doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Res Ipsa]

Slight correction, Marcus: the designation was made personally by me in the black, was for this board and not the world, and was for exceptional technique that stays within the rules, not for quantity.

Not sure what you are correcting, but re the designation, the comments are in a thread, permanently pinned to the top of the S Paradise board, titled "Rules and Moderator information" with this OP, in red, made by you:

I’ve created this thread for general discussions about rules and how they are applied and enforced. Please feel free to make requests or suggestions. Please continue to use the report function to call our attention to posts that violate the rules. You can always contact us by Private Message.

The context matters. Given the special conditions of the thread, your argument that it should be viewed as simply a 'personal designation' is not credible.

Of course context matters. The entire context, not something cherry picked from the context. Context includes the well-known convention here that moderators post in the red when speaking as such and in the black when they are not. The only "special condition" is please don't use it to report violations, which indicates the thread is not a part of official moderator action. My comment is clearly my personal opinion and not something I said as a mod.

[Res Ipsa]

...When we are pointing out a rule violation, we try to include a reference to the rule. I use "rules" to refer to the actual list of site rules. Me making a request in red is not, itself, a rule...

Now this is confusing. On what basis are you making a request if not on the basis of the rules, in your "official capacity as moderator"?

...And I know how to use red font to let y'all know when I'm speaking in my official capacity as a moderator and when I am not..

I seriously don't understand why you would be confused. I just explained the difference between making a request and the rules. We do both in our official capacity as moderators. If you put your most excellent research skills to use you will find examples in addition to xeno's request that you quoted above.

[Jersey Girl]

FTR This was a direct message to the thread starter that contains 2 requests from myself. I reported nothing. I asked for nothing from moderators. I asked the thread starter himself. I appreciate that mods felt they were correcting a situation but I would much prefer that the thread starter do it himself. If it's not asking too much I would like whomever mod to restore the thread title and give DT a chance to do the right thing. Then go from there.

1. I am not a huge fan of Dr. Grande.

2. I have criticized him for including offhand jokes about murder cases.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=154311&p=2751503&hi ... s#p2751503

3. Leave my screen name OUT of your thread titles.

4. Stop using my screen name in an effort to legitimize your trash posting and/or bait me.

5. You're on ignore and will stay there until and unless you stop your creepy postings.

[Marcus]

Now this is confusing. On what basis are you making a request if not on the basis of the rules, in your "official capacity as moderator"?

I seriously don't understand why you would be confused. I just explained the difference between making a request and the rules. We do both in our official capacity as moderators. If you put your most excellent research skills to use you will find examples in addition to xeno's request that you quoted above.

[emphasis added for yet another expansion of moderator oversight not previously discussed.]

Participants here shouldn't have to use their "most excellent research skills" to find the "requests" made by mods that are not part of the rules. Not everyone reads every thread, making the awareness of this "requests" an unreasonable expectation.

Could mods please collect these "requests" that are made in red font, by those acting in their "official capacity as moderator," that are not in the rules, and post them as an addendum to the rules? That would be very helpful.

[Marcus]

FTR This was a direct message to the thread starter that contains 2 requests from myself. I reported nothing. I asked for nothing from moderators. I asked the thread starter himself. I appreciate that mods felt they were correcting a situation but I would much prefer that the thread starter do it himself. If it's not asking too much I would like whomever mod to restore the thread title and give DT a chance to do the right thing. Then go from there.

The mods didn't correct this themselves, i asked them to. DT is not going to do the right thing, and i dudn't want this rule-breaking to continue.

[Res Ipsa]

I seriously don't understand why you would be confused. I just explained the difference between making a request and the rules. We do both in our official capacity as moderators. If you put your most excellent research skills to use you will find examples in addition to xeno's request that you quoted above.

[emphasis added for yet another expansion of moderator oversight not previously discussed.]

Participants here shouldn't have to use their "most excellent research skills" to find the "requests" made by mods that are not part of the rules. Not everyone reads every thread, making the awareness of this "requests" an unreasonable expectation.

Could mods please collect these "requests" that are made in red font, by those acting in their "official capacity as moderator," that are not in the rules, and post them as an addendum to the rules? That would be very helpful.

I have called a conclave. Keep your eye on the color of the smoke emanating from the chimney.

[Marcus]

Not sure what you are correcting, but re the designation, the comments are in a thread, permanently pinned to the top of the S Paradise board, titled "Rules and Moderator information" with this OP, in red, made by you:

The context matters. Given the special conditions of the thread, your argument that it should be viewed as simply a 'personal designation' is not credible.

Of course context matters. The entire context, not something cherry picked from the context. Context includes the well-known convention here that moderators post in the red when speaking as such and in the black when they are not. The only "special condition" is please don't use it to report violations, which indicates the thread is not a part of official moderator action. My comment is clearly my personal opinion and not something I said as a mod.

