completely with the longest staff member on this website's blessing: me. The behavior in question was absolutely ridiculous and you don't need to respect staff or authority to recognize this.
|There needs to be an understanding that the relationships people have on this site expand beyond just the bounds of AP. People have jokes, ways of interacting with one another that not everyone is going to get. |
And within a pretty broad definition of reason - we allow just this to happen.
|We should not expect them to act differently, to alter the way they interact because it may seem "cliquey" and could intimidate/alienate someone they aren't friends with. That's asinine.|
If the way they interact is to bully other people -- yes, we ask expect them to act differently. This seems to be a normal request within society.
| I don't know why the general chat thread has gotten all the attention, I see cliques in a lot of other threads too. |
The "cliques" are not the issue.
| The only difference I see is that those in here have done more to get to know each other personally, so the relationships in here are generally more developed and idiosyncratic.|
... and have led to bullying behavior of other members and staff. That's the problem
you are missing.