Requests Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media
Politics & World General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding
Creative Forum The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum
Sexuality Hot Takes Complaints Awwww
Hobbies      

Complaints


What can we do better? Be honest, but please keep it civil. We'd love to hear your feedback!

The spotify playlist link

Posted 11 Months ago by Xhin

I have a couple of specific complaints with this action:

  • The user in question themselves posted the link a month prior to me reposting it in the announcement. I think the new rules do cover this though.

  • The bigger issue here is that the announcement in question was posted almost a year ago. Last night I bumped it to announce a new feature addition.

    Being retroactively banned for a post I made a year ago (on a different site) runs contrary to the "clean slate" promise.

    Additionally, I'm curious what would have happened if someone else had posted the OP -- would they receive moderator action for their unintentional doxx a year ago, or would I receive it for making their thread newly public? In other words, if my ban stands I'd like to know the specifics of it.

  • There are 41 Replies


    The user in question themselves posted the link a month prior to me reposting it in the announcement. I think the new rules do cover this though.


    Yes, Rule II C explicitly states:

    Even if a user has posted any private information about themselves in the past on GT For All, you are not permitted to share that information again in the future without that user's consent.

    So you cannot reshare information just because a user bumped it.

    The bigger issue here is that the announcement in question was posted almost a year ago. Last night I bumped it to announce a new feature addition.

    Being retroactively banned for a post I made a year ago (on a different site) impacts the "clean slate" promise.


    I'm not retroactively banning you for the announcement you made 9 months ago.

    It's more because you bumped your own thread which included personal identifying information, especially for a user who explicitly asked for their information to be removed form the site. The prudent thing for you to do would've been to relook at the information in the thread and approach the user in question about whether or not they'd be ok with that link being bumped.

    NOW GRANTED:

  • Rule II C does NOT explicitly state "bumping the thread counts as resharing the information".
  • Rule II C just covers sharing information at the present time - not bumping a thread.

    So maybe some additional clarity should be added to the rule.

    Additionally, I'm curious what would have happened if someone else had posted the OP -- would they receive moderator action for their unintentional doxx a year a go, or would I receive it for making their thread newly public? In other words, if my ban stands I'd like to know the specifics of it.


  • A mod could've been asked to cleanse the OP of a user's personal information.
  • The user whose information was shared in the OP could've been asked for permission in advance of the thread being bumped.

    I don't know. These are my instinctual answers.

    The fact that the OP was 9 months old does beg a conversation about policies here.

    For example, I don't know what the policy should be if a thread from two years ago was bumped and partway through that thread, a user had given their phone number out years ago. Who would be responsible? Is the person bumping a thread really expected to read every reply to determine whether a thread is safe to bump? I'd argue that that puts too much onus on a user who's just trying to use the site, so I'll give you that.

    I'm opening this up for discussion, and especially need my co-mod to join the discussion. I made the ban decision for Xhin so I need to be checked, here.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

  • 11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    So maybe some additional clarity should be added to the rule.


    We should look at this rule again to make it clearer, yes.

    * A mod could've been asked to cleanse the OP of a user's personal information.


    You did, didn't you?

    I'm opening this up for discussion, and especially need my co-mod to join the discussion. I made the ban decision for Xhin so I need to be checked, here.


    I do not second guess the decision since you said the user CLEARLY stated that they wanted it cleared/ never reshared, so bumping SHOULD have redacted that given the new set of rules.

    ¤LðŗРУŋįd@¤

    11 Months ago
    Lord Denida

    So you cannot reshare information just because a user bumped it.


    Fair. It's good that that's been codified.

    It's more because you bumped your own thread which included personal identifying information


    So if a user bumps a thread, are they responsible for the original content of that thread? Like if someone bumped a supremacist thread (against the current rules, but wasn't at one time), would they be responsible for it? Or would it only happen if they were the OP too?

    The prudent thing for you to do would've been to relook at the information in the thread and approach the user in question about whether or not they'd be ok with that link being bumped.


