PDA

View Full Version : Discuss: staff support staff even when it is unreasonable to do so



yabbadabbadont
February 17th, 2008, 07:53 AM
EDIT by matthew: This is a split from this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=698794). yabbadabbadont didn't actually initiate this discussion, nor did he choose the title for this thread. I moved these posts to a new thread as they didn't fit the topic or the context of the previous, and primarily so that 23meg will have the opportunity to address his concerns (see below) in a thread dedicated to the topic he wants to discuss. Sorry for the inconvenience and any weirdness.


What do you do when it is a moderator? ;)

Bend over. Grab your ankles. Brace yourself...

I have yet to see a single instance in which the mods/admins haven't closed ranks when one of their actions is questioned. Don't get me wrong, most of the time they are justified (in my opinion), but it happens even when someone is clearly wrong.

I refuse to read posts in the Resolution Center because of it. It ticks me off too much, and I have to leave the forums for a few days before I cool off.

LaRoza
February 17th, 2008, 08:01 AM
Bend over. Grab your ankles. Brace yourself...

I have yet to see a single instance in which the mods/admins haven't closed ranks when one of their actions is questioned. Don't get me wrong, most of the time they are justified (in my opinion), but it happens even when someone is clearly wrong.

I refuse to read posts in the Resolution Center because of it. It ticks me off too much, and I have to leave the forums for a few days before I cool off.

I have seen many moderator's actions overturned by an admin through the Resolution Center, even one of mine.

matthew
February 17th, 2008, 11:41 AM
What do you do when it is a moderator? ;)Use the Report post button, post in the Resolution Center, or send me a PM. There have been some incidents in the past where moderators (and admins...me) have made errors in judgment that need correction. We are human, too.


Bend over. Grab your ankles. Brace yourself...

I have yet to see a single instance in which the mods/admins haven't closed ranks when one of their actions is questioned. Don't get me wrong, most of the time they are justified (in my opinion), but it happens even when someone is clearly wrong.

I refuse to read posts in the Resolution Center because of it. It ticks me off too much, and I have to leave the forums for a few days before I cool off.Ouch!

Maybe I'm too close to the subject for you to accept my opinion on the matter, but I think you are being a bit extreme. Yeah, we stick together. I support every member of this staff because I have watched each of them work very hard (for nothing other than a love of doing so) to make these forums as good as possible. Most of the time, they do an outstanding job.

Occasionally, one of us will blow it. I know I have. When errors (or flat out misbehavior) are pointed out we have corrected them. Sometimes out public face isn't as harsh as a complaining user might prefer, but staff members are generally very direct in our discussions amongst ourselves, and I have had some rather uncomfortable discussions with staff members in the past as a direct result of user complaints. This generally does not happen in public because we are dealing with people, who have feelings, who we care about and have no desire to submit to public humiliation. I will not do so, but I could name several instances where I have had conversations with staff members about moderating trends, instances and attitudes, and in a small number of cases, we have even chosen to part ways with some staff members. No one sees this because it is none of their business. However, every one of the admins here take user complaints seriously and investigate them thoroughly, dealing with them in the light of the Forums Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy).

Overall, I believe our staff to be fair and evenhanded in encouraging our users to follow the Forums Code of Conduct, so much so that we only need a small number to moderate a huge forum, with very little actual moderating actions being taken. We are not perfect, but we work very hard to be consistent, fair, and gentle. I'm truly sorry if you have felt otherwise. :(

23meg
February 17th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Yeah, we stick together. I support every member of this staff because I have watched each of them work very hard (for nothing other than a love of doing so) to make these forums as good as possible.

Supporting someone without question in an episode where they have done something indisputably wrong (according to the staff guidelines) is not good practice, regardless of how good their previous work is. You can of course continue to support their position in general, since they'll probably have made hundreds of right decisions against one wrong, but supporting them in the context of the event where they've clearly done wrong, without any arguments as to why they were right in that specific event, simply with reference to their previous work, can look to the outside like blindly defending faulty behavior. I've seen it happen too, and think that it shouldn't happen.

I guess we need another thread split.

matthew
February 17th, 2008, 10:00 PM
23meg: Did you even read the paragraph below the one you quoted?

