PurpleFlock - Ravens Message Board

With respect to the apology, I’ve spoken with the admin, and I was told that it essentially exclusively applied towards the “woman” remark stated twice by Tru11, as the usage was potentially derogatory. If your issues lie with its usage, then you have every right to be offended and profiled.

Personally, I was uneasy when coming across the terms. We were initially instructed to avoid warning members for remarks that could be derogatory but also may not be intended as such. However, the fact that the term was repeated placed its usage under review for the retroactive possibility of disciplinary action by taking the matter straight to the top.

Unfortunately, the chances of a repercussion were basically torpedoed after your “Little boys” remark. In fact, none of the three potentially derogatory terms were deleted nor docked for their existence.

Of the three, your last post was deleted for the public berating of the moderating for a presumed lack of reasonable action (While eluding to the incorrect notion from the previous post), which again makes the explanation about hoping to privately share the complaints with the moderator even harder to fathom. That aside, the content of any subject-related discussion is irrelevant.

In your opinion, you were unquestionably correct. In their opinion, they were unquestionably correct. That’s the entire nature of the forum, to share a commonplace with members with potentially differing opinions and engaging in debates. What angle is this meant to serve from the standpoint of moderating?

Should posts concerning football-related topics be deleted or taken action against because of their content, their beliefs, or the inflexibility of said beliefs? That would be absurd. In his alleged continued yapping, none of 29BmoreBird22’s comments following the informal request were aimed at either side.

His initial comment condemned the progression of the argument, mentioning that neither side was willing to concede. His second requested that nobody reply to either of the two members involved in the parting argument. If you take issues with Tru11’s final remark that questioned your understanding of the subject-related matter, let’s take into account your comment on the previous page.

It read:
“Or perhaps you're doing what you always do, even on the old boards. Smoke and bullshit because you don't want to answer the question.”

It wasn’t deleted. It didn’t receive a warning. And it was objectively more personal and offhanded given that it belittled a member’s history as a poster, not just taking aim at the current matter at hand. No issues were raised by either party. No contempt for the absence of action and censorship, setting a clear precedence for relative leniency, which has been the basic standard on this forum.

As is stands, both you and Tru11 have active posts that were partially inflammatory to some degree but were deemed minor enough to avoid being formally warned and removed. Both posted after the request and weren’t punished for simply doing so.

Therefore, expecting the moderators to randomly alter or abandon the set-precedence in order to delete Tru11’s second post following the request, one that was at worst no more egregious than your currently-active post from earlier, is tantamount to outright hypocrisy. And it cannot be had both ways.

The end result was objectively lenient. Had we warned and deleted every single possible infraction in every post, we would’ve granted multiple additional warnings for both you and Tru11. Both would’ve been hit with two separate 1.19.1s, specifically for failure to ignore the instructions of the staff, and a combination of 1.5s and 1.6s for the derogatory, slanderous or disrespectful remarks towards each other.

There would also be an additional 1.19.1 for abuse of staff members given to your second deleted post. That end result would’ve given suspensions to both accounts. Specifically in your instance, your account would’ve been dealt by far the biggest blow, with a full calendar month suspension. Both members were fortunate enough to make similar infractions that were politely cancelled out due to their coexistence.

That was done with unabated fairness to both sides. Your first post alone had three separate and clear violations. It was docked for two. The time stamps are indeed there. Your first post came at 6:04 PM EST on Sunday. His first response came at 12:32 PM EST on Monday, after noon. The time difference was 18 hours and not 6 hours. Which fell on a work day.

I can say for a fact that I wasn't aware of the conversation at the time nor was I online due to work schedule. RavensMania was gearing up for his bowling league that comes after his work on Mondays. I can't speak for 29BmoreBird22 whereabouts, therefore I can't presume them.

Additionally, there are only three of us rostered. None of the posts were reported to bring this to our attention, which isn’t just a tangible action for members to alert moderators to potential violations and add personal feedback; it’s the absolute best method. No complaints were extended privately.

However, instead of reporting the post, you chose to bypass either option in favor of a profanity-filled tirade, and then doubled down on the sentiments afterwards with a second post. In the history of this forum, there has never been a situation where a member was asked only once to cease debating/arguing about a subject-related matter and was immediately warned for the following post.

From speaking with the moderators, I can confirm that there have been exactly two instances, both occurring after a plethora of repeated ignored warnings. Therefore, there was zero active precedence for an out-of-the-blue alteration to the approach.

There were several back-and-forth condescending remarks that were allowed to fly. Therefore, there was no active precedence for penalizing comments of equal or lesser extent. Your retort was a clear outlier, extending far beyond the line, even when using the recently submitted posts as a barometer.

Finally, let this be clear. It is unfathomable to argue that the blame behind a blatant, willful and avoidable violation of the rules falls onto the moderators for not uncovering a perceived issue and taking action within a 5-6 hour span on a work day with no prior reported posts by any member.