    I mean I'll definitely be more cautious about it in the future but I was unaware when I bumped it that the user in question's playlist was in there -- you can't tell from a glance that it was even his.

    The user whose information was shared in the OP could've been asked for permission in advance of the thread being bumped.


    If users need to be mindful of threads they're bumping and whether they contain personally sensitive content (and try to gain permission from whoever has shared that content originally), then this is something they should know about -- this policy isn't specified anywhere in the rules.

    A mod could've been asked to cleanse the OP of a user's personal information.


    Would the OP be held accountable for sharing that user's personal information? Or would the user who bumped the thread be held accountable for bumping the thread? Or if neither party is held accountable, then why am I banned?

    Let's say, hypothetically, a situation like this:

  • Several years ago, OWA made a picture thread where GTers could post pictures of themselves.

  • As users posted pictures of themselves, OWA updated the OP to show those pictures.

  • Part of the OP is a picture of Fox Forever.

  • Several years pass.

  • Fox Forever no longer wishes to be associated with GTX0 and requests that all of his posts be scrubbed.

  • His posts are scrubbed, but minor things are missed due to technical impossibilities, such as OWA having a direct link to the photo in his OP.

  • The user Peon is browsing through old posts, and notices the picture thread. They decide to bump it with a picture of themselves.

    This causes the OWA post with Fox Forever's photo in it to become visible again. Fox forever complains.

    Should OWA be held accountable here? Or Peon? Or both? Or neither?

  • 11 Months ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    Since I'm here I might as well weigh in. Regaurdless of the exact way things are stated in the site rules Xhin himself knows exactly how other users feel about personal information of any kind being shared. Especailly the information of those who have very clearly expressed that they hate it. Some have went as far as to ask for a complete wipe in past activity for a variety of reasons. The main reason for that being at times is and was distrust in Xhin. Yet here he is doing it and confirming those feelings.

    Any breach of personal information in my opinion is about as severely far across the line as you can get. I atleast hope it's taken seriously.

    11 Months ago
    Elite

    Xhin, thank you for your private apology.

    After seeing my information in the announcement, I immediately tried to contact you and WO to talk about it. It appeared that you both had logged off for the night. In my rapidly increasing frustration, I unsent my messages to you, altered the information myself, then sent my subsequent messages to WO before going to bed.

    Whether the ban stands or not doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is how seriously we take personal information moving forward. That includes myself, which is why I have quietly adopting a policy of closing most of my volatile accounts elsewhere and not linking even ones I consider safe here anymore. I will be ready to help remove my information from this site when previous instances of it are found.

    Again, thank you to both Xhin and WO.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    Some have went as far as to ask for a complete wipe in past activity for a variety of reasons.


    All of those requests were honored.

    This particular one was missed for technical reasons -- it's not technically possible to search other posts for fragments of wiped posts to ensure full wiping without a supercomputer and several months of processing time.

    11 Months ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    Whether the ban stands or not doesn't matter to me.


    Same, really. I just want to make sure I'm banned for a clearly-defined rule, or some extension of it that makes rational sense.

    That includes myself, which is why I have quietly adopting a policy of closing most of my volatile accounts elsewhere and not linking even ones I consider safe here anymore. I will be ready to help remove my information from this site when previous instances of it are found.


    Links and quoted links are probably going to be the biggest issue moving forwards because of technical constraints in scrubbing them. I'll do my part to make sure that I don't bump or otherwise make public again anything that traces back to you or other scrubbed users.

    11 Months ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    Since I'm here I might as well weigh in. Regaurdless of the exact way things are stated in the site rules Xhin himself knows exactly how other users feel about personal information of any kind being shared. Especailly the information of those who have very clearly expressed that they hate it. Some have went as far as to ask for a complete wipe in past activity for a variety of reasons. The main reason for that being at times is and was distrust in Xhin. Yet here he is doing it and confirming those feelings.


    Remember that Weird Occurance and myself are here if there is any other personal information or anything shared you are not comfortable with. Why the complaints forum was restored.

