TheGunsFinalWrath
While, as far as I can tell, Udl did technically start hostilities with the insult
"you buttered crumpet", and
a deleted message that google translates says means "you posted arguments so stupid I responded in another language" (the latter of which was
apparently deleted before TheGunsFinalWrath saw), on top of those both being directed to someone else, I find those far too tame in substance to merit such an escalation, or any more response from staff than it got.
Still, as a first offense from a relatively new user, I'm willing to let this slide with just a warning.
Re
this post: Mods are allowed to notice behaviour in a thread, warn for it, and add it to the tracker, without bringing it to the RVR. The RVR usually exists for contentious actions, or actions that non-staff members are reporting.
Re
this post: Simply disagreeing with your CRT is not being "extremely dismissive of your potential beliefs".
Bambu & Zark
Unfortunately, I was busy earlier, but to revisit the Shmooply case, I just want to say that I find the now deleted posts with extremely unwarranted and meanspirited accusations directed towards Bambu completely unacceptable. That is not the kind of behaviour that should be performed against one of our most trusted, reliable, moral, and valuable staff members, or anybody else here for that matter.
I want to say that those accusations were reasoned and evidenced (even if ultimately subjectively), but more importantly, that they were only done in response to nigh-identical allegations coming from Bambu. I completely oppose any attempt to only moralize one aspect of that conversation.
While I hope the hatchet was buried behind closed doors, as from my PoV they're both ultimately Good individuals who have simply been hurt by previous bad situations. If we are going to dig it up, I think Bambu has more culpability to not start accusations like that in the future. Assuming and explicitly saying that you think the other person is incapable of approaching a situation rationally rarely leads to anything productive.
EDIT: I've talked to Bambu about this further, off-site. While I wanted to make one public comment to indicate that a staff member should not be immune when accusing others of such things, the infraction's ultimately minor, and is one that involves a staff member. So I'd prefer further talk, particularly about the Bambu aspect, to be done in private.
Other
Most aspects of
my previous look at recent reports weren't followed up other than the Shmooply one. To summarize, and perhaps clarify, my views:
- I think Mehmetnegsss should be given an instruction on how to helpfully contribute, and probably warned.
- I think BranicWorld should be given an instruction on how to helpfully contribute, and potentially warned.
- I think Luci5678 should be given a strict warning or a short ban, in the range of a few days.
- I think LIFE_OF_KING should be given a short ban, in the range of a few days.
- I think Deidalius' case should be considered by others, as I don't know enough about the new standards. But I am concerned about us applying the principle of "risking danger to users" consistently between that case and Shmooply's, as Shmooply didn't call for violence against trans users; simply expressing transphobic attitudes towards site users was considered enough, by many who argued for 6 months or permanent based largely on the off-site aspect.
- I think Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara should be given a short ban, in the range of a few days to weeks.
