I just got modded for an accidental slip I made a year ago. So I would like to know: If I report someone’s rulebreaking a year ago, is that fair? How about two years? Three? Any limit at all?
Shall we throw open the gates and let people search through anyone’s posting histories for some moddable thing they said years ago and report them?
So, you want to know if retribution reporting is o.k.?
That was just a note, not a warning. All things considered, it seems like it would be wise to let it slide. Is this the hill you’re willing to die on?
I needed some time to think about it.
Seriously, I didn’t notice the flag was thrown on a post you made a year ago. However, I don’t find the time lapse a compelling reason to ignore the behavior.
I also couldn’t find where you’d been modded for misgendering before I issued the note, which you had. If I had found that before I issued the mod note, I’d have given you a warning.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide how important it is to carry on this discussion.
Stop misgendering. Period.
I would like to know if I can expecft further mod notes from things I said two years ago, or five years ago.
And no, I’m not talking about ‘revenge reporting’. I’m trying to understand the rules, because I would never have thought that a mod would note something that happened a year ago, from a poster who has no history of misgendering or being anti-trans in any way, and has never done such a thing before or since.
But mostly, what are the rules around timelines? If I did find something really bad thata a current poster said a couple of years ago and got missed for modding then, should I still report it?
On viewing, Aspenglow says that I’ve been modded for misgendering before. I don’t remember it, but I will clarify that I have never intentionally misgendered anyone, and have no intention to.
In the other thread you said this:
It also reminds me of the five year old’s game, “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!”
I hope you can see that asking if you can go find old violations and report them, as well as saying (in the other thread) that you’re going to “fight back any way I choose within the rules”, that you’re the one playing that 5 year old’s game. You’re the one testing mom’s patience by seeing how close you can get to the line before she turns the car around.
I sincerely mean this, but take a breather. Go for a walk, watch some TV, cut the grass, just find something else to do for a few hours.
Not very likely. But there aren’t really rules on timelines for modnotes.
If it had been a warning it would be rescinded in this case as it is well past any arbitrary time limit for warnings. That is probably less than a week, definitely less than a few weeks.
No, no need. But there are some exceptions to this.
We had a prolific poster caught up in his own many lies about himself. Some pieces going back many years. It was solid proof of their trolling the board and they were Banned. Said person has probably come back a few times since and may have had another Sock Personality banned today.
But that is an extreme case, we don’t need to know someone used an offensive term 4 years ago and didn’t get modnoted or warned for it.
Though if the person makes a habit of such, a link to older examples in a current flag is much more likely to lead to moderation. That happened in the case of a few posters that were then warned instead of modnoted and no surprise later warned again and suspended and finally banned.
In general links are useful. I know what you’re talking about in this case, but often I wouldn’t and I’m sure plenty others don’t.
It looks like all of the confusion today was caused by the dumbass way dates are displayed by Discourse. Your post read Jul 21 instead of Jul 21 2022. Probably wouldn’t have been flagged if the software wasn’t dumb about dates and probably the flag would have been rejected as happening 364 days ago if the software wasn’t dumb about dates.
I think it’s important to point out that the thread wasn’t sitting dormant for a year. It was last active in late May of this year, and the last post was Johanna correcting Sam for what he said. She reported it today, about seven weeks after Sam chose not to respond to that correction.
Sam’s most recent post in that thread was May 12, so it’s not like it was ancient history for him either.
Nobody dug into an ancient thread to find something worth reporting. Johanna read something in a long-running but active thread and responded in a reasonable way. She brought it up in a pit thread today and was told, correctly, that she just should have reported it at the time.
Characterizing this as searching through old threads just to report someone is, let’s say, a very creative way to shape a narrative.
FWIW i have had the experience if stumbling into a zombie thread and reporting a post i found incredibly offensive. (Naught to do with you, Sam.) In fact, it’s happened at least three times i can think of. I guess i just don’t habitually look at dates.
What’s worth saying though, is that in this case it was quite old, and also quite offensive, such that the mod put some thought into whether to address it.
Modding the post is not just about the individual poster. Topics resurface in the news, old threads get resurrected, and new readers are drawn to them. Making it clear what is unacceptable is sometimes worth doing for the sake of keeping our little society fair and equitable. Otherwise, one might feel confused when warned for something that you’ve seen go unmentioned.
It’s already confusing ro newcomers who are having a grand old time in the pit when they venture out and get their hand slapped. Keeping the standards as consistent as humanly possible is actually important.
Like i said, FWIW.
Yeah, that’s the thing – the system here and in virtually every other similar venue is that unless the mod is actively following a thread to begin with, someone has to “flag” something I did wrong, the mods won’t go on fishing expeditions.
And by extension, individual posters themselves should not go on fishing expeditions either (apparently not the case here, but I do agree that if you feel something is worth modding, you report it, you don’t just let it simmer).
A recent ATMB thread was closed after someone posted in it because it was ‘dormant’. ‘Dormant’ after nine days.
Technically, posted with “nothing of substance to add” after 9 days. And again links really do help. Especially when your post only tells part of the story.
Yeah, that was absurd. Lots of posters catch up on threads after a week or so, due to busy lives. The fact that this particular post had very little content shouldn’t matter.
I disagree, after a while when threads get revived like that it seems like it is an excuse to attack a mod. Please note, we’re not talking about a thread about me.
But the subject was pretty well done. There was no need to bump it for a nothing of a post.
I didn’t think it necessary to post a link to the particular thread, as I saw it as just another example of over-moderation. And I disagree that it was not substantial, because the poster was expressing a counterargument to the post he replied to. Yes, it was short and facetious, but it was legitimate.
I did not intend to hijack this thread, but was only replying to your post. So let’s drop it.
Gladly.
Y’know, I made a much less important accidental slip yesterday. I misinterpreted someone’s sarcastic post as serious, and argued in my not-always-super-chill fashion against what they said. They pretty bluntly told me about my mistake.
So I apologized.
It’s worth considering taking that path when you make an accidental slip: apologizing for slips instead of complaining about getting called out for them is a way for a person to indicate that they’ll do better going forward.
A mod sent me a nastygram for reporting something about a month old. To be fair, I hadn’t noticed the date and I wouldn’t have reported it.
And in fairness, no one else realized I was being sarcastic either so the mistake was mine. Your larger point still stands of course.
I’m assuming that ancient posts that are modded are modded according to the board rules in effect at the time of the post. What confuses me is that when I asked about consistency in moderation and warnings, the general consensus was it depends on how off-topic the post will drag the thread. If that truly is the logic in moderation viz. the possibility of dragging a thread off course then what is the point a year later? If it was to get Sam_Stone to change his posting behavior then what is the point a year later?
Has Sam_Stone been reported for misgendering since then?
I think it is very important to clarify the rules we are expected to abide by. If you haven’t had your post reported after 6 month so you get a freebie? OK. If anything we have ever posted can always be reported? OK. If the thread has been dormant for a year without your post being reported gets you off the hook because clearly none of the other posters cared? OK. But let’s all know what the rule is other than, “Meh. It depends on whatever nebulous criteria that mod is using that day for that user.”