    ¤LðŗРУŋįd@¤

    11 Months ago
    Lord Denida

    It's more because you bumped your own thread which included personal identifying information, especially for a user who explicitly asked for their information to be removed form the site. The prudent thing for you to do would've been to relook at the information in the thread and approach the user in question about whether or not they'd be ok with that link being bumped.

    I think this is absolute insanity. Xhin made a good-faith effort to remove the user's personal information, but something slipped through the cracks and now he's being punished for what is effectively an accident. The idea that you have to review the entire content of a post before bumping it is asinine.

    We should take personal information seriously, but this is going so far that it almost feels like an attempt to put Xhin in his place. It's an overreaction by any other measure.

    11 Months ago
    Count Dooku

    The idea that you have to review the entire content of a post before bumping it is asinine.


    We should take personal information seriously, but this is going so far that it almost feels like an attempt to put Xhin in his place. It's an overreaction by any other measure.


    The initial ban was made without realizing the OP was made 9 months ago. That was something Galbraith, Denida, and myriad other users all missed in the situation.

    I realized it when Xhin brought it to my attention.

    I'm up for discussing a content policy regarding bumping an OP that contains sensitive information. In this case, it was a user's full first name and last name - and that user initially wanted their information concealed out of a fear for their safety.

    I agree Xhin cleansed that user's posts and managed that user's expectations that this was the case and all that would be done.

    But then to bump a thread with that user's first and last name seems iffy.

    This all said, I'm NOT attacking Xhin.
    I also don't care if the ban lives or dies. It was a snap decision to defend a user based on a misunderstood circumstance (e.g. a thread being bumped vs created).

    In light of this, I'm open to a content policy discussion about bumping a thread and if that requires looking at the OP first or not.

    I'll open up the floor to anyone with an opinion on the matter, but it must cover more breadth than just this one particular instance.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    I'm open to a content policy discussion about bumping a thread and if that requires looking at the OP first or not.


    I think that everything is contextual. I would probably not be convinced that a user should read an entire thread before bumping it. However, I think that looking over an OP is generally a reasonable expectation. After all, responses should, barring other context, be presumed to be responses to the OP... if neither of these things hold true, then it is off-topic discussion. This would obviously become an unreasonable requirement in the case of extremely long or oddly formatted OPs, however, as not every reply is a response to the entirety of points that an OP might make.

    In this specific circumstance, I think that it's odd that Xhin, upon implementing an extension of tag functionality, didn't look over the OP at least in the capacity of reviewing the other embeds. But that is neither here nor there in terms of the general policy, just something that I think is odd about this particular case.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    Despite finding about this early and asking about it, I didn't actually see what exactly happened so I guess I can't fairly weigh in. But I can agree that a policy about bumping content that may be sensitive may be a good idea going forward regardless of what happened.

    However, depending on the context, reasoning, and what the user seemed to know ban length or warnings should be handled more carefully.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    I think that everything is contextual. I would probably not be convinced that a user should read an entire thread before bumping it. However, I think that looking over an OP is generally a reasonable expectation


    Agree fully with this.

    I was thinking of adding a rule that's specific to looking over a reasonably sized OP (3 average paragraph lengths tops, maybe?) before bumping a thread.

    Users will not be responsible for looking over all replies, but mods can clean out any replies users spot and ask to have cleansed.

    I think that's fair and can diminish things like this from happening in the future.

    Shall I propose it as a discussion in general?

    In this specific circumstance, I think that it's odd that Xhin, upon implementing an extension of tag functionality, didn't look over the OP at least in the capacity of reviewing the other embeds. But that is neither here nor there in terms of the general policy, just something that I think is odd about this particular case.


    I think that's what stood out to most of us and is why we all kind of jumped at this.

    However, depending on the context, reasoning, and what the user seemed to know ban length or warnings should be handled more carefully.


