The ATS warning system, some questions...

I started a topic about guns, then someone I was arguing with (James the less) decided to mass-message all ATS members that were online at the time to go and help him to "beat me".
He was silly enough to send this message to me as well, and when I found out, I told him what I thought about his "cry for help".

Because of the massive amount of replies that were in his favor, James assumed he had "won" the arguement, as far as such a complex discussion can be won by anyone.
His lack of respect and total ignorance provoked me to suggest he is retarded, which resulted in a warning for me from Banshee.
I editted the post in which I suggested him to be retarded, and changed it to ignorant, because that seems to be allowed here on ATS.
Now ScepticOverlord has send me another warning, and took away my acces to these forums.
My u2u in which I ask him why I was warned for the second time, was answered with:

A general agreement among staff has been reached to revoke your access to that forum.

So far so good, I have a few questions regarding the rules and "punishment" systems on ATS.

1. If you're warned for a post, should you edit the post?

2. If you're supposed to edit the post you're warned for, shouldn't the warning contain a link to the post you're warned for and an explanation about why you were warned?

3. Is there a list of words that are allowed? Retarded is obviously not allowed, but ignorant is? (only in some cases it seems?)

4. As I noticed in the guns topic, James gets away with calling my government b!tches, yet my reply in which I suggest he is retarded is over the line? Is there an explanation of these rules, can we call peoples friends b!tches for example? As long as we don't talk about the one we're directing the post to?

5. In general, when you warn someone, wouldn't it be good to at least let this person know why he's warned?

Thanks for your time.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by Jakko]

Okay, next time, when this happens, just call all of James the Lesser's b|tches retarded instead of him. Then I think you'll be okay.

Are you aware that clicking on the warn under your avatar will take you to the post that gained you the warning?

I am going to have to agree with Jakko on this one. James was making some really ignorant comments on that thread and Jakko and I were merely trying to point that out. i think he should be let back into the pit.

Also, I thought there was a rule about posting false info. If the mods look at that thread, they will clearly see that James said 27,000 people per year are killed in the UK by guns and 20,000 per year in Australia. I researched and posted my findings that they were in fact 62 and 59 people killed each year respectively. Shouldn't he be warned about that as well? Those numbers he posted were so far off, it's not even funny. I thought we were denying ignorance, not allowing it.

Originally posted by Zzub
Are you aware that clicking on the warn under your avatar will take you to the post that gained you the warning?

No I wasn't, that's some great information, thanks.
Not that it helps in my case, I can't acces those forums anymore.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by Jakko]

I just found out I'm warned twice for the same post, that I editted after the first warning.
Hmmmm...

Well, he was warned twice for the same thread, I must admit, thats a little unfair. Anyways, the warnings can't be taken back, you'll just have to wait 72 hours.

Warned twice for the same post even.
And as if that's not enough I have been banned from the mud pit, I can't even buy my way in anymore.
Deny ignorance and embrace retardness?

Don't worry about it. Just count to 10 and find something else to do for a while. You'll probably gain access again later if you behave. (And quit using the word retarded)

I agree. I hate that word. Its like in the 60s-70s some gob#es used to use the word 'spastic' - I never liked that either, and I was only a kid at the time.
The words just denigrate people - I won't use either myself.

Yes I seem to have the translations mixed up.
I'm Dutch, and I thought the Dutch translation of retarded was "achterlijk", which means that someone is completely unaware of reality, but not trying to find out either.

But I guess our "achterlijk" is by far not as harsh as your retarded.
Still, it's not like I'm calling people b!tches, which is what James is doing, without getting warnings.

You'll all get a warning if you keep circumventing the censor by doing stuff like using exclamation points as letters, got it, everybody?

While I see nothing evil about using the word retarded (stunted in growth, not matured to the level one should be according to one's age), I think we can do without calling each other names. I know, its going to take some getting used to, but I think we can do it.

NOW, TIGHTEN UP, YOU SLACK-JAWED MORONS! Just kidding.

The art of ignoring those that attempt to provoke me is a profession I do not yet fully master.
I shall try harder and out any frustration on my cat/sister the next time similar background figures attack my inner peace.

Originally posted by Jakko
I shall try harder and out any frustration on my cat/sister the next time similar background figures attack my inner peace.

Awww. Don't do that. Thats nasty. How could James mass u2u everyone? People shouldn't be able to do that :shk:

1. If you're warned for a post, should you edit the post?

2. If you're supposed to edit the post you're warned for, shouldn't the warning contain a link to the post you're warned for and an explanation about why you were warned?

