Taymelo suspended one week

[Hermy]

Since we're having this discussion I might as well ask this question to those of you that are in disagreement with Tay's suspension, would you have been okay if Taymelo had received preferential treatment and nothing was done? Be honest.

If poster A makes negative "fried chicken/watermelon" comments and gets a week off, and then poster B, who is in a position of influence/"power" here makes similar comments but nothing is done, would you think that is okay?

The problem I have isn't preferential treatment, its genuine racism vs. critical annalysis of a touchy subject.

Look, black people maybe do like chicken, but to say it in the context it was said is grounds for a ban. It wasn't said to be funny or intelectual, it was said to get a rise out of someone. You get banned for that at WRH, you should get banned for that anywhere that doesn't come with a disclaimer allowing it. It's intent is to do harm.

What Tay did is the kind of thing that should be encouraged. He spoke openly about a taboo. Black people don't tip. Is it a stereotype? Hell yeah. Is it true? Hell yeah. Why not talk about it? I didn't give good service to blacks because I wasn't rewarded as a server, lets bring it up. This is the internet, not a boardroom, fopauxs are the norm. The trouble lies in placing boundaries on grey areas.

If Tay received different treatment because of whom he was here I would be furious, I'm banned from boards for exactly that, but that isn't what I see. I see ambiguity, which breeds contempt and confusion. Let me put it this way Glenn, if someone has a "ask a black guy" thread, and I ask "why don't black people tip?" is that grounds for a ban now? I said "black people don't tip"....I presented it as fact, I issued a stereotype. No different than what Tay did, he just did it in his ultra-descript manner.

You are all treading in a very murky pond here, and answers of "cause we said so" and "you can leave if you don't like it" are only going to further schism the congregation. I appreciate your efforts Glenn, but I can't see any answer you could provide at the point you stand I could accept.

Nice post, Herm. Thanks for taking the time.

(Speaking for myself here) I think if we were confident that 100% of the poster base was capable of having that discussion without it completely coming off the tracks, we would do just that.

Do you think that's possible here? IMO, it's not likely, which is why instead of trying to define the boundary that is undefinable we chose to make it simple and avoid the slippery slope. Stay away from the touchy racial stuff. That makes it pretty clear, no ambiguity. I'm sorry, but stating generalities as fact will lead nowhere good. "All (insert racial group) do/are this (insert your sterotype of choice)" is flat out ignorance.

Well, I tried despite having you telling me in advance it was impossible to sway you. Thanks for sharing your opinion in a civilized manner, at least. Hopefully we'll at least get some clarity here when we're done if nothing else.

Now, where do you get off inserting "ALL"? That never happened, and shouldn't be a conclusion drawn. Actually, I don't even really get where that is headed.

What then is touchy? Can we talk about Jon Barry being "scrappy"? Are Euro players "soft"? May I dicuss Reggie White's "Mexicans in a house" take? Is what I'm doint right now in violation? I'm discussing race, in a touchy way, yes? Your extreme is infinitly more ambiguous/slippery-slope than one that butts up against being inflamitory. Your litmus seems to be "I don't like that". If you don't want to wade in the pool I'd remove the "touchy" part alltogether and just say don't talk about it at all.

[Hermy]

So while you and I and a handful of others feel that we can discuss a topic with intelligence all it takes is one biggot or imature fool to change the topic with a lack of maturity and knowledge disparity. To me that is the greatest issue and trouble, we can truly distinguish what is meant as fun and what is meant to be venom as a whole. Context is abstract in the cyber world. It is easy to say we can look at it case by case .

How is this not exactly what you're doing? I guess I need to understand how you all interpret your policy and where this finality you and Glenn are getting at exists.

[JS]

Herm when you say the name of a group and then make an observation it is not clear if you mean all or those you have encountered or whatever, so "All" doesn't need to be used for it be understood as such for minds that want to accept it as all they do.

And I agree with your last point, not talking about it at all seems to be the best option. With that said if the discussion is something that was said publicly or is entertainment and is newsworthy there is no harm in discussion of the topic such as the "Reggie White rant", if you agree or disagree with his comments that is your choice and you are free to discuss your feeelings, as long as you are not directing your comments at another person or poster base to bait. However when a poster who has no public standing or no known resume to start a thread about said group, we don't now where they a coming from or what they are doing interms of intent, what their sample size of the theory is or what their evidence is. Therefore every subsquent post after that carries a new burden of proof and evidence that is based on their once again limited point of view. That is not acceptable in my view.

