Does Posting Policy Apply Equally to All Users?

[KirbyDome89]

I’ve taken issue with the recent handling of a thread and I have some concerns. Before I elaborate, I’m going to be VERY CLEAR that this isn’t an admonishment of all moderators (or even those involved) so there is no need for posts referencing the work mods do or how thankless the job is; this isn’t a trial and I’m not looking for evidence to condemn or exonerate. I was directed here via pm by one of the mods involved. Lastly, I’m not going to specifically name other posters, mods, or the thread as the concerns have to do with policy application and therefore calling out someone else by name is irrelevant.

 

I received an initial warning point in a thread because the discourse was deemed too personal. The pm sent by the mod explained why the point was issued. While I dispute some of the details involving the overall tone of the conversation and the timeliness of the action taken I can accept the point and that the thread was dominated by a small group of us and move on.

 

What I initially took issue with was the self-described rant posted by the mod in addition to the pm sent.

 

“You know, locking up a thread shouldn't be the solution to disagreement. It's actually kind of sad if that is the solution. Why not just shrug, agree to disagree, and just end your part in the discussion without saying anything further and walk away. This need to prove another wrong or prove yourself right or keep arguing until others agree with you or so you can have the last word is sad and boring. Yeah, I get it, you passionately believe you are right. So what? The other believes that, too. 

 

But making your arguments personal toward another is not going to fly. And if anyone is wondering ... a few posts and/or comments were removed that would make my rant make sense.”

 

I subsequently responded to the post and pointed out the hypocrisy. The post was full of the same condescension and attacking dialogue that we were penalized for. If I, or another poster, were to call the opinions of others in a forum sad and boring it would most certainly be taken as a personal attack. For pointing out that fact I was awarded another 2 warning points by another mod, my post was deleted, and I was banned from posting content for 24 hours. The second mod was the one that pointed me here. We exchanged a series of messages. I expressed that I felt bounds had been overstepped by the initial moderator post and that issuing 2 extra warning points for pointing that out seemed excessive. I was told that I was awarded more points because I don’t have the right to vent publicly about other posters or moderators. I was also told that if I had pm’ed the mod directly about the inappropriate post there would have been no need assigned the extra points.

 

My response was to again point to exactly how the initial mod post violated the policy that was just stated to me. I also made the point that using the same logic; had we (the handful of posters involved) been pm’ed by the original mod there would have been no need for the rant either. Eventually the original mod post was amended, and allowed to stand as it was no longer deemed offensive. I propositioned that if the post was edited then my claim obviously carried merit. I also made the case that it had to have bearing on the excess points I was awarded, but apparently not. I feel that the application of posting policy in this matter was both heavy handed and extremely uneven. It feels very much like a standard has been created where mods aren’t held to the same scrutiny that regular posters are.

Our posts are deleted, we’re issued warning points for getting personal, then we’re flamed by mod rant that was every bit what we were critiqued over. I post and point out the hypocrisy; my post is deleted, I’m awarded more points, and I’m banned from content creation. Meanwhile, only after a back and forth via messages with the second mod, is the original post slightly amended. It was then allowed to stand. It was a very vexing handling to say the least. Posting policy was often cited to me, which leads me to believe it is very important to those who moderate on this site. Assuming that is case, I can’t understand how it is deemed acceptable for those policies to only apply in one direction. When my content is removed, I’m awarded warning points, and I’m banned from creation while the other party is allowed to simply alter their original post and this is considered justifiable I’m not sure how to view it as anything other than inconsistent.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Moderators are human beings. They sometimes post things they later regret and I'm no exception.

 

But moderators toe the line to the best of their ability and succeed in doing so 99% of the time.

 

What moderators *don't* do is derail a thread, commit multiple infractions in a matter of days, and ignore other moderator scoldings.

 

It's not a one way street because moderators self-police more than any other posters on this forum. Sure, sometimes they wander over the line on accident but so does everybody (and most posters don't get warnings for wandering over the line once).

[drjim]

The mods do a great job, but if you post enough you'll probably get a point a two you don't deserve. Makes up for all the other times they let things slide.

 

If you want a clarification and send a respectful message more power to you. Otherwise my advice is "thank you sir/madam, can I have another..."

[Craig Arko]

And if all else fails, put the irritants on ignore. It's not perfect, but neither was the road to civilization.

[USAFChief]

First, thanks for the feedback. Sincerely. in the proper forum.