3. Is there a list of words that are allowed? Retarded is obviously not allowed, but ignorant is? (only in some cases it seems?)

4. As I noticed in the guns topic, James gets away with calling my government b!tches, yet my reply in which I suggest he is retarded is over the line? Is there an explanation of these rules, can we call peoples friends b!tches for example? As long as we don't talk about the one we're directing the post to?

5. In general, when you warn someone, wouldn't it be good to at least let this person know why he's warned?

1. yes yes and yes. this should be done to avoid having the same post warned twice three four or more times. when warned correct the offending post so as not to be warned again. in fact this is said in the following link...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

in fact let me quote the statement i am refering to...

If you receive a warning, it might be a good idea to return to the post that caused the warning, and consider removing the offensive material. We do maintain a log of all warnings applied to members for our staff to review, but there have been occasions where a severe offense has received more than one warning from more than on staff member.

2. as zzub said the warn icon takes you to the post, it does not explain WHY you received the post. if you are unsure then QUIETLY U2U a moderator of the forum why you were warned. do NOT disrupt a thread by asking in that thread why you got the warn. u2u a modaeror or use the "suggestion" button.

3. it not just the word but how you use it. you could have used the word stupid and it would still have the same effect, insulting. and yes ignorant is allowed, it is considered to be not insulting so ignorant is allowed. refering to someone as being retarded when they arent...is an insult however refering to someone being ignorant as you feel they are not completely aware or informed of the topic being discussed is a more accurate word to use. retard denotes that you feel that because they dont agree with you that they have a mental retardation when they may not, they may simply be uninformed, hence the use of the word ignorant and not stupid dimwitted retarded, etc.

4. he can insult your government all he wants. your government is not a member of this board therefore it is not afforded the protection of our rules as they apply to members only.

5. if in doubt ASK. otherwise we have to assume you know why, we are busy and cant U2U every member specifically why. in fact the U2U you recieve for the warn tells you to contact the staff member asking them why if you have any questions (i believe, i never received a warn my entire time here prior to becoming a mod so i cant be sure). again U2U the mod or use the suggestion button to ask the staff why you were warned, do not repeat do NOT ask in the thread in which you were warned why you were warned. it disrupts the thread and doesnt belong there.

Hey just be lucky you didn't get the 3rd warn!!
At that stage we unleash banshee who comes visting with a knife to castrate you...

Originally posted by Jakko
Warned twice for the same post even.
And as if that's not enough I have been banned from the mud pit, I can't even buy my way in anymore.
Deny ignorance and embrace retardness?

Thanks for the comprehensive answers Monkey, I agree with all you say and realize that to keep ATS a pleasant place to have good conversations, escalation like demonstrated in my thread is not desired.

And Chicken, let's just hope all mods are aware of the fact that I can no longer edit anything in that thread, I may want to have children some day...

I knew the banshee threat would work

Actually I can understand your frustration.

One of the problems with modding here is that sometimes we are unaware of the context of a situation and have to operate on the "here and now".

So there may be the odd dubious decision made, its inexcapable. We can't read every thread and see every post in context in that thread.

I have seen posters totally flip out over small misunderstandings, eventually what is a small episode leads to the person being banned because the start flamming the mod. It happens on almost a monthly occurance. We can't do anything about, it the quantity of posts now is so great we don't have the luxury any more to masticate over every post.

The only answer I have is if you get a warn and you are not happy with it, don't push the issue beyond the "its not fair" utu, rise above it, and move on.

By dwelling on the issue in the misguided thought that your reputation is tarnished, the corrospondence will inflate as will the situation and the outcome will be well beyond what the original issue was.

We can't step back too much, to do so would be to debate every decision made here, and will lead to chaos and a breakdown in the role of a mod. So you just have to suck it in, wait 72 hours if you don't want your warn and move on.

In the end "who did what" and Who said what" has an interest lifespan of about 2 days, after that who gives a sh!t?

Keep the small matters, small matters. An apology and move on smooths the waters.

Just as a concern but I have seen cases where more liberally minded mods have double standards when it comes to those whose positions disagree with thier own. While it doesn't happen a lot it does happen. Although in truth its been happening less since the colonel was banned. Whle I understand fully the size of the mods job I should think at the very least if a mod is going to warn someone who already has a warning they should have the time to make sure its not double.

The colonel is a mod with lots of powers including having a forum created for the likes of him called the mud pit.