    Agree. I had some people arguing 2-4 weeks. I went with my instincts on ban length, based on a user's full first and last name being revealed, which that user was explicitly uncomfortable with.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    I'm open to a content policy discussion about bumping a thread and if that requires looking at the OP first or not.

    I think such a policy is still incredibly silly, and entirely too prone to loopholes, problems, and outright exploitation.

    What if I'm not the OP and I bump a thread where the OP had posted personal info? What if I read the OP, find it completely lacking in personal info, but the third reply contains personal info posted by a different user? What if I'm the OP that posted personal info five years ago, and a spambot bumps my post at 3:43 AM on the day of the sabbath?

    A user should never accidentally wander into a ban.

    As an alternative, I might suggest implementing a process where a registered user can flag a post or reply as containing personal information. Ideally this would kick off a chain of events such as tagging the post (with a cooldown to prevent exploitation), notifying the moderators, notifying the OP, etc.

    And just to add to the previous discussion about moderators, this is a prime example of when it would be good to have a few more staff on hand. I understand this issue was exacerbated by the fact that WO and Xhin were both offline when the user noticed what had happened.

    11 Months ago
    Count Dooku

    What if I'm not the OP and I bump a thread where the OP had posted personal info? What if I read the OP, find it completely lacking in personal info, but the third reply contains personal info posted by a different user? What if I'm the OP that posted personal info five years ago, and a spambot bumps my post at 3:43 AM on the day of the sabbath?


    The OP is what's up for discussion.

    Not the replies.

    Replies will always be handled separately and without user repercussion because that's a ridiculous expectation on someone bumping a thread.

    As an alternative, I might suggest implementing a process where a registered user can flag a post or reply as containing personal information. Ideally this would kick off a chain of events such as tagging the post (with a cooldown to prevent exploitation), notifying the moderators, notifying the OP, etc.


    This is a good idea, but then would any user basically be given the ability to tag anything another user has posted?
    Or just for their own username?

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    I think such a policy is still incredibly silly, and entirely too prone to loopholes, problems, and outright exploitation.

    Ya that's also true. idk.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    This is a good idea, but then would any user basically be given the ability to tag anything another user has posted?


    All users tagging WILL be abused. If this goes to development, my vote with be to flag you, me, and any future mods of the post.

    ¤LðŗРУŋįd@¤

    11 Months ago
    Lord Denida

    I do urge caution in implementing further rules right now, much as Dooku has questioned.

    I especially distrust rules the more specific they become. In my time moderating (here and elsewhere), I have found that flexibility is generally preferable to the rigidity of specificity.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    I especially distrust rules the more specific they become. In my time moderating (here and elsewhere), I have found that flexibility is generally preferable to the rigidity of specificity.


    Fair.

    So how's this as a policy going forward:

    Going forward, users will NOT be banned for bumping threads in which the OP or replies contain sensitive, private information. But that information will be removed / redacted by moderators at user requests.

    (Xhin will also be unbanned)

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    !cyan Going forward, users will NOT be banned for bumping threads in which the OP or replies contain sensitive, private information. But that information will be removed / redacted by moderators at user requests.


    A warning too so they are reminding to check before just bumping any thread. (OP ONLY.)

    !cyan (Xhin will also be unbanned)


    Good idea.

    He hopefully learned to check OP's before bumping a thread.

    ¤LðŗРУŋįd@¤

    11 Months ago
    Lord Denida

    This is a good idea, but then would any user basically be given the ability to tag anything another user has posted?

    That's the weakest part of the idea. But I would suggest some safeguards:

    Only registered/verified (I'm not sure how you guys are handling this) users have this functionality. Additionally, it should be a privilege that can be easily revoked if it is ever abused.

    A user can only tag one post/reply per 12/24/48 hours. This prevents outright exploitation/destruction, and in theory should still be enough to avert most PI issues. If someone is flooding the site with a user's PI, that's a situation that demands moderator intervention regardless.

    Combine that with mandatory notifications to staff, and I think true exploitation would be difficult to pull off.

