I saw… At least a description of the video in question. It was something in the order of a bound Russian soldier begging to call his mother. Or maybe actually calling his mother, and in tears.
It reminded me of a TV news clip that was one of the reasons i stopped watching TV news. Reporters were covering a house fire, and they filmed a woman, in tears because her children were trapped inside. Who the fuck wants to be put on TV at that moment of her life.
After he had been excluded from the private conversation and had no copy of same to refer to.
He doesn’t need a copy of a private conversation since they are not intended to be shared. If he had wanted a public conversation, he could have started one publicly. You don’t have any special expectation that in a private party conversation the other party’s recording of it be shared with you. Gdave had plenty of options to make his own copy of the conversation had he seen fit.
That should be his prerogative.
We’ve been told that you can be modded for the content of PMs, so one party of a conversation sharing them with the mods is apparently perfectly OK.
By my lights, that means a poster sharing PMs with the board in general should also be perfectly OK.
Err, not if he’s in the middle of it and suddenly his access to it got removed, which is what happens when the mods take a flag report private. Do you routinely screenshot every PM conversation you have?
I don’t have PM conversations on this forum. If I did, yes I would.
Not even with the mods?
That’s you, but I’m not going to fault gdave for not subscribing to that level of … I guess caution is the most neutral descriptor.
By the way, the reason the mods sometimes remove the poster is so the mods can continue the conversation privately among themselves. It’s basically a bug of the software that the only easy way to do this, the way the software suggests you do this, also removes from the poster access to their own report, and comments the mods made to them.
It’s unintuitive, we’ve all made mistakes using it, and i think it’s bad practice. But it’s how this software is designed to work.
I flag posts to the mods from time to time but I don’t have private back and forth conversations, no.
Does the “Reply as new Group Message” option not work for PMs? I’m pretty sure it does. Do that first, then take that new message thread private. This leaves the original thread undisturbed, but still linked from the new one…
ETA: just tested, and it definitely works. Also, sorry for the extra PM/
Maybe they just like chatting with me.
No, I’m almost sure that’s not it 
I think stepping away can be healthy. But I do think the attack on Chronos seems unfair. Puzzlegal’s explanation seems to indicate that there were issues to discuss. Maybe the OP just was in a state of mind that slanted es interpretation of the questions. In any case, even if Chronos’s questions were to come off as less than perfectly toned, I think everyone should get leeway for that. Unless it comes out that Chronos openly and unequivocally demeaned the OP.
There’s frankly a pretty big factual gulf from gdave’s claim that Chronos called the video takers / captors “heroic” and What Exit’s statement that he saw no such comment.
I don’t remember the exact words. But i believe @Chronos suggested it was morally virtuous for a journalist to expose war crimes, and that we shouldn’t censor such journalism.
Wait, has the PM thread been deleted for mods as well?
Then it is what gdave said, even if not in so many words, and yes, that is Chronos inserting his own views into things in a way I don’t think is right for this particular issue.
No, the PM thread is there from 2 months ago.
There is a limit to what we can share without Chronos’s permission. I shared all of my posts except 1 remark not tied to the Flag at all. But I am allowed to share mine.
All I can say is I reread the messages and don’t at all see what gdave saw. And I’ll repeat again, we’re not legal experts. We can’t just take a complaint something is illegal without looking into it if it is an unusual situation. As I mentioned. I’m ex-Navy and I don’t anything about POW laws.
The link was almost immediately broken, after that some fact gathering ensued. I would think that you would prefer the mods to operate that way.
Has anyone asked him?
I’m not objecting to the legal aspects of it at all. I’m objecting to Chronos using his own views of who is and isn’t morally right to mod this issue.
This isn’t about the link, it’s about how mods handled their conversation with gdave. That’s what’s driven him off.
That’s where it gets pretty hard to discuss without knowing the specifics of the vide. But in general there are a number of international legal experts who basically say the same thing–that sometimes videos or photos of captives being abused are important in actually being able to investigate war crimes. Note that such evidence was used in the investigation of the mistreatment of Abu Ghraib detainees, as one example.
There are, again, so many wrinkles to the issue though–Article 13 (of Geneva III) just is not a blanket ban on photographing or videoing captive soldiers, there is an element of intent that has to be investigated. As Professor Solis says in The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War 2nd Edition, captives cannot be used for propaganda purposes, and if that is the intent in recording and disseminating, that is a war crime.
On the flipside Retired Major General / Duke Laws Professor Charles Dunlap mentions that in the context of the Russian propaganda machine, using Ukraine as an example, it could be prudent for Ukraine to actually deliberately record that they are taking captives–in case it is suggested they are summarily executing all captives. Obviously, things can be done in that scenario to mitigate possibly infringing Article 13, by blurring out some identifying details and et cetera.
I’d also note again, without knowing very specific information on how a video was created, it is not that easy to leap to the assumption that I see gdave made in his post that it was the captors who made the video. For example, if cell phones were so ubiquitous during the Vietnam War, it stands to reason that an American pilot shot down over a Vietnamese residential area would have a decent likelihood of being video recorded by Vietnamese civilians. We know that such civilians did routinely hunt down and assault/beat the downed pilots (and while at the time I had a deeply anti-Vietnamese sentiment, in truth people who are literally having their families burned to death by American bombs, and who are civilians who are not supposed to be subject to that, expecting them to treat our downed pilots with kid gloves is simply not human–humans don’t work that way.) A civilian mob capturing a soldier is a different situation than a government, because civilians are not generally subject to the GC as parties to the conflict. If the government then took the video and disseminated they would have culpability, but again–lot of specifics need to be known.
This board is not the International Criminal Court or a war crimes trial. There’s no need for posting that shit here.
No, this is becoming ridiculous. And you’re right this isn’t the International Criminal Court or a war crimes trial. So why the hell are you grilling us over this and not accepting our word at all.
I guess we haven’t earned any trust at all.
No, i just suck at finding things that Discourse thinks I’m “done with”.