Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
Maybe it's a part of reading comprehension that is related to a mental issue?
Spoiler
Too soon? :p
where's the rule against posting private messages? like i get that it's a questionable thing to do, but i don't see any rule in the guidelines post that says you will be banned permanently if you make private messages public, or anything about pms.
I've never understood why PMs were so sacred. I'd love for someone to explain it.
I feel the clue is in the word 'private'
where's the rule against posting private messages? like i get that it's a questionable thing to do, but i don't see any rule in the guidelines post that says you will be banned permanently if you make private messages public, or anything about pms.
Quite possibly King Spew was just looking for an excuse to ban him.
Could not be less surprised by who is questioning this rule.
sure seems that way (but tbf i think they admitted that the modding here is purely arbitrary). i mean sure he was weird and a bad poster, but that describes pretty much everyone on this forum, so idk
hey look mr ad hominem attack is big time back, with yet more ad hominems. pretty shocked over here
Vicious ad hom bro
Man i did not know the word private was so hard to understand.
where's the rule against posting private messages? like i get that it's a questionable thing to do, but i don't see any rule in the guidelines post that says you will be banned permanently if you make private messages public, or anything about pms.
That's probably why no one was banned permanently. š
AFAIK, there's no rule specifically written about it, and differing opinions among moderators about it. The one rule that I would say covers this particular case is this one (from the 2+2 Rules, linked at the top of every page):
2. No threatening, wishing harm upon others, or “doxxing”.
Threats, whether serious or not, will be treated harshly. Keep in mind that it isn’t always apparent when a threat is meant as a joke. The same applies to doxxing (revealing private information about individuals), or threats to dox someone. Wishing harm upon others, suggesting suicide, etc., will also be treated very harshly.
And I will note that "doxxing" is also something people would have varying opinions about the definition of. In this case I'm thinking of what's in the parentheses - "revealing private information about individuals". That's some pretty private **** that KS shared with jbouton.
If you mean why PMs should always be sacred under any circumstances, sure, I'd agree with that. Like, if someone is sent an abusive PM, I can see sharing it. Or maybe if it was something innocuous that you're confident the person would be OK with sharing, but even in that case if it were me I'd share only the general sentiment of the PM. But if you mean that they should never be sacred, that's a standpoint I really can't understand. If someone is told something that is clearly said in confidence, people shouldn't be sharing that **** publicly, and I think it's reasonable that there'd be consequences in some cases.
hey look mr ad hominem attack is big time back, with yet more ad hominems. pretty shocked over here
Oh, c'mon man. LOL at calling that out as an ad hominem when it's in response to this:
Like, what argument is Luckbox making here that is supposed to be argued against rather than "attacking" the poster (which is a stretch here). LB is basically saying that KS banned jbouton just because he felt like it, which if anything, is the only attack I see in this exchange. But of course it's not an attack because LB said "quite possibly". š It's the same kind of thing LB constantly pulls in here, and it gets tiresome. Any "authority" is to be questioned, reflexively, because apparently that's just what LB does. And if it's not a direct "they did it", but just a "suggestion" that "they might have", then it's just, like, his opinion, man. Nothing wrong with that, amirite? (And yes, I know he doesn't do it with every mod action - I'm being hyperbolic.)
oh i thought he was because his undertitle says "banned" instead of "temp-banned", or whatever the regular one says
AFAIK, there's no rule specifically written about it, and differing opinions among moderators about it. The one rule that I would say covers this particular case is this one (from the 2+2 Rules, linked at the top of every page):
hey nice that's what i was looking for (i even went to atf to see if there were forum rules there, but didn't see anything), however there's nothing about pms in there
Oh, c'mon man. LOL at calling that out as an ad hominem when it's in response to this:
i assumed he was talking about me, because i feel like it's happened before. and he's definitely done it to others. it's supposed to be against the rules, but he can do it because ... idk why
oh i thought he was because his undertitle says "banned" instead of "temp-banned", or whatever the regular one says
Oh yeah, that's fair. Unfortunately the "temp-banned" undertitle isn't an automatic thing, it's something mods have to do manually and is often forgotten (or totally unnoticed).
hey nice that's what i was looking for (i even went to atf to see if there were forum rules there, but didn't see anything)
š
I'm a bit confused by this part. If you mean you didn't find it or see the tie-in right away because it doesn't mention PMs, I get that. But if you mean it doesn't mention PMs so it doesn't apply, I'm not really following.
i assumed he was talking about me, because i feel like it's happened before. and he's definitely done it to others. it's supposed to be against the rules, but he can do it because ... idk why
Rereading it, I can see that interpretation as well and you could be right; my apologies if that's the case. š
It was meant for everyone questioning the rule. Usual suspects.
