That’s a separate issue–I’ve already said if a video is bad taste I’m fine with it not being posted here, and such videos can be discussed without a link that shows an inline video that many people may not want to see.
But if someone is making a *legal assertion, then sorry–the law matters. If gdave had said he simply wanted it removed because he found it personally objectionable, triggering, offensive or disgusting–I would say that it’s fine to accommodate that within reason, like we obviously can’t cater to everyone’s sensitivities, but some content is so objectionable for most of us to view we just don’t want it here. Like the aforementioned ISIS video of a Jordanian fighter pilot being burned alive, that has no good reason to be shown here and many reasons not to be shown.
But if someone says “you must remove this because it is illegal”, then sorry, but the law becomes relevant.
No at all - @MrDibble does not speak for most of us. And if he’s accepting this OP’s subjective account at face value as a platform to attack the moderation, I think he’s chosen the wrong hill to die on.
That’s based not just on what gdave relayed, but also what the mods have. In no way is that just “accepting this OP’s subjective account at face value”
It was OP who chose to make this a private exchange, and then even though he was factually wrong on the substantive legal issue, and even when he nevertheless did get the moderation outcome he sought, still launched a hyperbolic attack on the moderation and flounced.
I can see the merits of publishing the entire exchange if its available. It might have been better for OP to start an ATMB thread in the first place. But I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate to take the approach that you are taking, which seems to be to assume that something sinister and inappropriate happened until its proven otherwise.
Right, if I were moderating a message board and someone brought a legal claim to my attention concerning a post, I would as first step want to investigate that claim. Claiming something is a legal problem is something that intrinsically needs to be investigated for a number of reasons–specifically because whatever I might decide in that specific case, if it was something to come up again, I’d want to have some general familiarity with the legal issues involved.
If the person who brings that claim forward, then gets angry when someone asks questions about it, I think that person is being irrational and unreasonable.
If the conversation was literally just “I find this video deeply offensive, it needs removed”, then I think there is less need for a back-and-forth discussion, at that point it’s just the moderator using their judgment to come to a decision–and that is essentially their job. The idea that Chronos wouldn’t use his own judgment in determining if something’s offensiveness merited its removal…is strange to me, that is the role of moderation in such cases. Even if it involves a “board rule”, rules can never comprehensively cover anything, application of rules requires deliberation and personal insight.
Flagging something does not prevent you from also starting an ATMB thread. OP was under no obligation to conduct an extended exchange on the ethical questions with the mods privately.
No, but if you flag something, and the mods ask you questions, it is natural to answer in the DM and not run off to create an ATMB thread in every instance.
Since it was my post that started all of this, I’ll try to fill in some gaps for people.
In the thread, someone had brought up a picture they had seen of a Russian POW that had a plastic bag or packaging tape around their head. It was, and is, easily found on Google. When I linked it, I don’t remember it being a video, I thought it was a photo. That could be down to my settings as I don’t allow gifs or meme videos to play.
At no time did I even think this was illegal, and I still don’t. I’m sure most of us have seen POW pictures that were in no way illegal to show. Think Abu Ghraib. Plus, as I pointed out to the mod who edited my post, if it was illegal they had a lot of work to do going thru all the Ukraine threads and removing POW pics that had been there for weeks.
All in all, if I knew we would lose a poster who I found funny and entertaining I would not have posted it. For that I apologize to @gdave.
I don’t see that at all. @gdave’s whole point is how he felt he was treated by a mod.
And you do?
This whole thing could be put out in the open so people don’t have to make wild guesses about what was said. If @Chronos is so sure his questions were pertinent rather than insulting, all he has to do is release them.
I agree. Whatever @Chronos personally felt about the issue, he should keep that to himself while acting as a mod to a poster complaint.
I don’t think the mods look kindly at using ATMB as the first resort. Doing it the way he did is, by my understanding, the preferred way. At least, I’ve had several mod exchanges end at that level, so I’ve taken it that’s the best way to do things.
Why are you phrasing this as obligation? OP initially hoped he could get satisfaction that way.
I know if, say, I reported a misogynistic post, I’d expect it to result in some PM traffic if the mods wanted clarity. And would only take it to ATMB if they were completely not getting my side of things.
What do you mean by this? The legal issue was not pertinent. So it hinged on the ethics of posting such videos. Unless it’s something explicitly covered by Board rules (clearly this is not), ethical questions are subjective. How else do you expect moderators to reach decisions in these situations except through personal judgment?
And you do? See, we could do this forever. Or you could take the obvious point I was making that one vocal poster does not necessarily reflect overall Board sentiment.
By saying it wasn’t illegal and it didn’t break any board rules. The fact that Chronos thought there were heroes involved on either side of this shows he didn’t even understand the situation. It was a Russian POW, filmed and released by Ukrainian soldiers as a propaganda piece to show they let Russian POWs talk to their families. There are no heroes involved here.
I said precisely the opposite - that he had no obligation, and made a choice.
And again, he did get satisfaction in terms of the moderation outcome.
What I find dubious about OP’s behavior is to then choose to launch a hyperbolic attack on the character of a mod based on a conversation that OP had originally chosen to make private.