    11 Months ago
    Count Dooku

    A warning too so they are reminding to check before just bumping any thread. (OP ONLY.)


    It looks like users don't want this penalized, though.
    It'd probably be more of a note from the admin saying they have redacted information.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    Dooku, I'd need to think more on your idea

    I'm not opposed to it.

    I just think it should be implemented more so that you can flag your own PI.

    I know I've posted my phone number on multiple occasions, and don't care if that's redacted or not... I even prefer that it's out there, so I wouldn't really want it flagged.

    Other users may feel the same about PI they've shared.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    Going forward, users will NOT be banned for bumping threads in which the OP or replies contain sensitive, private information. But that information will be removed / redacted by moderators at user requests.

    (Xhin will also be unbanned)


    I support these conclusions and I thank you for your help and leadership.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    I especially distrust rules the more specific they become. In my time moderating (here and elsewhere), I have found that flexibility is generally preferable to the rigidity of specificity.

    For preventing unnecessary bans perhaps, but that still leaves open that a mod can more easily ban someone for a loose interpretation of the rules, which also has been seen my me happening a lot too. Which can result in unjustified bans.

    And too specific can result in more people being justifiably banned, but can also result in people being banned too easily. It ain't quite one is good the other is bad imo.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    Dooku, I'd need to think more on your idea

    It's just a proposal. It may not be technically feasible, and it may not be a good idea out of concerns for malicious actors. I'm sure you three will come up with a more workable solution.

    Thank you for considering my input. I apologize for my first post, which was unnecessarily hostile and lacked some of the context.

    11 Months ago
    Count Dooku

    For preventing unnecessary bans perhaps, but that still leaves open that a mod can more easily ban someone for a loose interpretation of the rules, which also has been seen my me happening a lot too. Which can result in unjustified bans.


    And too specific can result in more people being justifiably banned, but can also result in people being banned too easily. It ain't quite one is good the other is bad imo.



    Both valid concerns, but then that becomes a darned if you do, darned if you don't and a judgment call needs to be made.

    I'm going to make one on the side of fairness.

    The reason I like my II C Rule is because it penalizes *active reposting PI without permission* specifically.
    I think that policy is hugely important because it'll catch malicious intent.

    Bumping a thread seems like a different animal that's not necessarily a malicious act, but can have unintended consequences.

    I think mods can be reasoned with (as we've experienced here) - and that's what's important.

    I appreciate Xhin making this thread to challenge a rule and for all the activity it's gotten. We're better for it.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    Thank you for considering my input. I apologize for my first post, which was unnecessarily hostile and lacked some of the context.


    No problem! And we're always open to input! :)

    I support these conclusions and I thank you for your help and leadership.


    Thank you for contributing. I think the fact that you were impacted made your input here even more valuable, so I appreciate you stepping up in this thread. Appreciate the help in reaching a happy conclusion.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    For preventing unnecessary bans perhaps, but that still leaves open that a mod can more easily ban someone for a loose interpretation of the rules, which also has been seen my me happening a lot too. Which can result in unjustified bans.

    And too specific can result in more people being justifiably banned, but can also result in people being banned too easily. It ain't quite one is good the other is bad imo.


    No, it is not that one is good and the other is bad. It's that the users should have the reasonable expectation that their leaders can and will do what is necessary to protect their community. If that is done with extremely well-codified rules, then so be it; however, rules only give that reasonable expectation when they are, in fact, well-codified and the leaders act on them appropriately. Otherwise, it falls merely to the leaders acting appropriately while the rules are general enough to not create contradiction. In either circumstance, it comes down to the appropriate action of the leaders.