23meg
February 17th, 2008, 10:07 PM
Of course, but it doesn't address the point I'm making.

p_quarles
February 17th, 2008, 10:09 PM
Of course, but it doesn't address the point I'm making.
It addresses exactly the point you point you are making.

23meg
February 17th, 2008, 10:13 PM
Then I've not been able to get my point across. Anyway, if you decide to split the thread I can try again tomorrow when I have time.

matthew
February 17th, 2008, 11:35 PM
Then I've not been able to get my point across. Anyway, if you decide to split the thread I can try again tomorrow when I have time.For your convenience, I have split the thread as requested. Please continue.

PriceChild
February 18th, 2008, 12:56 AM
I can remember a couple of times, cringing at how someone was dealt with in the Resolution Center. My problem wasn't with how they were dealt with, rather it was the public reply given.

What you don't see when reading the RC is the countless private messages between all parties. The admins don't just reply in the RC, they take time to look over what has happened, discuss it with the members in question, and also debate it in the staff forum. You can see evidence for that in many of the threads. When the admins appear abrupt and unfair in the RC, seemingly defending the moderator for no reason, it can often be put down to the way the offending user has *seriously* violated the Forums CoC repeatedly in these discussions, so much so that there is little patience left for them. Maybe this could be improved to put some of you at ease, but is the public publishing of "private" messages the right thing to do?

We're really not power mad... we have real lives with real things to smile about.

Measured, respectful & polite discussion will never be turned away, and we will ensure we reply with the same.

KiwiNZ
February 18th, 2008, 08:01 AM
What members do not see is what is discussed between staff in the staff only section.

There is a lot of opposing stands . However when a decision is reached it is appropriate to give a united front. This occurs in all aspects of society.

KiwiNZ
February 18th, 2008, 08:03 AM
I have yet to see a single instance in which the mods/admins haven't closed ranks when one of their actions is questioned. Don't get me wrong, most of the time they are justified (in my opinion), but it happens even when someone is clearly wrong.

I refuse to read posts in the Resolution Center because of it. It ticks me off too much, and I have to leave the forums for a few days before I cool off.

Staff have been dismissed in the past for inappropriate action.

yabbadabbadont
February 18th, 2008, 08:15 AM
You're still here... :p :lol:

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that some people believe that this post was serious. It seems obvious to me, given my use of appropriate smileys, that it isn't. May I politely suggest to anyone who believes otherwise, that they need to work on developing a sense of humor? :D

pmasiar
February 18th, 2008, 08:43 PM
My default mode is to support our admins. Until proven guilty, admins are innocent in my eyes. Having "united front" after making a resolution is one possible policy. Another possible policy is to have "minority report" which disagree with majority, even if accepts it. So next time, when similar issue is considered, "minority opinion" can be build on.

Of course I am not admin, and with my opinionated posts have zero chances to become one, so I will never know for sure. :-)

KiwiNZ
February 20th, 2008, 04:19 AM
You're still here... :p :lol:

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that some people believe that this post was serious. It seems obvious to me, given my use of appropriate smileys, that it isn't. May I politely suggest to anyone who believes otherwise, that they need to work on developing a sense of humor? :D

If it were serious would the poster still be here ?:p;):)

yabbadabbadont
February 20th, 2008, 04:29 AM
If it were serious would the poster still be here ?:p;):)

I would assume so, since stating a personal opinion, without the use of invective or other name calling, is not in violation of the CoC. :D

KiwiNZ
February 20th, 2008, 04:34 AM
I would assume so, since stating a personal opinion, without the use of invective or other name calling, is not in violation of the CoC. :D


ummmm

I have a head ache now:)

23meg
February 21st, 2008, 02:12 PM
I've said nothing against things being discussed in private as the issues get dealt with; I actually think it's the correct way of going about things for this site. I'll exemplify.

A member starts a Resolution Center thread reporting misuse of moderator powers
An administrator replies, saying that the issue will be looked into shortly
Private discussion begins in staff forum, with the participation of the moderator in question as well
A resolution is reached and posted by an administrator to the Resolution Center thread
If the issue is settled, discussion ends. If not, the above is repeated.