 

Second, and this is important, We have a pretty strong distaste for discussing moderator actions in-thread, which was a factor in this case. Bring it here. Or send a PM...we will all respond when we get time. And to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever gotten a point from a PM, even though, lemme tell ya, there have been a few doozies.

 

As noted above, we are not professionals and make mistakes. Just please point them out to us without muddying up other threads.

 

If I may also add one other point...while the moderators are all individuals with varying opinions, we discuss most actions before they are taken, particularly when multiple points are involved, so rest assured no moderator acts unilaterally very often. And didnt in this case.

 

Edit: and yet another point: also keep in mind you only know what actions were taken against you...not what actions may have been taken against others.

 

Edited by twinsnorth49: One more point....Get off my lawn!!!!

[twinsnorth49]

To add a couple of things, mods do police themselves and will edit or delete posts by fellow mods. Editing of posts is relatively common, if a post is for the most part on point but happens to include something disrespectful or about another poster, then we'll edit the bad part out and leave the rest.

 

In thread warnings are really just a preferred way to get things back on track without having to hand out points, which we really would rather not do.

 

Edited by USAFChief: don't EVER edit my posts.

[snepp]

 

In thread warnings are really just a preferred way to get things back on track without having to hand out points, which we really would rather not do.

 

Expanding a bit, once an in-thread warning is given, subsequent postings are typically given far less latitude where it comes to deletions and/or infractions.

[twinsnorth49]

Expanding a bit, once an in-thread warning is given, subsequent postings are typically given far less latitude where it comes to deletions and/or infractions.

Particularly if subsequent postings want to discuss the warning.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Moderators are human beings. They sometimes post things they later regret and I'm no exception.

But moderators toe the line to the best of their ability and succeed in doing so 99% of the time.

What moderators *don't* do is derail a thread, commit multiple infractions in a matter of days, and ignore other moderator scoldings.

It's not a one way street because moderators self-police more than any other posters on this forum. Sure, sometimes they wander over the line on accident but so does everybody (and most posters don't get warnings for wandering over the line once).

I understand the human aspect. I'm not personally angry at any of the mods or even remotely offended by anything that was said. 

 

I already owned the back and forth earlier in that thread. Regardless, I don't think it explains or sanctions the mod post and what transpired after. 

 

I'm certain lots of posters have to restrain from posting how they really feel or think, I wouldn't say that is unique to mods. If mods are allowed to break posting policy then simply make alterations to their post and allow it stand while others have their content deleted and are banned from content creation that is heavily favoring one side. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

First, thanks for the feedback. Sincerely. in the proper forum.

Second, and this is important, We have a pretty strong distaste for discussing moderator actions in-thread, which was a factor in this case. Bring it here. Or send a PM...we will all respond when we get time. And to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever gotten a point from a PM, even though, lemme tell ya, there have been a few doozies.

As noted above, we are not professionals and make mistakes. Just please point them out to us without muddying up other threads.

If I may also add one other point...while the moderators are all individuals with varying opinions, we discuss most actions before they are taken, particularly when multiple points are involved, so rest assured no moderator acts unilaterally very often. And didnt in this case.

Edit: and yet another point: also keep in mind you only know what actions were taken against you...not what actions may have been taken against others.

No prob. In fairness I wasn't aware this forum was even "a thing," until it was brought to my attention. 

 

I get it, people make mistakes. My response to the mod warning was more about my distaste for the way we were called out in the public forum. 

 

Ha, I'm not sure how to take the fact that it wasn't unilateral action that was taken. In most cases I would say thats great. In this case I'm hoping it was more of a 51/49 split. 

 

Thats true. Really the only concern I had was regarding myself (selfish) I was only using the "we," pronoun because the original thread involved a handful of us posting. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Expanding a bit, once an in-thread warning is given, subsequent postings are typically given far less latitude where it comes to deletions and/or infractions.

Hear ya. It wasn't so much the fact that action was taken, rather it was the severity and lopsided nature of said action that raised concern. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

The mods do a great job, but if you post enough you'll probably get a point a two you don't deserve. Makes up for all the other times they let things slide.

If you want a clarification and send a respectful message more power to you. Otherwise my advice is "thank you sir/madam, can I have another..."

Ha, the first I considered a badge of honor. 

[twinsnorth49]

 

To add a couple of things, mods do police themselves and will edit or delete posts by fellow mods. Editing of posts is relatively common, if a post is for the most part on point but happens to include something disrespectful or about another poster, then we'll edit the bad part out and leave the rest.

In thread warnings are really just a preferred way to get things back on track without having to hand out points, which we really would rather not do.

