So, @moderators, that was agreement with rashemel?

Community Bar Sport
1

There was a thread by someone whose name escapes me, drook3 or similar?, about him doing some amateur security at work.

rashemel went way over the top and called that OP something really vile, which rashemel later bleeped out in an edit. I had meantime asked the mods to step in and admonish rashemmle. The latter also asked for the thread to be blocked, on the hypothesis that anyone helping would basically be aiding and abetting some wrong doing.

Now the thread's gone, presumably moderated away since an OP can't delete his or her own thread. edit

So mods, please explain what your view was there. Was rashommel right in calling that OP what he called him? Is the deletion of that thread tacit agreement that the thread was malicious, in the sense that the OP was up to no good, as distinct from being merely misguided?

Was rashemmel admonished and or asked to apologise to that OP for the vile name he called him? (Certainly didn't appear in public, if s/he was.) Or was moderating the thread away just a simple way of sweeping it under the carpet as if it had never happened?

2

Ok my bad: the thread's still there. I followed a link that I had saved to rashemel's post, and the post had gone. Thread's still there though, which is good, giving OP there the benefit of the doubt.

I would still like to know if rashemel was admonished for what s/he said.

3

neiklot:
Ok my bad: the thread's still there.

Link, please?

...R

4

Robin2:
Link, please?

...R

Here. All the nastiness was stripped out, but I do have a save of the quote :wink:

5

@raschemmel (note spelling) has not been admonished (this time), nor given a timeout (this time).

Sometimes, it's just simpler to delete the nonsense, and move on, hoping the implied message gets through, when other sanctions have failed.

I'm all for "simpler" - it helps keep my blood pressure down.