That's fine. Here's what's not fine:

A member starts a Resolution Center thread reporting misuse of moderator powers
An administrator replies, saying that the issue will be looked into, but that the forum staff have absolute trust in the abilities of the moderator involved, that he or she is a valuable contributor the forums, etc.
The member, who probably is already disturbed by the case, gets enraged by the apparent bias that unconditional support given to the moderator before the issue is even looked into implies
Things get worse

LaRoza
February 21st, 2008, 02:17 PM
I've said nothing against things being discussed in private as the issues get dealt with; I actually think it's the correct way of going about things for this site. I'll exemplify.

A member starts a Resolution Center thread reporting misuse of moderator powers
An administrator replies, saying that the issue will be looked into shortly
Private discussion begins in staff forum, with the participation of the moderator in question as well
A resolution is reached and posted by an administrator to the Resolution Center thread
If the issue is settled, discussion ends. If not, the above is repeated.


That's fine. Here's what's not fine:

A member starts a Resolution Center thread reporting misuse of moderator powers
An administrator replies, saying that the issue will be looked into, but that the forum staff have absolute trust in the abilities of the moderator involved, that he or she is a valuable contributor the forums, etc.
The member, who probably is already disturbed by the case, gets enraged by the apparent bias that unconditional support given to the moderator before the issue is even looked into implies
Things get worse


Getting "enraged" implies being irrational. If someone can't discuss their concerns rationally, it isn't the the duty of the admins to rectify that.

There is no absolute trust in the moderators, we all know that we make misjudgements and we accept that.

We even ask others to help us make decisions if we feel we may be the slightest bit biased.

matthew
February 21st, 2008, 03:29 PM
I've said nothing against things being discussed in private as the issues get dealt with; I actually think it's the correct way of going about things for this site. I'll exemplify.
A member starts a Resolution Center thread reporting misuse of moderator powers
An administrator replies, saying that the issue will be looked into shortly
Private discussion begins in staff forum, with the participation of the moderator in question as well
A resolution is reached and posted by an administrator to the Resolution Center thread
If the issue is settled, discussion ends. If not, the above is repeated.That's fine. Here's what's not fine:
A member starts a Resolution Center thread reporting misuse of moderator powers
An administrator replies, saying that the issue will be looked into, but that the forum staff have absolute trust in the abilities of the moderator involved, that he or she is a valuable contributor the forums, etc.
The member, who probably is already disturbed by the case, gets enraged by the apparent bias that unconditional support given to the moderator before the issue is even looked into implies
Things get worse
Re: your second scenario. Have I done that? That is a serious question, not a challenge. If this is how I have been perceived, it has been the result of an entirely unintentional implication in my communication rather than by intent.

I generally don't post in the Resolution Center at all until I have looked into an issue...Kiwi does a much better job of giving the initial, "We will look into the matter" sort of post. I usually forget to do so, and just look into the matter, and post. There have been a few exceptions that I can recall, where I have followed closer to Kiwi's style of better communication at the beginning.

After all that, I will admit that I am biased. We all are (humans, not just admins). We try not to be, and I certainly work very hard to be fair and just. Even so, I know that I have a much easier time responding to polite requests than I do angry demands. Even if the actual content of the complaint is the same, the style in which it is written will always color the reader's perception of the author. I work very hard to be even-handed, but I won't deny a general human bias when reading that could color a response, causing me to begin from a more defensive, rather than purely objective, position.

23meg
February 21st, 2008, 03:53 PM
Getting "enraged" implies being irrational. If someone can't discuss their concerns rationally, it isn't the the duty of the admins to rectify that.

I'm not saying that it is. The behavior in my example can, however, heighten tension, as well as create tension when it doesn't exist. But the very fact that someone is starting a Resolution Center thread is almost guaranteed to mean that there is some tension, no matter how rationally controlled it is, because there's a conflict of rights issue at hand.


There is no absolute trust in the moderators,

Yes, most of the time, there isn't, and there shouldn't be. But I've seen cases where that's been implied, or maybe cases where people came across that way.


Re: your second scenario. Have I done that?

Yes, I did get the impression at least once. I also have seen other similar cases involving others but I'd need to do some digging to cite specifics (I don't think there's any need to, however).


That is a serious question, not a challenge. If this is how I have been perceived, it has been the result of an entirely unintentional implication in my communication rather than by intent.


Probably. I'm actually raising all of this so that you are aware that you've been perceived that way at least once, by at least one person, which is to say that what you've done can be interpreted that way, not necessarily that your intention is questionable.