If a poster joined and said I work for such and such company, and we have studied said sterotype andI would like to get a feel for what others think about our finding. I would first check into their actual background and then allow them to proceed most likely, but just because a person was a waiter for 10 days or a lifetime doesn't mean that they are a qualified sociologist. With that said if the group providing the study had a pro-whatever group doctrine I would not allow it to be used as evidence or as a legit topic about the sterotype.

[Glenn]

Now, where do you get off inserting "ALL"? That never happened, and shouldn't be a conclusion drawn. Actually, I don't even really get where that is headed.

re: "all"

Come on Herm. You and I both know when someone says "black people don't tip" or "forget about the Pakistanis" they don't mean "some" and they don't mean "the one's that I know".

You know the "all" is understood.

Now it seems like you are trying to muddy the issue, not clarify it. And by touchy I mean just that. If you think someone might get offended, they probably will.

I know that you enjoy the contrarian role, but let's keep it constructive, okay?

[JS]

The way I look at the policy is simple. It allowed for us to say racist statements had no place but fringe sterotypes and humor had a limited role as long as they remianed in check and in context. We allowed some of that to occur and for awhile because it was held in check for a while, but then the limit was pushed, we offered up warnings and asked nicely for the behavior to stop. Some people did while others ignored and wanted to further test our limits, we punished accordingly, but still were willing to look at it case by case. However once again the limited was pushed and more warnings and punishments were issued however they limit was again tested to the point that we are no longer finding that case by case examination works. It sucks that people are being suspended after one inncident but the fact is we did everything in the open so that it would deter behavior, it did not. So the finality of our views isn't a matter of a sudden change in policy it is a reaction to the enviroment in which we see is no longer in control.

[Hermy]

Now, where do you get off inserting "ALL"? That never happened, and shouldn't be a conclusion drawn. Actually, I don't even really get where that is headed.

re: "all"

Come on Herm. You and I both know when someone says "black people don't tip" or "forget about the Pakistanis" they don't mean "some" and they don't mean "the one's that I know".

You know the "all" is understood.

Now it seems like you are trying to muddy the issue, not clarify it. And by touchy I mean just that. If you think someone might get offended, they probably will.

I know that you enjoy the contrarian role, but let's keep it constructive, okay?

Couldn't disagree more. You do NOT mean all, you mean generally. You are wrong. When I say "black people don't tip" I mean if I get 100 tips.....whatever, you get it.

If I say "black people are poor", what do I mean Glenn? Do I mean there are no rich blacks? No, I don't. I'm speaking of the mean. Which I believe was later shown to be true as the results of a days tips were shown. Hardly scientific, but enough to support his original question.

I don't enjoy contrainianism, I am disillusioned by misinterpretation. Maybe thats why Tay got banned for all I know, maybe you didn't understand what he said. Seriously, I'm a bit taken aback.

[Glenn]

He wasn't banned, he's suspended for a week. However, I do realize that "banned" is much more dramatic.

The specific rule, updated by Taymelo on 7/5/06, states:

1. No racial/ethnic insults. We tolerate innocent jokes that are in context. However, we do not tolerate racial/ethnic comments made with malicious intent (the Syndicate will be the judge, jury, and executioners with respect to determining intent)

What he posted was not an innocent joke, and was not in a good natured context. Further, several posters made it known that they were offended. No apology was issued. I can't see how anyone can say that he was wronged in any way, especially since he wrote the friggin rule and is one of this site's founders!

These things that we are saying (JS and I), and the rule shown above are near carbon copies of his own words. Where's the injustice?

[Hermy]

Fair, set up whatever you want. I don't know your policy right now, and wouldn't know if I was breaking it, were I to tread in that direction, which I will at some point. This will continue to be the case here for most I imagine, where it be race or gender or "what's for lunch". If you are comfortable with that so am I, but let me promise this will be back in a matter of months. I will simply bump these posts.

I'm done with this, I will continue the "all" discussion if you choose as that bothers me much more than if I can suggest that black people like chrome wheels.

[JS]

See Herm, you are illustrating our point more than you are making your own. As a result of the cyber world we are talking in Glenn and myself can only examine you based on a limited knowledge base, we don't know you or your intent. While both may be in the right place, we don't truly know. And if simple examples you make can be skewed or twisted beyond your intent you can see the problem this board has when 50 people look at your comments or try to understand your intent. Everyone has their own agenda and will use words of others to further their own as they need.

I don't know how to better explain myself.

[the wrath of diddy]

Did you suspend srt4b for complaining about black people tipping?

Did you suspend Varsity for responding to Taymelo's post about black's not tipping with "that's funny coming from a Jew of ALL people"?

Nope.