Thread:Bourgeoisie/@comment-4552817-20150216091843/@comment-5198107-20150218015914

I wasn't actually on chat at the time, but from what I can tell, the ban was pretty unjustified.

It seems that there was a debate going on, and Bourge and Ajr weren't aware that how they were debating was breaking policy. BCGirl says that 3 users PMed her telling her they felt offended, but she didn't make this clear to George or Ajr. I agree that the "keep it civil" warning was too vague to be used as a valid reason for the ban.

BCGirl also said "at last another user was successful in switching topics and the matter was over," but then said she "thought it was a strong enough case that needed resolving." If the matter was over, why did it need resolving after the fact?

I'd also like to comment on Drew's response. He says, "even if the policy wasn't violated, it's just pure stupidity to ignore a moderator's warnings and expect to not be banned." It's pure stupidity to expect to not be banned for not violating a policy? I understand where he's coming from about respecting other users, but moderators shouldn't be allowed to ban people because they ignored an unjustified warning.

I feel like this situation somewhat stems from the longheld views here that rights are just ranks users can have to wield power over other users. While this isn't as blatantly obvious as it used to be, it's still there in the background.

I hope this isn't necessary, but I thought I should make it clear that I respect both BCGirl and Drew and did not mean to make any of what I've said seem like a jab at either of them.

Just my two cents.