Someone responded to her dismissive attitude saying Grow up, and they got 3 days for it. You say that no one will be punished for pushing back against bigotry, but there are people in here who feel that she is coming at it from that point of view, including people that have been banned for hostility.
This got the same length of time of a ban for someone just saying Grow up to a moderator. People are talking about these because they're inconsistent and once again tie into how the length of a ban and what is bannable is how it makes the moderation staff feel personally over anything else.
TBH that banner should probably have said "over multiple posts," thus the similarity in duration.
Um, why? Moderation team derails thread via generally unsupported ban wave. Now we're told to look the other way and not talk about it? Doesn't seem very accountable nor good for a discussion board. (Frankly moderation discussions should be public anyway given how much discussion about accountability goes in here, and there's no sensitive details in there.)
What is even the point of being able to have discussions like this is you're just going to ban opinions, that in this case aren't even outliers or controversial.
Addressing this and
Ketkat 's points about public discussion of moderation here, history has sort of shown us that threads and topics dedicated to talking about moderation writ large tend to devolve quickly. A lot of people want to sincerely try to improve things. Others want to burn it down. And others still just want to relitigate old (well-deserved) bans. We can mostly screen out the last one, but the former two are harder. That's why we prefer formats like the upcoming AsianEra meeting, where the discussion can be public and we're sure it's focused on involved parties dealing with specific issues.
Making moderation discussion public is definitely not viable. Respectfully, that's an enormous burden to put on people who are, at the end of the day, volunteers. What if somebody needs to share private information to give context to their thinking on a ban? Or what if they're worried about attracting offsite harassment for their opinions?
I'd like to think we're not as bad as the actual cops. I dunno, maybe that's the perspective.
Like it says in the staff post: this is a topic that it's possible to have multiple views on. Unlike police brutality, it's not as easy as saying that one side is totally wrong, excepting the people who say she should remain stateless, who were banned.
And yet that is exactly what happened when a Mod was challenged.
No, it was not. As shown by reading the Guardian article at the top of the topic, this isn't as simple as clear-cut bigotry. Treating it like it is just shuts down discussion.
