The moderation team is issuing Phil Tanny a 1-year ban for repeated violation of Forum norms (even after warning). This user repeatedly violated our norms and we didn’t see any attempts on their behalf to follow our Forum’s norms more after we warned them the first time by messaging them and responding to their comments. Some examples:
I agree with the decision because of his harmfwl response to being downvoted, but… honestly, I feel like several of those points are exaggerated/misunderstood. This is not a critique of the decision, but perhaps a suggestion for how he might have been partially misunderstood.
I agree that he responded immaturely to the downvotes, and I agree that it was counterproductive to call the contest “blowhard”. On the other hand, I feel like a lot of the downvote-ganging was immature in return. Or just insufficiently charitable.
In the comment you say he was sarcastically saying “thank you”, I actually think he meant it sincerely, since this is similar to how I would express myself (emphasising the thanks to make sure it wouldn’t be misunderstood as just a formality).
I also don’t think hubris is a good reason to downvote someone. Regardless of the other things he was doing, he was also efficiently filtering for the attention of people like me—someone eager to explore the ideas of someone who tries exceptionally hard to not conform (and I thought he might especially have interesting perspectives due to being 70).
The moderation team is issuing Phil Tanny a 1-year ban for repeated violation of Forum norms (even after warning). This user repeatedly violated our norms and we didn’t see any attempts on their behalf to follow our Forum’s norms more after we warned them the first time by messaging them and responding to their comments. Some examples:
This comment is unnecessarily rude (the “thank you” in particular is sarcastic).
They posted other comments that are unnecessarily rude (e.g. calling the criticism contest “blowharding.”)
Their reaction to being downvoted was hostile (accusing people of malicious intent or school-like behavior), unproductive, and off-topic.
Thank you, I think that’s the right decision. I think bans for this type of behaviour could improve the forum.
I agree with the decision because of his harmfwl response to being downvoted, but… honestly, I feel like several of those points are exaggerated/misunderstood. This is not a critique of the decision, but perhaps a suggestion for how he might have been partially misunderstood.
I agree that he responded immaturely to the downvotes, and I agree that it was counterproductive to call the contest “blowhard”. On the other hand, I feel like a lot of the downvote-ganging was immature in return. Or just insufficiently charitable.
In the comment you say he was sarcastically saying “thank you”, I actually think he meant it sincerely, since this is similar to how I would express myself (emphasising the thanks to make sure it wouldn’t be misunderstood as just a formality).
I also don’t think hubris is a good reason to downvote someone. Regardless of the other things he was doing, he was also efficiently filtering for the attention of people like me—someone eager to explore the ideas of someone who tries exceptionally hard to not conform (and I thought he might especially have interesting perspectives due to being 70).