I rarely use the first perk because it feels like cheating. But yeah, I’ve done it once or twice.
I do love the nifty mug.
And I do appreciate the perk of being able to edit egregious spelling and grammar errors out of titles. If someone mistakes an ‘it’s’ for an ‘its’ in a thread title, I’m gonna be all over that.
And we love you for doing it! 
As a recognized sdmb devotee who has visited 365 days in a row or more it may be hard for @gdave to quit cold turkey.
Come back and let us know how it’s working out for you.
This is a reasonable point.
Listed explanation is that all has been removed.
One possible additional reason is that removing the post is what the OP had very strongly thought should have immediately occurred. Reposting its essence seems dumb to do in that context.
And it doesn’t matter if “we” agree or disagree on the call. Maybe it is justified righteous indignation over a moderator behaving badly; maybe it’s a triggering subject for our OP who thereby is reacting disproportionately. Arguing which is the case is not the point.
The OP currently is clearly getting more aggravated participating right now than having fun. For some reason. Many of us have been there for our own reasons and may be there again.
We have some jerks I wouldn’t mind hearing have flounced. Having those who are not in that group peel off is understandable but regrettable and further diminishes the experience for those of us who continue to play here. So many of us encourage sabbaticals with an open invitation to play here again some time in the future. That goes for many who do not make such pronouncements as well. Many of us do care.
It is also possible to just lay low, be a lurker, and read the boards passively, not necessarily interacting. Although I suspect some personalities find this harder to do than others.
Many of us do so as a primary usage case 
You don’t have to leave leave…
We’ve had a handful of posters over the years voluntarily ask a mod to suspend them for a set length of time (ie 1 week or 30 days or 6 months) knowing they need to take a step back and they only way they can do that is if they aren’t able to post (without creating a sock account, anyway).
It seems like the people that most often need to take a step back are the same ones that wouldn’t be able to lurk without posting unless something is stopping them.
I’ve had to take a break or two from this board from the wokeness oversaturation. There’s also been times I got an unexpected adverse reaction from what I thought was a softball statement, but somehow transmogrified into a rabbit hole of logic vs emotion, and I had to leave to bang my head against the wall for a few hours.
Just take a few days off, @gdave. Even what you consider your own comfort zone can be irritating sometimes.
If mod interactions are that upsetting (regardless of merit on either side) then leaving the board, at least for a short time is probably best. It’s a message board, it shouldn’t be a source of aggravation.
Beyond that, as a moderator of another board I know that there’s no way to please everyone. It’s inevitable that even the best moderation will piss off someone, so unless I know the specifics I just assume the complaining is noise.
Soundtrack for the thread:
Followed up by
Which–even with the best of intentions–leads directly to people correctly assuming that their complaints are being routinely ignored.
I just wanted to have this repeated, and bask in that superior feeling of “I stumbled into the coolest little joint in town, while thousands of people are out in the cold, sniping with family members on ‘social’ media.”
I am glad to be here, thanks to the mods and all you non-flouncers.
Then they need to supply details. Without them, my experiences as a moderator lead me to be suspicious of claims of abuse.
I’m only returning briefly to post this.
I struggled with whether I should respond, and if so, how. I had hoped that the other Moderators would have taken some action, even if only in private, or at the very least acknowledged that there was a problem. I was curious to see what response, if any, there had been, so eventually I came back to look at this thread. And found that the other Moderators who were in that Message thread are defending Chronos and accusing me of being “unfair” to him, because he was “just asking questions.”
I don’t think I fully realized it at the time, but the material I flagged was triggering for me. And the Mods’ “best practices” have conveniently removed my access to the Message thread in question. I invite the Mods to post that Message thread in its entirety. But I’m not going to try to reconstruct my interaction with Chronos or rehash it here in detail.
I will say this, though.
I flagged a post that linked to a video, with a screencap preview visible here on the SDMB. The video was uploaded to a social media app and was being circulated on social media without source or attribution. It purported to be a close-up of a Prisoner of War in a humiliating situation. If authentic, and to all appearances it was, it was clearly taken by his captors. And no, I’m not going to go into any more detail on the video than that.