Still not an ad hominem.
I'm a bit confused by this part. If you mean you didn't find it or see the tie-in right away because it doesn't mention PMs, I get that. But if you mean it doesn't mention PMs so it doesn't apply, I'm not really following.
yeah i just meant how there's nothing regarding pms. but the part about revealing personal information can be interpreted to fit here i guess
i was more responding to everyone acting as if it's obviously a perma to ever reveal anything in a pm, and i'm just wondering where they got that from, because i haven't seen that written anywhere on this site
(not saying it isn't, it might be ... somewhere)
Like, what argument is Luckbox making here that is supposed to be argued against rather than "attacking" the poster (which is a stretch here). LB is basically saying that KS banned jbouton just because he felt like it, which if anything, is the only attack I see in this exchange. But of course it's not an attack because LB said "quite possibly". š It's the same kind of thing LB constantly pulls in here, and it gets tiresome. Any "authority" is to be questioned, reflexively, because apparently t
King Spew has made all sorts of bad moderating decisions so we should be looking at his extra hard fwiw.
yeah i just meant how there's nothing regarding pms. but the part about revealing personal information can be interpreted to fit here i guess
š
i was more responding to everyone acting as if it's obviously a perma to ever reveal anything in a pm, and i'm just wondering where they got that from, because i haven't seen that written anywhere on this site
(not saying it isn't, it might be ... somewhere)
One (or both) of us is misinterpreting others' beliefs on this because that isn't quite the sentiment I've seen, but I'd agree that there shouldn't be an automatic ban (temp or perma) for ever revealing anything in a PM.
King Spew has made all sorts of bad moderating decisions so we should be looking at his extra hard fwiw.
Oh, well, fair enough then. I've always found you to be a rational judge of authority. š
Of course, there's a world of difference between "looking at his [decisions] extra hard" and immediately jumping to "Quite possibly King Spew was just looking for an excuse to ban him." But you already know that. I'm starting to like that "reindeer games" expression someone used earlier.
does this mean if i send out dickpics over pm then anyone who reports them will be banned?
I guess that depends on how impressive they are.
Interested in what good vs bad can possibly mean.
For each of the very few things that I have moderated around here, it appears that "my reviews" are either mixed.... or not mentioned/ under the radar.
Mixed is an AWESOME! result. I have never seen a unanimous one-sided opinion on any moderation action in P&S for any of the dozens of mods that have tried..... have you?
But.... you do you, LB
If someone is told something that is clearly said in confidence, people shouldn't be sharing that **** publicly, and I think it's reasonable that there'd be consequences in some cases.
How can you define "clearly said in confidence"? In the real world, people usually indicate somehow that what is being discussed is confidential. Either by saying so or by the content of the discussion (e.g. medical info). Just because it's a one-on-one conversation is not what makes it confidential. How many times have two posters been talking about something and they are told "take it to PMs"? Are these necessarily "private"? I think more often than not it is okay to relate what was in a PM that said, "Hey just joking. I know they're idiotic but I just can't stop with the inane one-liners" I would for sure share it with the group. But if he said, "Hey sorry, I've been really tense since losing my job. Please don't tell anyone" then that would obviously be confidential.
Just because back in the day, one-to-one messages on the internet were labeled "private" doesn't mean that it should be some kind of barrier to passing on the conversation.
Pretty ridiculous that people are trying to argue KS wouldn't want to keep his experiences with family mental health issues out of the public forum.
And why did Bouten feel it was appropriate to share ithe pm in its entirety? What did he prove with it?
