Hi anon. When it comes to the reports we receive, our rule as a staff is to err in favor of lenience whenever possible.
We received a number of different reports concerning your post, and i discussed the situation briefly with another moderator.
i opted to apply a warning, in lieu of a ban, as we have a fairly substantial post history of rule-skirting behavior and otherwise dismissed reports, for baiting, political derailing, and Rule 6 violations from you.
The only means the staff really has for interpreting ill intentions is to look at the record of posts and how a user chooses to interact with the site, and the community.
Anons as well, in particular, can be difficult to adjudicate, as many have switching IP addresses, without any sort of name or characteristic to link one anon's actions to another. >>1101
we had at least three separate posters interpret your post as having meant this. i had interpreted it myself as shedding of blood.
The ambiguous thread OP post, combined with this obvious political statement, finally interpreted in light of both your post history, and the reports received both for the thread OP post, and the post in question, pushed this over the line from a dismissal, to a report requiring action. As we have issued warnings in the past, this was escalated to a ban, but de-escalated back to a warning, so as to be more in line with our preference for leniency.
i hope that our decision makes more sense now.