Videos like that violate the Geneva Convention. That’s the “legal issue” that apparently confounded the Mods. I actually didn’t expect the Mods to be familiar with that area of international law, so in my initial flag comment I included a link to the relevant text along with expert commentary from the International Committee of the Red Cross directly and specifically addressing circulating images and recordings of PoWs on social media. Not that it apparently made any difference to Chronos.
Treatment of PoWs is a very sensitive and personal subject to me. And no, I’m not going to go into any more detail on that, either. I did react strongly to Chronos’ “questions”. But I hardly think I was being “unfair”.
I thought Chronos’ “questions” were snide, dismissive, and functionally indistinguishable from sealioning. But even if I over-reacted to his questions, the simple fact is that he went far beyond merely asking questions. He made a positive defense of the video, and glorified those responsible as “heroes”. His initial, repeated, and exclusive response was that the video was presumptively the work of unspecified “reporters” and not objectionable. He point-blank refused to even consider that the video had been circulated by the PoW’s captors because I hadn’t given him unspecified “evidence” on the identity and intentions of those responsible. He pointedly ignored any concerns about the ethics of circulating that video, either on the part of his imaginary “reporters” or this board, as well as any concerns about the harm to the video’s subject.
I want to emphasize this. Chronos is a moderator on an internet message board. In that capacity he was presented with a complaint about the posting of a link to an anonymously produced video circulating on social media that exploited the humiliation of a frightened and defenseless human being under duress who had no meaningful capacity for consent. And his official response as a moderator was that since the person making the complaint didn’t provide “evidence” on who uploaded it and why, it was presumptively the work of reporters, and not only would no action be taken, his official position was that those responsible were heroes, and any harm to the video’s subject was literally not even worth discussing.
The fact that the video was in and of itself a war crime is practically incidental.
(Also practically incidental were his strawmanning and sealioning responses to me; those were just the personal icing on the shitcake for me.)
Obviously not the venue for it but just based on what you’ve posted I disagree strongly with you on most of the core points you are raising about the video and ethical issues related to it. I say this with no specific knowledge of what video we are talking about, but getting into it beyond that isn’t really appropriate for ATMB.
From a board perspective, someone linked to a video you dislike being linked to, and you wanted it removed. The moderators disagreed apparently, and you decided to leave the board. That is your privilege of course. It is not a crime or unethical to retransmit a video someone else took even if the video itself is a crime. For example when various countries America has been at war with have posted such videos of our POWs (Vietnam, Iraq), those videos did air on national news. That is because the country has a right to know this is being done, and the right to then decide for themselves how they feel about that and what actions they should take in response (which could include lobbying a congressman or etc.) The SDMB isn’t a national news network, but it is a place for discussing matters of public importance, and I think the same logic applies. This wasn’t child pornography or similar such content that is intrinsically criminal just to possess or distribute.
Your beef with Chronos more specific to the issue itself don’t rise beyond the sort of things we argue about on this board all the time, and of course without more specifics can’t be adjudicated (nor should ATMB devolve into an argument about said video.)
Whatever your personal reason to being sensitive to something is not justification for content being removed, and is entirely irrelevant.
I also want to add as someone who has taken breaks from the board in the past, I don’t think that you should leave the board over being upset about the moderation on one topic/post. While I understand it’s something that you have said you are very sensitive to, but it’s a big forum with lots of people with varying sensitivities.
This is just plain wrong. Absolutely nothing in that post said that he wanted it removed because he disliked it. He made a legal and moral case for why the video should be removed.
And then his reason for leaving was that he perceived one mod as playing games and even supporting torture if it was done by the “heroes.”
I don’t get the point of this argument tactic. Is it that you don’t recognize a difference between morals, sensitivities, and dislikes? Or is it just an attempt to minimize them?
Either way, it’s never convincing. Downplaying what someone says only results in implying that what they said is so bad that you have to change it order to refute it. It ultimately is a strawman tactic.
People can disagree on morals, but you at least need to address it at the level provided. Moral claims can’t be so easily dismissed.