I'll split your post so I can be more objective
thank you for answering. so i'm not sure i understand the logic of this explanation fully though:
you say banning everyone would be the "easy" way out. but you have banned 2 people who engaged with 1 poster and banned both of them and just not the third, correct? do you acknowledge that this is unfair?
sorry, I totally forgot about Link Mage in my post and I even thought: two posters? And he made the title of the thread now
I said and asked at same time if it was the easier way
Not necessarily it's unfair. The content and context are considered. Link Mage was too abusive in what he said and it was not his first offense in this matter (and there were others) and not the first ban based in reputation message or PM in this forum. Excalibur was told before to leave the other poster alone, still (naivly? I don't know) made a general post that included this other poster and mentioned a delicate issue (his supposed sexuality) - harmless? I don't think so, the poster felt harassed.
i'll ask it another way.i'm going off GM infraction points here
er my calculations, when pablo got his first ban for a week, the reciprocal punishment for fiber was an infraction (correct?) - presumably worth 1 or 2 points. then he (fiber) had the heated exchange with pauchis and that should have been an infraction for "inappropriate language" and "insulting another member" - presumably worth 4 points. that's 5 or more points, leading to a 1 week ban. there has been no ban issued to fiber because you say that would be jumping on the banning bandwagon. you (collectively) have had no qualms about jumping on this bandwagon for pablo and linkmage, however.
Fiber didn't get an infraction for what happened first. He only got an infraction for the incident with pauchis. We don't double infract a single post (they both got "insulted other member infraction") and it's usual a poster makes few/several offensive posts in an hour and gets only one infraction for them all. Our work is subjective (like you pointed out) and sometimes we just don't give the proper infarctions, we can try to improve the system and its realibility but it will always have a bit of judgement, too bad but it's quite intrinsic to our task.
so you instead bring in other factors (past history) and then say you delete those posts of fiber that were "not that inflammatory". do you not see the problem here? you're making it far more subjective than it needs to be, and you're just setting up a cycle of biased modding. because in the future you will refer to this "lesser punishment" as a way to justify that his(fiber's) behavior was not as bad because he didn't get punished as severely. it's a vicious cycle because you're not being as objective as you can be - you determine in a two-party conflict, through unverifiable (and frankly, what looks really biased) decision making that some posts are not "as inflammatory" and dealing with some posters through warnings and deletions and others through banning.
I get your point. I think I've also talked about it earlier. It's not easy to "measure" the offenses, even though some are clearly worse than others, but there's always subjectivity. If it's inappropriate but not that bad, we first only delete; if it's quite bad, we give an infraction; if it's really that bad, we give infraction; if it's extremely bad, we can even ban. It's not mathematics. Sometimes we are lenient, sometimes we are severe, sometimes we change our mind. Every reported post is a new thread in a mod's section. We usually answer to first post to say what was done. Sometimes we ignore some that were not worthy taking action (and that's subjective itself), sometimes we just forget about a reported post that went to 2nd page that was worthy taking action, many times we ask for other's opinions in the matter, sometimes we act even if not sure about it, that's how it happens and works.
here's my suggestion, if you are that concerned about the banning bandwagon:
(i) making your decision-making forum open to scrutiny so we can at least verify there is some logical discussion rather than having to keep hearing that there's discussions without being able to judge how logical or impartial they are.
(ii) publish the infractions and points you issues to posters frequently - daily, weekly whatever. publish it in a way that all of us can read so we can understand what language, content and actions you mods consider punishment-worthy and that we can see you being consistent in sticking to these standards. if "death threats to another poster" = instant ban, then tell us how many posters have been hauled up under this rule. tell us frequently.
The mod forum is private for good reasons, it's not supposed to be public. It's to protect us and also, believe me, the members that are being discussed there. I think we can learn from all this fuss that more transparency is needed, but not that much as you are asking
we are currently working in making rules more clear (even though I think they are already pretty clear and common sense is always welcome, but then I see posters like you, and not only the troublemakers/offenders asking us about it so we have to seriously consider it). And let me say here that Raging Lamb is the one who is working on it, kudos to him for his great and awesome work. Those who say
about him really don't know him well.
if you're consistent in your application of the rules, people can modify their behavior or at least take informed risks. maybe pick up a copy of discipline and punish too; foucault has some good ideas for you to ponder.
We try our best to be consistent, but of course we are not flawless. In the other hand, there's too much manicheism and thoughtless bashing regarding our moves, but obviously it's only my opinion. Like I said before, the rules are clear and some good sense/civility is expected from the posters. It's not like me are making new rules to justify our actions too.