No. For now we consider the situation dealt with. We’re discussing how we should handle situations like this in the future, but nobody on that the staff has proposed that we should warn OpalCat or said that we should have done so.
The post was about something extremely personal. The fact that she just talked about it at length rather than linking to an off-board threat or to the pictures she was talking about doesn’t change that.
Did Opal request the thread be moved? All the examples I have seen that have been moved thus far were at the request of the poster.
I think that it absolutely DOES change it. We had the example of removing phone numbers. Would a post be removed for simply saying they owned a phone? Of course not, that would be silly.
We had someone admit to having an affair (I’m not sure how much more personal you can get.) but that post and thread is still available with the ability to track the poster down, if one so chose.
In the end, you guys gotta get it together and make a set of stable, uniform decisions. Take your time, do it right. If you make a mistake. Admit it. No shame. Move the post back, lock it, warn the poster. Just like would happen with the other 99 percenters of the SDMB.
Marley said: nobody’s proposed that we should warn OpalCat.
Ok. I am proposing you should Warn Opal. Given that Seven was given a Warning for simply posting a thread discussing the snarkpit and it was a first offense, Opal should be warned for a far worse offense.
Edit: Either Marley changed his quote really fast or there’s something wrong with the quote function–it didn’t originally have the"on the staff" part. I know better than to play with stuff inside a quote tag…so I’m removing the quote tag above just to be safe, but my response is to Marley’s original words.
She posted it.
Her posts about the color of her poo weren’t hidden. Her posts about when she was going to take a dump after her stomach surgery weren’t hidden. Her posts about her nose-job weren’t hidden. Her incessant posts about her diet aren’t hidden (did you know that she’s a vegan?) Her posts about her psychological stuff weren’t hidden, so why are you hiding a post about how she felt about another board discussing pictures she posted? The only thing “personal” in Opal’s post was her feelings about the situation. And it’s far less personal than all the other stuff she’s said all over the board.
Why is it so very, very hard for the other mods/admins to say “Idle Thoughts is a good guy, but a newbie mod here and he made a call that’s inconsistent with board rules (although with the best of intentions). We’re unhiding but locking the thread.” Drama over. Consistency maintained. Everyone goes away happy.
(bolding mine)
Clearly. The fact that a moderator with six months of tenure did it of his own volition for reasons that aren’t even fully agreed on by other moderators in an admittedly borderline case shows careful deliberation and copious forethought.
I’m pretty sure she did not.
There have been other cases where we decided to remove threads without specifically being asked to do so. I can’t link to them for obvious reasons. I’m a little uncomfortable getting specific, but we’ve had threads asking us about removals before. Usually we’ve removed threads when we were concerned that if they stayed open or public, it would be harmful to the poster emotionally or legally or some other way. Other times we’ve just removed threads so the situation wouldn’t get any worse while we decided what we should do.
Yes, that would be ridiculous. A non-ridiculous example would probably illustrate the point better. 
For example, if someone said another website posted their phone number - and they named the website or made it clear what site they were talking about so other people would know where to go to find that information.
I changed it to make the wording clearer. It was already obvious that some posters feel OpalCat deserved a warning, but I was saying that nobody on the staff has said we should have warned her or that we should warn her now.
That’s not in dispute.
I understand your point, but you’re being literal to the point of absurdity here.
Because I think he did the right thing. I wouldn’t say that if I didn’t mean it. I understand that it’s a judgment call and that all judgment calls are debatable. If the rest of the staff felt it was wrong and moved it back, I’d live with that. But I actually think this was the right move, so at least in my case, I’m not going to say it was wrong.
Porn buddies have existed in this country as long as porn has existed. In fact the founding fathers soon discovered that one porn buddy was not enough. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were political rivals but they were also porn buddies (they made this pledge to each other during tehr evolution ebfore they became political rivals, and the por buddy pledge was far more important than partisan bickering back then) but they died on the same day and their respective widows discovered their stash. the other founding fathers got togethera nd decided that everyone needed at least two porn buddies and during times of peril at least one of them should be out of ahrms way. That is the most important function of the Vice president and why they are sequestered from time to time. true story.
I think some people think you might be sensitive to the fact that this involved naked pictures, if so then just admit it and say, the policy is that “if naked pictures of your genitals make their way onto the board, you can ask to have them removed” and we will accomodate you. But if not, I suppose it would be perfectly OK for someone to post those pictures in a new thread, right?