After all that, I will admit that I am biased.

Biased toward the "right"ness of moderators by default? Is that what you mean? If so, on one hand, I can understand that: the very fact that someone is a moderator at a given time implies that they have the trust of the administration. On the other hand, if this bias is made explicit a priori, within the context of specific cases, that's very likely to cause communication and trust problems.



We try not to be, and I certainly work very hard to be fair and just. Even so, I know that I have a much easier time responding to polite requests than I do angry demands. Even if the actual content of the complaint is the same, the style in which it is written will always color the reader's perception of the author. I work very hard to be even-handed, but I won't deny a general human bias when reading that could color a response, causing me to begin from a more defensive, rather than purely objective, position.

That's all fine and I agree, but it doesn't have any necessary connection with my point.

matthew
February 21st, 2008, 04:08 PM
Yes, I did get the impression at least once. I also have seen other similar cases involving others but I'd need to do some digging to cite specifics (I don't think there's any need to, however).Sorry. That was never intended.


Biased toward the "right"ness of moderators by default? Is that what you mean? If so, on one hand, I can understand that: the very fact that someone is a moderator at a given time implies that they have the trust of the administration.That was what I meant, not that I begin with any particular bias towards the specifics of a case prior to investigation. All things being equal, I will tend to favor those I know and trust over those I do not know. Knowing that is true makes it possible to consciously try to listen through that bias, striving to avoid allowing it to negatively affect my perceptions of the merits of a case.

My other point does have a connection to your overall theme in that the manner in which a complaint is made has a direct bearing on the ability of the listener to sympathize with the complainant. A person who is yelled at always feels defensive and their initial response will be negative, either by withdrawing or fighting. A person who is spoken to softly will naturally be more apt to hear a person and will be more ready to address their concerns with a positive attitude.

What I was really getting at is that there exists no one who does not have biases. The best we can do is try to recognize them, admit to them, and minimize their effects on our actions as much as possible.

I was also hinting that there is a way for people who have genuine grievances to get them addressed favorably that is easier, and a way that makes a successful complaint resolution more difficult. This is true in far more places than our little niche on the web. It is true in shops, government offices, within families, and everywhere. The better you treat the person you are talking to, the more likely they will listen with a sympathetic ear. I was admitting that as one charged with helping to resolve issues, as well as simply stating it as an observer of human nature.

pmasiar
February 21st, 2008, 06:57 PM
Biased toward the "right"ness of moderators by default?

Let's pretend we are adults here, OK?


1. Captain is always right.

2. If Captain is wrong, rule 1 applies.

3. Life is not fair. Surprised? Get used to it.

Admins and mods are making this contribution to the community, in their own free time when they could do something more fun, or make money, or spend time with friends or family. Last thing I want is waste their time. Fact that they gained trust and got admin/mod powers makes then un-equal to plain members, and it is obvious that they trust each other more that plain random forum members.

Obvious suggestion, you probably are doing it anyway:
You admin/mod guys and gals may want to prepare snippets which should be posted, so ie. matthew will not forgot to post "we look into the matter" as he admitted. Having "best practices" snippets to follow.

p_quarles
February 21st, 2008, 07:03 PM
4. Never talk about Fight Club.


Admins and mods are making this contribution to the community, in their own free time when they could do something more fun, or make money, or spend time with friends or family. Last thing I want is waste their time. Fact that they gained trust and got admin/mod powers makes then un-equal to plain members, and it is obvious that they trust each other more that plain random forum members.
I can only speak for myself, but I think most of us truly strive to be fair, or at least more fair than life itself. I've only been a mod for a month now, and have made several mistakes that I recognize as such.

The last thing I want is to be immune from the criticism and oversight of "plain random forum members" (quoted not in sarcasm, just because I disagree with the characterization).

LaRoza
February 21st, 2008, 07:05 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I think most of us truly strive to be fair, or at least more fair than life itself. I've only been a mod for a month now, and have made several mistakes that I recognize as such.


I try to be fair at all times (like all of us, I would say).

I (and the others) will normally not handle issues that we may have a biased to. We ask the others to look at it.

pmasiar
February 21st, 2008, 08:12 PM
most of us truly strive to be fair, or at least more fair than life itself.

I never doubt that.

