Rules and Moderator information

[Marcus]

Copying this over, it seems more relevant here, since I think res Ipsa's last response to me was based on this post also:

Mike, please consider this a formal, public warning not to repost material that I or any other moderator has deleted. I’ve preserved your original post and will post it in the moderator thread for Shades’s attention.

?

...We don't have a three strikes or four strikes or similar policy with respect to rule violations.

Another question for the mod thread, if you don't mind. What is the difference between giving "a formal, public warning" and having a "three strikes or four strikes or similar policy"?

I am well aware that you can give me technical explanations distinguishing between the two, but I am asking to bypass that justification phase and just consider how a participant views this. What I see as a participant is a statement that moderators don't have a policy in place whereby warnings can be meaningfully given (strikes), followed shortly by a mod post in red where a "formal, public warning" is given.

To the lay reader, the worst interpretation is that there is no way to follow up on warnings (the first statement), followed by a warning that means absolutely nothing (as per the first statement). Is there any way to follow through with these warnings? If I am asking questions that involve the betrayal of sacred moderator promises, I withdraw. But seriously, is there some bite to these repeated warnings mike et al. gets?

Eta: at least twice more now, while I was writing this post, Atlanticmike has reposted the stuff you deleted, after you warned him. What is the effect of that "formal warning"?

[Res Ipsa]

Mike, please consider this a formal, public warning not to repost material that I or any other moderator has deleted. I’ve preserved your original post and will post it in the moderator thread for Shades’s attention.

?

...We don't have a three strikes or four strikes or similar policy with respect to rule violations.

Another question for the mod thread, if you don't mind. What is the difference between giving "a formal, public warning" and having a "three strikes or four strikes or similar policy"?

I am well aware that you can give me technical explanations distinguishing between the two, but I am asking to bypass that justification phase and just consider how a participant views this. What I see as a participant is a statement that moderators don't have a policy in place whereby warnings can be meaningfully given (strikes), followed shortly by a mod post in red where a "formal, public warning" is given.

To the lay reader, the worst interpretation is that there is no way to follow up on warnings (the first statement), followed by a warning that means absolutely nothing (as per the first statement). Is there any way to follow through with these warnings? If I am asking questions that involve the betrayal of sacred moderator promises, I withdraw. But seriously, is there some bite to these repeated warnings mike et al. gets?

Eta: at least twice more now, while I was writing this post, Atlanticmike has reposted the stuff you deleted, after you warned him. What is the effect of that "formal warning"?

I understand your concerns, but you are getting into areas of confidentiality that I'm not comfortable discussing. Normally, I would would not publicly warn a user. In this specific case, where a user has repeatedly reposted material deleted by a moderator, the user is preventing us from doing our jobs. I would put it under the rule against interfering with the smooth operation of the board. In my judgment, that warranted a strong, public warning. There is a significant difference between arguing over whether a post should or should not have been moved and, for example, repeatedly posting something in Paradise after the same post has been moved to Prison. The latter literally prevents us from doing our jobs.

In terms of tools, mods can and do impose temporary bans for various lengths of time. Technically, mods could impose a permanent ban, but I don't see that happening without Shades' blessing. Mods cannot "queue" a poster; that's a Shades level call. My recollection is that we don't routinely announce when either step has been taken. The purpose of this type of rule enforcement is to make it clear where the lines are and encourage the user to comply with the rules. Publicly shaming users would, in my opinion, work against what we are trying to do.

[Res Ipsa]

RI can you just cut to the chase and ask Shades to look in here and comment as he has time?

Absolutely.

ETA: Done.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

RI can you just cut to the chase and ask Shades to look in here and comment as he has time?

Absolutely.

Six months of a one-trick pony crap show, a stated aim to destroy the board, and we need Dr. Shades to “take a look at it”?

-_-

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

Absolutely.

Six months of a one-trick pony crap show, a stated aim to destroy the board, and we need Dr. Shades to “take a look at it”?

-_-

- Doc

The reason I made the request is because if any additional action is warranted (what warnings are used for, determining what leads to suspension, the queue, or further discussion re: sexual harassment) then Shades needs to make the ultimate rulings.

In any case, AM's comments to me were dirty as crap, violated board rules, and warranted the mod activity they got.

Personally if it were left up to me, I'd have smacked him right into a suspension by now. But that's not my call to make. It's not the mods call to make. The call belongs to Shades.

[Marcus]

Six months of a one-trick pony crap show, a stated aim to destroy the board, and we need Dr. Shades to “take a look at it”?

-_-

- Doc

The reason I made the request is because if any additional action is warranted (what warnings are used for, determining what leads to suspension, the queue, or further discussion re: sexual harassment) then Shades needs to make the ultimate rulings.

In any case, AM's comments to me were dirty as crap, violated board rules, and warranted the mod activity they got.

Personally if it were left up to me, I'd have smacked him right into a suspension by now. But that's not my call to make. It's not the mods call to make. The call belongs to Shades.

Yes, his comment was beyond filthy. I agree a suspension would be my choice also, but I also understand it is Shade's choice.

This poster today started back up his sexual harassment, attacks on family members, and content so pornographic it had to be deleted. There was a huge discussion last time he did it, and the rules were made clear. But he did it again anyway. Does anyone on this board doubt that it will happen again? His intent is solely to disrupt. He has made that abundantly clear.

[Jersey Girl]

This poster today started back up his sexual harassment, attacks on family members, and content so pornographic it had to be deleted. There was a huge discussion last time he did it, and the rules were made clear. But he did it again anyway. Does anyone on this board doubt that it will happen again? His intent is solely to disrupt. He has made that abundantly clear.

Nope. He's made a believer out of me.

[Jersey Girl]

Here's a reminder for the teeming masses of Shades' original ruling re: sexual harassment. Bless him. I'm sure he'll reply here in a couple of weeks.

Your requests have been granted:

1. We have a new Universal Rule in place. #11 reads:
   

   Do not create "sock puppet" accounts. Whichever account you initially signed up with is the only one you need; any further accounts by the same person will be deleted.

2. Sexual harassment will, of course, be considered a personal attack and will be treated accordingly.
3. A new off-topic forum with celestial rules has been created.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=2756142

[Jersey Girl]

In both of the two cases you mention, my understanding is that Shades resorted to using the queue only after being convinced that the person simply would not comply with the rules. It's a matter of judgment and how the person responds to less drastic feedback.

AM should have been first suspended in order to cool his jets a couple or three days, then brought back on the queue and left to winter over on the worm farm that is Prison where he belongs. His sins are FAR worse than ldsfaqs' ever thought of being. On his worst days, faqs never made sexually harassing remarks. AM's posting history has ALL the hallmarks of faqs re: inflammatory political commentary/use of ALL CAPS (only faqs was completely sincere in his remarks) plus overt sexual harassment and defiance of moderator warnings.

And Shades if you happen to read this post, remember when you shut off emoticons because you thought they made the board look like a 'kindergarten coloring book'? Take a look through these threads without even reading the comments. This person is using our forum for as his own personal toilet.

[Chap]

Of course, as more and more people join me and DrC in putting AM on ignore, a series of individual bans accumulates ... and as it continues there is eventually nothing but AM writing obscenities on the walls of his lonely little cell for nobody but himself to read (no doubt using whatever substances are readily available to him in there).

Though I suppose the mods will be obliged to look in on him from time to time, just to make sure he is not breaking any rules ...