TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[Kathryn41 3,205]

We are still working through a lot of the changes and adjustments that we discussed and decided on Tuesday night. The meeting went to midnight. Friday was spent doing a lot of those changes - and for many people it is also a work day. It is now early Saturday.

Captain Ewok is still trying to figure out how to implement some of the changes because they are not necessarily an easy fix but require working within a software's limitations. Not everything is going to happen all at once and not everything may happen the way we think or want them to because of unexpected challenges we encounter while trying to figure out how to implement something.

That being said, Captain Ewok made references to these changes in his message yesterday, and today I am providing you with more detail because the subject came up and it seemed a good opportunity. We are not trying to keep you in the dark - it is just that there are time elements involved and we just can't get to everything all at once.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Kathryn41
to correct wrong day

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno, sure, give him a shot at redemption but he might want to refrain from posting quite so many articles about racial disharmony being the fault of the black man and the evils of homosexuality.

[luckytxn 2,264]

He will fall in here as well as many.

Amnesty:

One Member reinstated immediately. General Amnesty Program was discussed. Details will need to be hashed out but after an extended period certain banned members can now contact the admin to request reinstatement with the condition that they will fall into an elevated review status (less opportunities than a new member for slip ups). Some egregious offenders will not qualify for obvious reasons.

Has moderation made any decision regarding danno that can be shared here?

[GandD 5,966]

You might be being a little too "glass half empty" but I guess we'll see. Danno's account is really old.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Biased mods can veto any return of any banned member.

You might be being a little too "glass half empty" but I guess we'll see. Danno's account is really old.

[Peikko 1,575]

Biased mods? Would you like to qualify who those might be? Personally, I have only had problems with one mod, although I have heard that there are two who are good to give out the 'right' sentence if you ask them nicely

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The new problem I see developing is that some members have decided that there is some sort of polarization, and are making posts about the "other" crowd and deciding, with no evidence, that this group is ruining their "fun." They are calling these members "sensitive," or the "PC crowd" or some other names.

One person actually posted that the forum is too full of women who are "b*tches" and who ate urine for breakfast and they are the root of the problem, and that got a lot of plusses. No one sees a problem with that?

Someone else said that unbanning Penny was a grand conspiracy to get some "type" of poster to come back while "punishing" other types of posters, without understanding that one violates TOS, one does not.

These same people say "if you don't like someone, put them on ignore!" but they cannot take their own advice if someone they don't like posted. Instead they say that women ate urine.

You really seem to have distorted the post about the Cheerios, IMO.

I think I know who you're talking about when making the Penny comparison, it is one of two users, or maybe both.. But which one didn't violate TOS? All were banned, so all violated TOS. Multiple times. I really don't get that part of your post, but I could be missing something.

Again, I bring it up for clarification, not drama. It's looking like the girls against the boys.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

You really seem to have distorted the post about the Cheerios, IMO.

I think I know who you're talking about when making the Penny comparison, it is one of two users, or maybe both.. But which one didn't violate TOS? All were banned, so all violated TOS. Multiple times. I really don't get that part of your post, but I could be missing something.

Again, I bring it up for clarification, not drama. It's looking like the girls against the boys.

VJ has a real problem with sexism. I rephrased that phrase in such a way to show that how inappropriate that sentiment is. Do you think it would appropriate if I said there was a group of men on VJ who do XX and think they are XX and are really stupid XXXers who can't even XX when they XXX? No, that would be mean and inappropriate. Why is the opposite true?

The same people who say others are too sensitive just can't help but make personal attacks, and can't take their own advice to ignore people they don't like. One person really ruins everything? That is so sensitive!

This is not a place for a select few to have fun, it is not a place for us. v. them. It is a place for everyone who is here.

I really truly do not understand why that is hard for people to get.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

In bold even.

Oh and I agree with you about the warning acknowledgement.

It was changed in real-time during our meeting on Tuesday.

[GandD 5,966]

It was changed in real-time during our meeting on Tuesday.

Cool thanks.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Biased mods can veto any return of any banned member.

I'm not sure that is true.

[Peikko 1,575]

VJ has a real problem with sexism. I rephrased that phrase in such a way to show that how inappropriate that sentiment is. Do you think it would appropriate if I said there was a group of men on VJ who do XX and think they are XX and are really stupid XXXers who can't even XX when they XXX? No, that would be mean and inappropriate. Why is the opposite true?

The same people who say others are too sensitive just can't help but make personal attacks, and can't take their own advice to ignore people they don't like. One person really ruins everything? That is so sensitive!

This is not a place for a select few to have fun, it is not a place for us. v. them. It is a place for everyone who is here.

I really truly do not understand why that is hard for people to get.

There is definitely a case of, it's ok if I do it but not if you do it going on here. Take that along with the inability of some to see things that are intrinsically racist, bigoted or sexist and not just 'another point of view', including some of the moderators and you have got to the crux. Should there be some leniency? Of course, and I do think that warnings should be issued before any action is taken. If the warning is heeded, nothing further is required. If not, thread ban. That should deal with most of the serial offenders, including me

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

I have an idea = How 'bout we let this thread be focused on the current task at hand = Site Modification - Specifically the CEHST forum.

& how about take the Cheerios discussion to the thread which the post was...posted = Role Call.....?

Is that a good idea?

Coz all this unrelated (to the specific task on deck) back and forth is a distraction...from the point of this thread.

Just sayin'.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Crashed~N2~Me

[UncleBeer 244]

All were banned, so all violated TOS.

Again: TOS allows for banning merely for "offensive" posts, with the mod alone to determine what "offensive" means. WAY too open to interpretation IMHO. Hopefully the new ability to appeal suspensions will help rein in these whacky subjective value judgments, but only time will tell.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

VJ has a real problem with sexism. I rephrased that phrase in such a way to show that how inappropriate that sentiment is. Do you think it would appropriate if I said there was a group of men on VJ who do XX and think they are XX and are really stupid XXXers who can't even XX when they XXX? No, that would be mean and inappropriate. Why is the opposite true?

The same people who say others are too sensitive just can't help but make personal attacks, and can't take their own advice to ignore people they don't like. One person really ruins everything? That is so sensitive!

This is not a place for a select few to have fun, it is not a place for us. v. them. It is a place for everyone who is here.

I really truly do not understand why that is hard for people to get.

Just as I don't understand why it's so hard for some to understand how sour attitudes don't lead to good discussions. I can think of a man or two on this forum who has a sour attitude too. Sex has nothing to do with it, IMO. A negative attitude is a negative attitude, man or woman. I didn't attempt to sugar coat anything, I stated what I observed, just as you have. The sharp tongues are on both sides. And I do ignore threads that don't interest me. What's being done is being done for controversy, again, on both sides. You are correct, this isn't a place for a select few to have fun, it's for all members. It's also not a place for the select few to create controversy for the majority. Again, it works both ways.

I'm still missing something on the one violates TOS, and the other does not. And it really does seem like the boys against the girls. I feel it is appropriate for this this discussion since it currently causing problems in the forum and it has certainly caused problems in the past.

I'd venture to guess that when someone rephrases something you post to put a different spin on it, you'd say something about it. If Captain Ewok feels this is mucking up the discussion, I ask him to remove my off topic posts. I'll be happy to continue this discussion in the other forum.