C N Red

Thanks_Tom RR

Thanks_Tom RR

New member
I am going to give C N Red a warning and a 3-day suspension for calling posters 'idiots' twice in the Trev Alberts thread. Moved his comments to the Junkyard, here

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He seens none too happy about it. Here's the email he sent. I'll forward it to you if you'd like to respond.

From: "Adam Ketteler" <skercrazy@yahoo.com>

To: admin@huskerboard.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:53:45 AM

Subject: suspension

So i got suspended for what?? Thanks tom rr said i attacked posters? I specifically stated the posts were idiotic, not the poster.
Click to expand...
 
If you think a suspension was too far, that's fine, but he at least earned the warning. I would be happy to respond to his email, if you forward it.

 
I haven't seen everything, so I don't want to say it should be one or the other. Assuming he's a relatively good member with a good history, this could be an opportunity to agree to just a warning, but point out to him that kind of posting does no good for anyone. Sort of a "I'll bend if you'll bend" kind of thing. But your call - do what you think is apprpriate.

 
Yeah, CN Red has been a good poster for a long time. But those two posts are the sort of inflammatory posts that start a sh#tstorm. It was absolutely appropriate to move those posts to the Offending Posts thread Junkyard. And to give him a warning. Probably a day suspension will emphasize the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I don't really buy the "I was talking about the posts" if you're saying they were idiotic. I've seen that a couple times recently. That's really trying to finesse the definition. Something some lawyer would do.
default_ohmy.png


To me it was definitely across the line. However, I usually look at a little history to decide on a suspension. If it's a first-time deal, usually a warning is fine (unless it's really over the top). C N Red does have one previous warning but it's from three years ago so another warning would probably be fine here.

 
Well, I do not take our suspension responsibilities lightly. If you read the Trev Alberts thread, you can see C N Red was rather fired up about his position. By the end, he started responding by calling others idiots. I figured I would do him a favor and give him a little time off to cool down before more was said. If he has calmed down and is ready to continue to be civil (which was the goal of the suspension), then I will lift the suspension early.

 
Yeah, I'm not blaming you TTRR. You were obviously more in tune to what was going on that most of us. If that's what you thought was the way to go, I can support it.

Just adding a couple things to consider. It's can be a fine line. Lively debate is a good thing. But there are limits.

 
Without considering the context and just looking at those posts, I would probably have gone less than a suspension -- but, like Mavric said, this is your call. I'm positive you were very judicious in your use of action.

When someone steps over a line and gets a talking to, there are usually two types of responses. "Ah, sorry, my bad" and "I got suspended for that?!??!?! But ___ and ___ and ____ said ____, etc...etc...This is B.S."

I generally don't have much hope for people who choose the latter.

 
Mav, I took no offense to your suggestions. I sent C N Red an email to discuss his suspension and gave him the opinion of lifting his suspension now if he is ready to rejoin the board with a civil disposition.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
Without considering the context and just looking at those posts, I would probably have gone less than a suspension -- but, like Mavric said, this is your call. I'm positive you were very judicious in your use of action.

When someone steps over a line and gets a talking to, there are usually two types of responses. "Ah, sorry, my bad" and "I got suspended for that?!??!?! But ___ and ___ and ____ said ____, etc...etc...This is B.S."

I generally don't have much hope for people who choose the latter.
Click to expand...
It appears CNR has resigned to the latter.

I never meant it as an attack on anybody. I just meant it as an attack on perception of what people have been "told" or "believe" about the Trev Alberts thing. I posted later in the topic twice, no problems. I don't consider idiotic posts mean a person is an idiot. I've made many of my own idiotic posts and would not feel attacked if someone told me my post was idiotic, stupid, dumb etc. It's their opinion. Now if they specifically call me stupid or dumb I also probably wouldn't care, but could see how some people are probably so sensitive it might hurt their feelings. But with everything I see going on around the board and with posters it baffles me how me saying posts are idiotic even registers.CNR
Click to expand...
These types of justifications seem like arguments I get from my kids, "You misunderstand my intentions for my bad behavior" or "Other people can get away with it, so why can't I". I am going to pass on having that type of conversation with an adult.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top