Ok, interpretations differ, but I don't think the median reader would find sudden, random questioning of another commenter's personal sexuality "perfectly reasonable". I think they'd find it egregious and aggressive.
Also, when we we ban an account, it's usually because of a repeated pattern of behavior, not just one comment. Had it just been one comment, I'd have warned rather than banned.
" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "
> Also, when we we ban an account, it's usually because of a repeated pattern of behavior, not just one comment. Had it just been one comment, I'd have warned rather than banned.
Exactly two of said user's posts were deleted (and they seemed quite mild), they did not get any warning. Also interesting how you did not reply to the user themselves.
Meanwhile you have actual toxic people like DanBC, tptacek, and a few others roaming around freely. Subjective and selective enforcement of rules is worse than no enforcement.
Saying "seriously" meant, as a security professional, I have a very legitimate, passionate interest in social psychology - not that I wanted to poke fun at someone.
We're all here to analyze and learn from each other - or....should be.
Not for nothing, Dan, it could also be considered rude in some circles to publicly engage with a third party about a person when being addressed by that person.
Also, when we we ban an account, it's usually because of a repeated pattern of behavior, not just one comment. Had it just been one comment, I'd have warned rather than banned.