OUCH!!! :eek:
There’s a long history of inconsistency and unpredictability in moderation at the Dope. Those inconsistencies seem to work out in OpalCat’s favor more so than with other users. It’s probably unintentional, but it could be the result of some subconscious bias resulting from her high profile, history, past contributions to the Doper community, and so on, more so than a policy of favoring OpalCat for special treatment.
A lot of Dopers believe OpalCat gets special treatment that isn’t accorded to the rest of us “proles”. True or not, SDMB staffers should at least ask themselves why that is.
I spent several hundred words speculating about it upthread. I’ve only been modding for around four years, but that’s what I’m seeing.
No, a bunch of malcontents that want to keep rubbing salt in her wounds and/or poking her with sticks for no good reason would get their way. I’m glad that is not going to happen.
Me too. That’s the kind of unpleasant atmosphere that could compel one to leave the board forever, again.
I guarantee you that if this happened to any other poster, there would be sympathy, and not a public outcry that the evil biased mods bring back a thread that only serves to give people a platform to revel in someone else’s suffering. And don’t give me the BS about how she was asking for it. Even if you think that’s true, that doesn’t give you carte blanche to be the person who spreads it around to the whole world. That’s petty and cruel.
The point of the thread was to explain that said pictures were in (front-end) PRIVATE and hidden areas of said gallery. It turns out there were back ways in which were found out, and my point in posting was to point out that never were those photos intended to be seen by other than one specific person. That is, I would never have posted those pictures publicly if I knew they were to be found publicly. **(I’m pretty sure that when I upgraded the software to my new gallery, some of the security settings were reset, btw, causing previously “hidden” and “private” albums to be public. But since I unlinked that whole domain from everywhere I figured it would float in obscurity until whenever. If I could have just closed the thing and let it blow over, I would have opted for that, but the idea that some people actually thought I posted those things FOR THE PUBLIC sort of forced me to feel that I had to clarify.
Again: Those pictures were not “MADE” publicly. they were made in in hidden/private forums (in a domain name that was no longer linked from anywhere) that I thought at the time were saved and only see my my now-husband. When it turned out there was a way to access them from behind the scenes, I wanted it known that I had never posted those images intending for anyone other than him to see them. That’s why I made the thread, which was probably the wrong thing to do but I was desperate.
And yes, I got a private message about it explaining not to do it again and why it was removed.
They were originally. They were hidden and private and viewable only to certain users. When I upgraded the gallery, I think these things were reset to defaults.
.
[/QUOTE]
No, they were originally protected. I believe it is when I upgraded that the settings were changed.
Not at ALL. I would have MUCH rather said nothing and gone about my merry way. Yet thinking that all those people thought of me as the sort who would intentionally publically post those pictures just nagged at me until I had to say something.
Again: the software I used allowed for filtering of what was public or not. It’s my fault for not realizing how secure that was, but I used what I thought at the time was sufficient filtering to make sure that the public didn’t have access to the photos that my now-husband and I exchanged during our 3 year LDR.
Ok I’m not entirely sure that’s 100% coherent, but one thing that I have a hard time getting over is people misunderstanding/misrepresenting my intentions. In posting those pictures, I took what the software implied were the steps to make said photos private. Turns out that wasn’t good enough *(and I think that upgrading removed the settings anyway, on retrospect). I just wanted to clear the air so that people didn’t think I was the sort to make such things pubic. I was horrified to find that those photos were available to anyone besides my husband.That was the thrust of my post, and the reason I made it. I’m sorry if people think I’m getting special treatment–I didn’t ask for it–I just wanted to set the record straight. I’d have much rather just removed the photos and ignored the whole thing… except that the two pages of posts that I read indicated that most people thought I posted those photos for public consumption, which was untrue.
Anyway, that’s that. sorry to all.
I guess I’m confused. No one on this board was discussing the photos, so this discussion you’re alluding to happened elsewhere. If your intent was to let those people know you weren’t creating those photos to be public, why not post over there? Why post your explanation here, to the people who weren’t the ones discussing it?
Nobody here did this.
Nobody here thought any differently/knew about it at all.
Nobody cares.
Nobody here thought of you that way.
That is an unfortunate typo.
And nobody here misunderstood or misrepresented your intentions. Nobody here thought you were that sort.
You didn’t read two pages of posts about it here.
This thread, enticing though it may be, is not about you. It is about a moderator’s decision. Unless you have anything to say about that, please don’t derail it anymore. Thank you.
Assuming I have the right board:
That’s fine, but my question is why post it here. No one here was discussing anything.
Yeah, that was a problem.