(As with other comments in this thread, Iām responding as an individual moderator rather than as a voice of the moderation team.)
Thank you for sharing this comment. While I read your comment closely when considering a warning to Halstead, I donāt think it encounters the same problems:
Regarding your support for Halsteadās claims ā I think the original claimant should try very hard to present evidence, but I donāt think the same burden falls on people who support them (in part because they might not have evidence of their own).
Regarding your own claims: While your comments had some unsupported accusations, many of the accusations did have support, and most of what you wrote was a discussion of Philās writing rather than his actions or character (making it easier for someone to verify). To the extent that you violated the norm of providing evidence for accusations, you violated it to a lesser degree than Halstead ā the accusations were less severe, and werenāt essential to the overall message of your comments.
That said, I donāt think it was fair to only āwarnā Halstead ā looking back, I think the ideal response might have been to reply to the ban announcement (or write a separate post) reminding people to try to avoid making accusations without evidence, and pointing to examples from multiple users. Our goal was to reinforce a norm, not to punish anyone.
(As with other comments in this thread, Iām responding as an individual moderator rather than as a voice of the moderation team.)
Thank you for sharing this comment. While I read your comment closely when considering a warning to Halstead, I donāt think it encounters the same problems:
Regarding your support for Halsteadās claims ā I think the original claimant should try very hard to present evidence, but I donāt think the same burden falls on people who support them (in part because they might not have evidence of their own).
Regarding your own claims: While your comments had some unsupported accusations, many of the accusations did have support, and most of what you wrote was a discussion of Philās writing rather than his actions or character (making it easier for someone to verify). To the extent that you violated the norm of providing evidence for accusations, you violated it to a lesser degree than Halstead ā the accusations were less severe, and werenāt essential to the overall message of your comments.
That said, I donāt think it was fair to only āwarnā Halstead ā looking back, I think the ideal response might have been to reply to the ban announcement (or write a separate post) reminding people to try to avoid making accusations without evidence, and pointing to examples from multiple users. Our goal was to reinforce a norm, not to punish anyone.