    The entirety of the rules document could say "L nerd lmao" and it would not be wrong for a moderator to ban a spammer. If someone turns around and says "why did I get banned for posting 500 threads per hour, it doesn't say anything about that in the rules", they're an abusive, manipulative loser that is trying to misdirect the conversation into being about the courtesy of reasonable expectations that communities generally provide through their rulesets instead of about the abuse that the person committed.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    No, it is not that one is good and the other is bad. It's that the users should have the reasonable expectation that their leaders can and will do what is necessary to protect their community. If that is done with extremely well-codified rules, then so be it; however, rules only give that reasonable expectation when they are, in fact, well-codified and the leaders act on them appropriately. Otherwise, it falls merely to the leaders acting appropriately while the rules are general enough to not create contradiction. In either circumstance, it comes down to the appropriate action of the leaders.

    I guess but the issue here isn't just a matter of trust in the staff, it's how well they enforce things regardless.

    The entirety of the rules document could say "L nerd lmao" and it would not be wrong for a moderator to ban a spammer. If someone turns around and says "why did I get banned for posting 500 threads per hour, it doesn't say anything about that in the rules", they're an abusive, manipulative loser that is trying to misdirect the conversation into being about the courtesy of reasonable expectations that communities generally provide through their rulesets instead of about the abuse that the person committed.

    Doesn't matter if they are, the rules are the standard by which we determine whether or not a moderator is abusing their power by their own standards. If something becomes an issue, yes it should be dealt with but a rule for it should also be added if it's not already covered. And perhaps that will make it hard not to walk on eggshells, but it also prevents them from enforcing the rules unfairly and you at least know what standard they're currently beholden to.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    I guess but the issue here isn't just a matter of trust in the staff, it's how well they enforce things regardless.


    [slamming table violently with both fists] Yes, that is correct :^)

    Doesn't matter if they are, the rules are the standard by which we determine whether or not a moderator is abusing their power by their own standards.


    We do not make things right or wrong by codifying them. The standard by which I determine if a moderator is taking an abusive action is the standard of reason. I don't care if someone claims to justify their abuse by saying that they are internally consistent in their abuse. That person should be fucking keelhauled, not held up as a standard of moderation for anyone, even themselves.

    If something becomes an issue, yes it should be dealt with but a rule for it should also be added if it's not already covered.


    I am not against rules being well-codified; I am against rules being complex or specific for their own sake or merely for the sake of specific contexts and not the underlying organizational issue that produces the problem that they address.

    We literally just watched this shit happen in 4K on GTX0.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    The standard by which I determine if a moderator is taking an abusive action is the standard of reason. I don't care if someone claims to justify their abuse by saying that they are internally consistent in their abuse. That person should be fucking keelhauled, not held up as a standard of moderation for anyone, even themselves.


    Agree! I think this is why it's important for a moderator to be challenged and be flexible and willing to change their mind / policies as new information and situations arise. In this case, there was a grey area so an explicit policy arose out of it.... less of a rule, and more an expectation for handling information. And it was very common sense. I think we'll see more of these gray-areas and just have to adapt as they come up.

    I do not think a moderator should be this free-roaming agent that cannot be challenged, questioned, or anything.

    I'm a moderator for you guys; if anything, I'm beholden to your expectations.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    11 Months ago
    Weird Occurance

    Just going to notify you all of the first part of the rule set, which both WO and myself agreed on was the first.

    I. Accountability
    A Community Standards
    Everyone using this site, including the moderation and administrative team, will be beholden to the same level of Accountability. Rule breaking will be handled appropriately for all users. Please be mindful of others and respect the following rules at all times while using this site.

    B. Administrative Team Neutrality
    GT For All is a new site, even though it is a continuation of the GT Legacy. The administrative team would like to offer users a blank slate. Thusly, users will not be banned for past transgressions on any former iteration of GT.

    Additionally, users will not face discrimination from the moderation team for their politics, sex/gender, religious affiliations, etc. Users on this site will only face repercussions for breaking the GT For All rules on this site.

    Please leverage the Complaints Forum or official teamgtforall@gmail.com email address if you believe a moderator has overstepped and we will investigate the situation.



    ¤LðŗРУŋįd@¤

    11 Months ago
    Lord Denida

    We do not make things right or wrong by codifying them. The standard by which I determine if a moderator is taking an abusive action is the standard of reason. I don't care if someone claims to justify their abuse by saying that they are internally consistent in their abuse. That person should be fucking keelhauled, not held up as a standard of moderation for anyone, even themselves.