My point is, if someone think that his/her time is best spent to make sure that volunteer (unpaid) mods are 101% fair on free forum, maybe her time is better spend in defending whales, preserving rain forests, eradicating HIV, fighting global warming or bringing peace to Palestine. All worthy clauses of course - so exactly more valuable for humanity and planet than saving internet forum.

LaRoza
February 21st, 2008, 08:14 PM
My point is, if someone think that his/her time is best spent to make sure that volunteer (unpaid) mods are 101% fair on free forum, maybe her time is better spend in defending whales, preserving rain forests, eradicating HIV, fighting global warming or bringing peace to Palestine. All worthy clauses of course - so exactly more valuable for humanity and planet than saving internet forum.

I posted this in the staff forum with the thought it may be a UF staff member:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

p_quarles
February 21st, 2008, 08:16 PM
I never doubt that.

My point is, if someone think that his/her time is best spent to make sure that volunteer (unpaid) mods are 101% fair on free forum, maybe her time is better spend in defending whales, preserving rain forests, eradicating HIV, fighting global warming or bringing peace to Palestine. All worthy clauses of course - so exactly more valuable for humanity and planet than saving internet forum.
Agreed. It's a human tendency to get overly wrapped up in certain things and lose perspective. It never hurts to take a step back and weigh what interests oneself against things that are important to everyone.

23meg
February 22nd, 2008, 12:16 AM
Sorry. That was never intended.

I'm sure it wasn't. If it's not clear enough by now, let me state again that nothing I said has anything necessarily to do with intentions on your part, but with how things may come across language barriers, temper, the context of particular events, so on.


That was what I meant, not that I begin with any particular bias towards the specifics of a case prior to investigation. All things being equal, I will tend to favor those I know and trust over those I do not know. Knowing that is true makes it possible to consciously try to listen through that bias, striving to avoid allowing it to negatively affect my perceptions of the merits of a case.

My other point does have a connection to your overall theme in that the manner in which a complaint is made has a direct bearing on the ability of the listener to sympathize with the complainant. A person who is yelled at always feels defensive and their initial response will be negative, either by withdrawing or fighting. A person who is spoken to softly will naturally be more apt to hear a person and will be more ready to address their concerns with a positive attitude.

What I was really getting at is that there exists no one who does not have biases. The best we can do is try to recognize them, admit to them, and minimize their effects on our actions as much as possible.

I was also hinting that there is a way for people who have genuine grievances to get them addressed favorably that is easier, and a way that makes a successful complaint resolution more difficult. This is true in far more places than our little niche on the web. It is true in shops, government offices, within families, and everywhere. The better you treat the person you are talking to, the more likely they will listen with a sympathetic ear. I was admitting that as one charged with helping to resolve issues, as well as simply stating it as an observer of human nature.

All fair enough.


Admins and mods are making this contribution to the community, in their own free time when they could do something more fun, or make money, or spend time with friends or family. Last thing I want is waste their time. Fact that they gained trust and got admin/mod powers makes then un-equal to plain members, and it is obvious that they trust each other more that plain random forum members.

I don't mind people in a social circle trusting each other more than others "by default", as long as that "default" doesn't become prejudice and is always flexible. I also didn't state that it has, or there's a trend heading towards that. I'm a moderator myself in two subforums on this site and I myself will admit to being part of a certain chain of trust.


My point is, if someone think that his/her time is best spent to make sure that volunteer (unpaid) mods are 101% fair on free forum, maybe her time is better spend in defending whales, preserving rain forests, eradicating HIV, fighting global warming or bringing peace to Palestine. All worthy clauses of course - so exactly more valuable for humanity and planet than saving internet forum.

I did not raise this issue out of nowhere; I chimed in on a comment made by someone else in a random thread. I obviously would have raised it in the proper way before, had I found it warranted. The fact that I didn't should state the amount of importance I attach to it.

I'll take Palestine, you take HIV. Back to work.

kevdog
February 22nd, 2008, 05:12 AM
I read this whole thread thus far -- definitely seems Im missing the incident that inspired the theme behind this thread -- Anyone want to fill in the details?

23meg
February 22nd, 2008, 06:15 AM
It's not inspired by one particular incident; it grew out of a general observation.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 11:27 AM
It's not inspired by one particular incident; it grew out of a general observation.

