I have generally attempted to DM the poster before removing them.
@MrDibble suggested another method, above, that I’d like to play with, that might be easier and more transparent for all concerned.
The system doesn’t work all that well. To have a mod discussion we have to remove the poster that flagged the post from it. At that point they can’t see it.
It is far too much work to try and give them the part of the PM stream that they had access too, especially if we’re doing it from a phone. I’m not even willing to try unless a technical fix is made.
I think it is fair to say I communicate in the flag system more than most mods. But what you’re asking for is too much.
@puzzlegal, Can you point to MrDibble’s suggestion please. This thread has moved fast, I don’t recall it.
Or you can spin off a new mod message thread from that one (same functionality as spinning off a thread). That was what I suggested above.
This whole thing is a he said she said. I notice the other mod didn’t mention noticing the morally virtuous part.
I’m just going to let this go as an agreement seems unlikely. I’m just disappointed that I was the cause of a poster I like a lot quit the board over a post of mine. Especially a post that the thread would have been just fine without.
That does make our job harder I believe for very little gain. But it looks like puzzlegal is testing it out. Hopefully I’m wrong.
I wouldn’t call not having PMs cornfielded “very little gain” for the posters, myself. It’s literally one, maybe two, button clicks, not any more onerous than the “boot this guy” button you currently use.
It is little gain for a major inconvenience as right now the Flag PM conversation is contained in one easy thread, tied to the flag itself. The split off means the new conversation is disconnected from the flag and you have to link back to the original conversation.
We’re trying it out. So far it doesn’t work anywhere near as well as you think it should.
Yeah, I think we’re going to have to call that little experiment a failure. If we come up with something that actually works, we’ll let you know.
This seems to be a pretty unrealistic and immature understanding of what discussion rules are and how they can be applied. There are often no bright lines and moderators have no choice but to interpret rules. And interpreting rules requires bringing one’s knowledge, understanding, and assumptions to bear on answering a question.
What we seem to know is this:
- A report was made.
- The offending post was blocked.
- A discussion ensued between Chronos and the OP over why and whether the post should remain blocked.
- The discussion was expanded to the mod loop, at which point the OP was dropped from the conversation.
- The decision was made that the post should remain blocked.
At steps 3 and 4, bringing one’s understanding about whether a post violates the rules seems entirely appropriate, and the asking of questions to understand why seems entirely appropriate.
For example, if the assertion was something like:
“This post is bad.”
Then the following discussion seems entirely appropriate:
“Why is it bad? Maybe, for X, Y, and Z reasons it is good.”
Then the conversation continues. That seems entirely appropriate and desirable to me.
There was no discussion about whether the post should remain blocked. The discussion was over whether or not merely taking the video was or was not a war crime.
As I said upthread, at no time did any moderator even hint that the link to the video might be restored. The link had been removed and there was no plan to ever restore it.
In that case, I can’t see any reason why Chronos should be castigated by the OP in the way that he was. It’s moved from a moderation decision to something more abstract. Unless there’s some reason to believe that Chronos blatantly demeaned or abused the OP.
It seems to amount to this:
“Displaying such a video is a war crime under international law.”
“Is it really? Why? Should it be? What if it is a public service to expose the apparent fact that what is shown is actually happening?”
How can that possibly be worthy of this level of condemnation?
There is no issue to Mod. There was a issue, the issue was solved a long time ago. And yes, only the mods get to Moderate things here. Posters don’t vote on these things.
Why should they? What business is that of yours? It was a PRIVATE Message. It is none of your business.
Exactly. And frankly, after all this time, I don’t believe gdave, memories are a transient and faulty thing. In any case, it is no ones business here.
That was exactly my question when @gdave posted his response. At the time it seemed like a huge over-reaction and looking back on it now it still seems like a huge over-reaction.
Honestly, I don’t get it.
And while I think gdave was probably incorrect as to the law, especially if he really suggested that simple display or dissemination of it was illegal for non-party entities, the general principle behind why using POWs for propaganda purposes is a war crime is a good one. His trying to point out that showing such videos can often be in poor taste, can sometimes be depicting a video that is being used for (illegal) propaganda purposes etc. But I just don’t see a rational response to telling someone that and that person asking “oh, so would this actually be a war crime in this situation?” (paraphrasing) to be what we’ve gotten here, it feels wildly out of proportion.
Right. I mean, you guys took down the video quickly, right?
Just that he wanted you to take down the vid for his reasons, not yours??
I think I know what mordecaiB was trying to say here… And I agree if my assumption was correct. Even though “judgement” was the phrase used, I don’t think that was what was intended. Of course moderation requires judgement, if it didn’t we could just automate it with scripts, and we probably all know places that try that and it’s always a disaster.
I think what was meant is that a moderator’s personal opinion on a subject should be set aside. As in, if the moderator personally supported or disliked what was in a link, that should be irrelevant, and what should matter is what is best for the board and also what do the rules say. In that, I would agree. When I’ve been a forum moderator elsewhere, and an admin on Wikipedia, I tried my hardest to keep my opinions aside.
I don’t see any indication that Chronos was letting personal feelings guide judgment. Even the comment that the actions could be seen as heroism isn’t a personal opinion, just a counterpoint to the insistence that it was a war crime. Assuming the discussion as relayed to us is accurate.
Apparently the Doper who has left objects to moderators doing their job and not simply agreeing with him without further consideration. If any of the moderators did not do that then they should say goodbye also. Moderators should not be advocates for any poster, and shouldn’t be asked to be either.
Of course it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that this may be the case. It also seems appropriate–especially for someone who isn’t well versed in the issue–to explore why and whether there are any valid counter-arguments. I see no problem with such a conversation going on for either side of that conversation.
This post has confused me?