    Sure whatever. But I have seen vague rules for far too long be used to excuse racism, harassment, and other harmful stuff rather recently. And funny thing, that place only stopped it when the admin finally realized things were going too far, and shut it down by removing the problem board and making the entire site beholden to the rest of the rules, which prompted all of the troublemakers to flee elsewhere because that's all they would do a lot of times. It was the rules that stopped them from turning the place into their own little clubhouse.

    I'm just trying to make this side of it clear, I don't necessarily disagree with you but I've seen this happen a bit too many times too.

    We literally just watched this shit happen in 4K on GTX0.

    Did you forget that we had the same shit and worse still around when the rules were much vaguer too though?

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    But I have seen vague rules for far too long be used to excuse racism, harassment, and other harmful stuff


    Did you forget that we had the shit shit and worse still around when the rules were much vaguer too though?


    This would be interesting if it contradicted anything that I said.

    I don't care to hash it out in this thread any more.

    11 Months ago
    galbraith

    This would be interesting if it contradicted anything that I said.

    It doesn't matter if it's an inherent contradiction, it's an example to the contrary of what you're presenting as particularly ideal.

    I don't care to hash it out in this thread any more.

    Okay.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    I know this thread is already done with but I just wanted to throw my opinion in:

    We do not make things right or wrong by codifying them. The standard by which I determine if a moderator is taking an abusive action is the standard of reason. I don't care if someone claims to justify their abuse by saying that they are internally consistent in their abuse. That person should be fucking keelhauled, not held up as a standard of moderation for anyone, even themselves.


    Very much this.

    I am sure some people will be sick of hearing me say it but: I strongly believe in the spirit of the rule, not the wording of the rule. If the rule says "Don't post personal information". It's clearly a rule that's about stopping people intentionally doing it as either a form of harassment, it's not a rule that was written as a "gotcha" against people accidentally making a mistake.

    Moderators should be trusted to use their good judgement to determine if something is against the spirit of the rule, and in cases where they get it wrong (let's face it, no one gets everything right) then the appeals process should be followed.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I also agree with Dooku's idea about being able to flag/report a post/reply as breaking the rules. Not sure if I agree it should default it to a tag, but there should be an easy process on the site itself to alert any moderators that there is a post that needs looking at.

    On that note. Admins on GTX0 were able to edit peoples posts/replies. I assume that is also the case here and I would suggest such power should be extended to moderators in whatever areas of the site they are a moderator for. In addition, I think that editing a post/reply should leave a note somewhere that says the time it was last edited and by whom it was edited so that people have all the info.

    11 Months ago
    Moonray

    On that note. Admins on GTX0 were able to edit peoples posts/replies. I assume that is also the case here and I would suggest such power should be extended to moderators in whatever areas of the site they are a moderator for. In addition, I think that editing a post/reply should leave a note somewhere that says the time it was last edited and by whom it was edited so that people have all the info.


    Yes. I really like this idea. adding that if a moderator do, it should list who modified, following the transparity.

    ¤LðŗРУŋįd@¤

    11 Months ago
    Lord Denida

    it's not a rule that was written as a "gotcha" against people accidentally making a mistake.

    Just to be clear that's not what I was arguing for at all. I'm not even sure I entirely agree with my own argument, but I felt since from my perspective there was clearly merit to it, someone had to argue in favor of it.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    I wasn't necessarily targeting you with that response, just making a general statement that the rules don't exist to catch people to ban them regardless of intent. They exist to deter intentional bad behaviour.

    11 Months ago
    Moonray

    I wasn't necessarily targeting you with that response, just making a general statement that the rules don't exist to catch people to ban them regardless of intent. They exist to deter intentional bad behaviour.

    Right just wanted to be clear just in case there's confusion.

    11 Months ago
    Grey Echelon

    This thread is archived