Edited by USAFChief: don't EVER edit my posts.

No worries, that would require me to read them first.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I understand the human aspect. I'm not personally angry at any of the mods or even remotely offended by anything that was said. 

 

I already owned the back and forth earlier in that thread. Regardless, I don't think it explains or sanctions the mod post and what transpired after. 

 

I'm certain lots of posters have to restrain from posting how they really feel or think, I wouldn't say that is unique to mods. If mods are allowed to break posting policy then simply make alterations to their post and allow it stand while others have their content deleted and are banned from content creation that is heavily favoring one side. 

Here's the thing though, a moderator had previously issued a polite warning to tone down the personal bickering in the thread, that was ignored. The second mod posted a more pointed warning, which after editing a single sentence was an appropriate warning. There was nothing of value in the subsequent posts that were deleted, therefore they were deleted.

 

There is no favouring  of one side, the warning was merited and mods are given the latitude to give them. I'm not sure what the problem was with the warning once it had been  edited. 

[Squirrel]

Here's the thing though, a moderator had previously issued a polite warning to tone down the personal bickering in the thread, that was ignored. The second mod posted a more pointed warning, which after editing a single sentence was an appropriate warning. There was nothing of value in the subsequent posts that were deleted, therefore they were deleted.

 

There is no favouring  of one side, the warning was merited and mods are given the latitude to give them. I'm not sure what the problem was with the warning once it had been  edited.

 

Actually, that in thread warning by me came as a response to some posts that were deleted, one of which included a very disrespectful comment by KirbyDome toward another poster, for which a warning point was issued. That warning point may have been just a PM had another moderator not already issued an in thread warning, that was ignored, as TN points out.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Here's the thing though, a moderator had previously issued a polite warning to tone down the personal bickering in the thread, that was ignored. The second mod posted a more pointed warning, which after editing a single sentence was an appropriate warning. There was nothing of value in the subsequent posts that were deleted, therefore they were deleted.

 

There is no favouring  of one side, the warning was merited and mods are given the latitude to give them. I'm not sure what the problem was with the warning once it had been  edited. 

The second mod post came occurred in conjunction with the 1st warning point. I'm not fighting that. The issue I have is that the second mod post contained quite obviously the same tone and language of the posts that were removed and issued points. For pointing that out I received another 2 points and was banned from content creation. The mod post was edited and then allowed to stand. 

 

If a mod can break posting policy yet simply edit the original and allow their post to stand while regular posters are issued 2 points and banned from content creation for breaking posting policy I take issue with the standard that is being set. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Actually, that in thread warning by me came as a response to some posts that were deleted, one of which included a very disrespectful comment by KirbyDome toward another poster, for which a warning point was issued. That warning point may have been just a PM had another moderator not already issued an in thread warning, that was ignored, as TN points out.

Thats funny because I would say the post to which I replied was equally "disrespectful," yet it was allowed to stand and no action was taken until I responded to it. If you want to pm we can go over exactly how I felt that thread was going, but this is starting down a tangential path. 

 

I've already pointed out what I see as the biggest issue with the way the situation unfolded. 

[twinsnorth49]

The second mod post came occurred in conjunction with the 1st warning point. I'm not fighting that. The issue I have is that the second mod post contained quite obviously the same tone and language of the posts that were removed and issued points. For pointing that out I received another 2 points and was banned from content creation. The mod post was edited and then allowed to stand.

 

If a mod can break posting policy yet simply edit the original and allow their post to stand while regular posters are issued 2 points and banned from content creation for breaking posting policy I take issue with the standard that is being set.

The response to the mod breaking posting policy was to edit the post, that's policing. As I said,the rest of the post in question was fine and should have been allowed to stand, it was a warning to stop derailing the thread, which mods have discretion to use.

 

Your subsequent posts were directed at another poster and had nothing to do with the topic, thus deleted. Points were given for ignoring the warnings and discussing mod action in thread. Both of which violate our posting policy.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The response to the mod breaking posting policy was to edit the post, that's policing. As I said,the rest of the post in question was fine and should have been allowed to stand, it was a warning to stop derailing the thread, which mods have discretion to use.

Your subsequent posts were directed at another poster and had nothing to do with the topic, thus deleted. Points were given for ignoring the warnings and discussing mod action in thread. Both of which violate our posting policy.

It was a self proclaimed rant directed towards a few of us with a warning thrown in at the end.

 

My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive.

 

One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points, a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a sentence being edited. Again, that seems very inconsistent. 

