I appreciate that these kinds of moderation decisions can be difficult, but I also don’t agree with the warning to Halstead. And if it is to be given, then I am uncomfortable that Halstead has been singled out—it would seem consistent to apply the same warning to me, as I supported Halstead’s claims, and added my own, both without providing evidence.
With regard to the people mentioned, neither are forum regulars, and my understanding is that neither have plans for continued collaborations with Phil.
(As with other comments in this thread, I’m 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 don’t think it encounters the same problems:
Regarding your support for Halstead’s claims — I think the original claimant should try very hard to present evidence, but I don’t 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 Phil’s 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 — the accusations were less severe, and weren’t essential to the overall message of your comments.
That said, I don’t think it was fair to only “warn” Halstead — 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.
I appreciate that these kinds of moderation decisions can be difficult, but I also don’t agree with the warning to Halstead. And if it is to be given, then I am uncomfortable that Halstead has been singled out—it would seem consistent to apply the same warning to me, as I supported Halstead’s claims, and added my own, both without providing evidence.
With regard to the people mentioned, neither are forum regulars, and my understanding is that neither have plans for continued collaborations with Phil.
Simon Beard is providing the foreword for his forthcoming book, and Luke Kemp has provided a supporting quote for it.
(As with other comments in this thread, I’m 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 don’t think it encounters the same problems:
Regarding your support for Halstead’s claims — I think the original claimant should try very hard to present evidence, but I don’t 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 Phil’s 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 — the accusations were less severe, and weren’t essential to the overall message of your comments.
That said, I don’t think it was fair to only “warn” Halstead — 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.