There is no such thing as a 'general observation'. If it can be 'observed', it is a specific item or instance. If it's 'general', it is a generalisation. You can not 'just generally observe' without observing anything in particular.

The generalisation might be based on specific observations, in which case there might be some substance to it. On the other hand, some 'generalisations' are some kind of fuzzy impression. A synonym for the second kind of 'generalisation' is 'prejudice'.

I can not recall having seen a case in UF where 'staff supported staff even when it was unreasonable to do so'.

I have seen cases where one member was admonished or reprimanded by one staff member, which resulted in some discussion, which then was joined by other staff members saying roughly the same as the first staff member.

This does, however, not fall under the heading of this thread. IMO, the first staff member was right in reprimanding the forum member, and the other staff members joining the fun later were of the same opinion, and that opinion happened to be the one I also thought correct.

In some of those cases, I thought very highly of all of the staff in light of the ugly tone and ad hominem arguments used by the forum member.

Upon re-reading what I have written I notice that I apparently have introduced two classes of members: 'Forum members' and 'staff members', when I just wanted to differentiate between people belonging to staff from those not belonging to staff. Please consider this post suitably corrected.

LaRoza
February 22nd, 2008, 12:00 PM
I read this whole thread thus far -- definitely seems Im missing the incident that inspired the theme behind this thread -- Anyone want to fill in the details?

This thread was started by a comment on another thread. It was separatated to allow more discussion.

There was no specific action of a staff member that inspired this.

23meg
February 22nd, 2008, 03:49 PM
There is no such thing as a 'general observation'. If it can be 'observed', it is a specific item or instance. If it's 'general', it is a generalisation. You can not 'just generally observe' without observing anything in particular.

Semantics. What I mean is that the thread wasn't triggered by a specific event, but by rough observations whose specifics weren't immediately at hand as the thread got split, as can be seen in the first post. Of course there are particular events that have been observed (as noted later in my fifth post), but my point was that the thread isn't about those in particular, but about an issue of conduct related to those.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 03:53 PM
What I mean is that the thread wasn't triggered by a specific event, but by rough observations whose specifics weren't immediately at hand

Ah, that's different. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

pmasiar
February 22nd, 2008, 11:25 PM
It's not inspired by one particular incident; it grew out of a general observation.

I am glad you are back - So Palestine is fixed? :-) Great news, I was kinda worried about them :-)

Sorry could not resist :-)

yabbadabbadont
February 23rd, 2008, 01:28 AM
Ah, that's different. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

I wasn't going to bother to search for past events for this, but during my normal browsing, I came across the following... :roll:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=704706

popch
February 23rd, 2008, 10:05 AM
I wasn't going to bother to search for past events for this, but during my normal browsing, I came across the following... :roll:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=704706

That might seem to be a point in case, but that thread is more recent than your posts within this thread.

I agree that the situation described in this (and related) threads is somewhat unfortunate. It does not explain itself readily to the public but seems to be a weird concatenation of circumstances and tempers. Though I could observe it in nearly real time, I am, of course, not in possession of all facts needed to arrive at a judgment. (Not that I would pass judgment here, anyway).

That thread contains indeed an example of staff apparently supporting staff. However, it is not a case of one member of staff butting in to tell that the decision taken by another member was correct.

If you read that thread closely, the second member intervened because of a perceived violation of the CoC within the exchange between a forum member and the first staff member. The n-th staff members joining the fun (n>2) then tried to deescalate the thing. They, in turn, clearly admitted that both sides might have contributed to the situation.

The thread you mentioned shows another thing quite clearly:

Staff admonish or reprimand forum members in highly formalized (stylised) manner which does not convey any emotional content. The emotions evoked within the forum member do, however predictable, raise entirely within himself or herself.

Forum members do neither have the means nor (often) the inclination to do the same when calling the attention of a member of staff to something they should have done differently. Words are often not minced in that case.

To show this in terms which are a bit less abstract. I hasten to say that this is not a summary of what happened in the thread mentioned above.

staff: you have received a warning. Reason: using inappropriate language.
member: My, are you heavy handed today. That was not called for. My younger cousin's boyfriend does not find that kind of language inappropriate at all and I don't, either. Why don't you and your crowd come off your high horses and behave like real people?

Does anyone see some kind of asymmetry here, too?