[twinsnorth49]

It was a self proclaimed rant directed towards a few of us with a warning thrown in at the end.

 

My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive.

 

One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points, a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a sentence being edited. Again, that seems very inconsistent.

I believe she was using the word "rant" euphemistically, the post was a warning in response to you and another poster continuing to derail a thread with off topic bickering and ultimately posts directed at one another. Something a different mod had previously warned about, which you ignored.

 

Your deleted post had nothing to do with Chris Sale and was ridiculously off topic at that point, it deserved deletion.

 

The fact that you insist on the mod post being a policy violation is a bit absurd. Personally I would have deleted a lot more posts in that thread but I respect my fellow mod for trying to give it one last shot to get you and others to stick to the topic.

 

Again, your warning points were for questiong mod action in thread after repeatedly derailing a thread. The content creation ban is automatic with the points.

[KirbyDome89]

It sure fits the bill for what can be considered a rant; one that was aimed directly at specific members and engaged in that aforementioned bickering.

 

There were pages of off topic comments in that thread by multiple members. It had been going on for days. That wasn't why my post was deleted. It was deleted because a sentence in one post was deemed to be disrespectful. That is directly from the mod that deleted it. 

 

Its absurd to think that if I called another members comment sad and boring I would be warned? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on that one. 

 

Again:

 

My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive.

One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points, a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a sentence being edited. That is inconsistent.

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

Its absurd to think that if I called another members comment sad and boring I would be warned? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on that one. 

 

Again:

 

My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive.

One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points, a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a sentence being edited. That is inconsistent.

 

To address the 1st point, if you cannot see the difference between responding to a message and attacking a messenger, I cannot help you.  People rarely respond well when their content of their message is ignored yet their person is attacked. It just doesn't work. If you don't like a person's content, respond to that, ignore it, whatever.  But if you want to refer to said person's content as 'sad', 'boring', or some other adjective, expect some sort of action. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is what ownership has asked we do.  The best way to ensure thoughtful, intelligent discussion is to make sure that the conversation does not devolve into bickering.

 

I would also note that there are plenty of policy violations by non-moderators that result in sentences being edited and removed and no points assigned. That's honestly very typical, especially with newer posters, who aren't as familiar with the rules. It's also accompanied by a PM letting them know why and asking them read the comments policy. What happens next is often times what dictates future responses... I cannot emphasize that enough. 

 

As for us, we do self police, and if one of us crosses the line, the others will let him/her know.  Glunn also steps in if needed.

[USAFChief]

KirbyDome89: have you read the TD posting policy rules and guidelines? It sounds from your comments like you are maybe unfamiliar with slme of them. If not, my apologies.

 

For example, not posting about mod actions, except in this forum, is discussed. "Points," and the fact your 24 hour ban was automatic and not a discretionary act as well.

 

Also...some mods edit posts, some don't. I, for example, have a hard and fast rule against it. I don't want others editing me, so I don't edit others. That may help explain why one post gets edited, another deleted. We also consider a poster's history when appropriate. Whether or not that's fair, I don't know, but we do...consciously and unconsciously.

[Squirrel]

Thats funny because I would say the post to which I replied was equally "disrespectful," yet it was allowed to stand and no action was taken until I responded to it. If you want to pm we can go over exactly how I felt that thread was going, but this is starting down a tangential path. 

 

I've already pointed out what I see as the biggest issue with the way the situation unfolded.

 

No, it wasn't allowed to stand. Go back and look, it was also removed.

[Squirrel]

And for the record, I do think it's sad when the only solution to resolve bickering in a thread is to close it. I'm sorry you don't like that comment, but that wasn't even directed at you only and personally because that wasn't even your comment. That was a suggestion another poster made. But in some ways it really was directed at everyone because that's what in thread moderator warnings are and why no one's post was quoted nor no names were used. But why I think it's sad is because that means that posters have either bickered the thread to death or it's gotten so derailed and is such a mess that there just is no saving it and there is no alternative. Or that discussion has just gone around and around and around because one or more parties in a thread are talking past one other, saying the same things over and over again because they either fail to really listen to one another or they are so certain they are right that they refuse to accept any kind of disagreement and continue on instead of acknowledging you just disagree, agreeing there is no resolution and walking away. It's sad that we as adults cannot carry on discussion without getting so offended over said disagreements and begin taking and making things personal. For any thread to get to that point, I find that sad because to me it just is.

 

As for referring to the discussion at hand as sad and boring, I agree, that was over the line and those words were removed almost immediately by myself without any prompting or suggestion. All the moderators have their own set of standards, but we generally work together and discuss everything that goes on to come to consensus. We also work extra hard to police ourselves and one another because if we are going to try and help facilitate discussion through moderation, we have to hold ourselves to a certain line as well. But we aren't perfect and are only human and as a result, I have issued warning points to/from myself and have apologized to offended parties. Neither of which are warranted in this case, imho. I'm sorry you disagree.

 

As for my own part in this current thread, I'm done. You have been given many explanations as to the why and wherefores of your and our actions. You can continue to disagree, but I'm walking away. The results are still the same.

[Brock Beauchamp]

For the record, I followed that thread while it was happening (for what seemed like weeks on end, honestly).

 

ChiTown's post wasn't directed at a single poster (and the poster most closely associated with her response didn't seem to take offense), it was directed at the thread.

 

If you can't see the difference between saying "come on people, it's kinda sad and boring that instead of just walking away, some of you want to lock the thread for everyone" versus "you're making condescending posts and playing the victim card", then the problem here isn't moderation, it's your obviously slanted interpretation of the situation.

 

The former post is part of a moderator's job. The latter is an obvious rule violation.

 

We don't lock threads because posters are irritated and want them locked because of course we don't. That's a terrible way to run a forum. And, yes, it's kinda sad that some people can't just walk away from a thread and instead want to see it locked for everyone. That's the internet equivalent of getting mad at the other kids and taking your ball home, ruining everyone else's day in the process.

 

If a moderator has to even consider making such a post, that means the thread has already gone to hell in a handbasket and that circling of the drain was not the moderator's fault. Blaming the moderator after the fact is akin to punching the mailman for delivering a past due bill notice.

[KirbyDome89]

 

To address the 1st point, if you cannot see the difference between responding to a message and attacking a messenger, I cannot help you.  People rarely respond well when their content of their message is ignored yet their person is attacked. It just doesn't work. If you don't like a person's content, respond to that, ignore it, whatever.  But if you want to refer to said person's content as 'sad', 'boring', or some other adjective, expect some sort of action. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is what ownership has asked we do.  The best way to ensure thoughtful, intelligent discussion is to make sure that the conversation does not devolve into bickering.

 

I would also note that there are plenty of policy violations by non-moderators that result in sentences being edited and removed and no points assigned. That's honestly very typical, especially with newer posters, who aren't as familiar with the rules. It's also accompanied by a PM letting them know why and asking them read the comments policy. What happens next is often times what dictates future responses... I cannot emphasize that enough. 

 

As for us, we do self police, and if one of us crosses the line, the others will let him/her know.  Glunn also steps in if needed.

Just to be clear, the sentence you quoted me on was a response to the assertion that its was mildly absurd to think that the original mod post was "attacking," and therefore against posting policy. I was refuting that. I agree with you, if that was something I had posted (I didn't) then I would expect to hear from somebody. 

 

It isn't the edit action that I took issue with. Its the disparity in consequence.

 

I do trust that most everything is thought over. Like I said in the OP, I'm not trying to turn this into a judicial proceeding.  

[ashbury]

Like I said in the OP, I'm not trying to turn this into a judicial proceeding.  

I am curious, what outcome would you like from the moderators, at this point?

[KirbyDome89]

 

KirbyDome89: have you read the TD posting policy rules and guidelines? It sounds from your comments like you are maybe unfamiliar with slme of them. If not, my apologies.

For example, not posting about mod actions, except in this forum, is discussed. "Points," and the fact your 24 hour ban was automatic and not a discretionary act as well.

Also...some mods edit posts, some don't. I, for example, have a hard and fast rule against it. I don't want others editing me, so I don't edit others. That may help explain why one post gets edited, another deleted. We also consider a poster's history when appropriate. Whether or not that's fair, I don't know, but we do...consciously and unconsciously.

Admittedly I hadn't read it word for word, but I did understand the general outline. The issue I had wasn't with the fact action was taken, so much as it is with the severity of it. I had an idea that questioning the mod post wasn't going to make anybody happy, but like I said earlier I wasn't aware of this forum either. I also was later able to find that 3 points = 24 ban in another Minncentric forum. Really, what the issue boils down to is the fact that I was given 2 points for one violation to ensure a content creation ban. 

 

I would tend to agree with your stance on post editing but can see the merit of the other side. I can't lie, removal of my content while another post is edited is irksome but it wasn't solely the matter in question. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I am curious, what outcome would you like from the moderators, at this point?

A discussion that ultimately answers the question of whether posting policy application is uniform.