I was referring to the "special condition" whereby a moderator's personal opinion about who is the biggest troll on this entire forum, and the same moderator's personal discussion of the official circumstances regarding why they, in their official capacity as moderator, can't or don't moderate that person, are in a thread titled "rules and moderator information", pinned to the top of the forum. Your argument that because you discussed your position and decision making process as a moderator in black ink means you are just making personal remarks is specious and facile.

If you really stand by this argument, then split that part of the discussion into an unPINNED thread, not started by a red moderator statement.

[Res Ipsa]

The technical function aspect is only part of what I discussed. I could have administered exactly the same warning through the PM function. Under your application of the rule, I could censor all criticism of warnings and banning simply by choosing which method I use.

To elaborate: an important part of applying the spirit of the rule is considering context. What is the context? UR 3 is completely silent about moderator communications or actions. The rule set is minimal in terms of content based restrictions. Criticism of moderator actions has been specifically ruled "on topic" in threads where moderation action has been taken or someone thinks moderation has not been taken. The moderation philosophy of the board is intended to be less heavy handed than that in MDDB and other forums. Part of the job description of the moderator position is to be subject to criticism by the user base.

Applying UR 3 to moderator actions would be antithetical to almost every significant facet of the board's general philosophy and practice. If I did that, I would not be complying with the spirit of the law.

And yet, applying UR 3 to "moderator communications or actions" used to be done, to the best of my memory, when apparently PMs were used to communicate moderator actions*, so you can understand my confusion. I appreciate the clarification that things have changed and the explanation that PMs are no longer used for moderator communications/actions.


*i ran across an example that explains why my memory was arguing with me, regarding UR 3 being applied to moderator actions:

Bach, please do not post the contents of any PM without the author's express permission. See Universal Rule 3.

According to my in box, you sent me a PM about an hour before posting this thread. I don't believe anyone has promised that mods will answer PMs within the hour they are sent. I just returned from being away from my computer for the day, and am sitting down at my computer to read the board, respond to PMs, etc.

If you disagree with my call on the post you submitted today, please feel free to send it to Shades and ask him to reverse my call. I believe the information I provided you about the reason for disapproving the post were sufficient to communicate why I determined that the post was not in compliance with the rules.

Marcus, I went back and reviewed the thread. It was five years ago and I have no independent recollection of the incident. From what I recall about dealing with Bach while he was on the queue, I doubt I was thinking about the ramifications I discussed above in this thread.

I looked through the mod forum for a ruling on or discussion of applying UR 3 to disclosure of moderator actions by the person being moderated, whether communicated through the board software or by PM. I could not find anything.

Assuming that my PM to Bach was the explanation for how his submitted post violated the rules, I think today that I made the wrong call five years ago. I've had to think through lots of things since Shades stepped down as lead moderator, including issues about transparency that I haven't had to consider before. That experience has obviously changed my views on this specific issue since five years ago.

The understanding you expressed is incorrect:

I appreciate the clarification that things have changed and the explanation that PMs are no longer used for moderator communications/actions.

"Things" haven't changed. I looked for, but did not find, any past ruling on or discussion about the specific issue you raise. The only change is how I would apply UR 3 to a very specific case today, as opposed to how I applied it in a similar case five years ago.

As far as I know, moderators are still free to use public posts, PMs or other board software functions for moderator communications and actions. Nothing I posted was intended to communicate any change of policy or practice.

[Res Ipsa]

Of course context matters. The entire context, not something cherry picked from the context. Context includes the well-known convention here that moderators post in the red when speaking as such and in the black when they are not. The only "special condition" is please don't use it to report violations, which indicates the thread is not a part of official moderator action. My comment is clearly my personal opinion and not something I said as a mod.

I was referring to the "special condition" whereby a moderator's personal opinion about who is the biggest troll on this entire forum, and the same moderator's personal discussion of the official circumstances regarding why they, in their official capacity as moderator, can't or don't moderate that person, are in a thread titled "rules and moderator information", pinned to the top of the forum. Your argument that because you discussed your position and decision making process as a moderator in black ink means you are just making personal remarks is specious and facile.

If you really stand by this argument, then split that part of the discussion into an unPINNED thread, not started by a red moderator statement.

Done.

[doubtingthomas]

Your point is well taken about the multiple threads on the same topic. We combined a couple, but not all. I think you're right on the mega thread idea. I'll take it up on the mod board.

I don't appreciate the different treatment.

If you like the mega thread idea, you'll have to apply the same standard to other topics. To be consistent, you'll have to create

1. A Megathread about Donald Trump

2. A Megathread about Republicans

3. A Megathread about Democrats

4. A Megathread about Fox News

5. A Megathread about the election cycle.

For example, Vēritās has created multiple threads about Fox New and Marcus doesn't complain about that.

I understand you have a tough job to do and I appreciate your work. You are free to treat me differently, but that's something that I won't appreciate. I stated that I will not create other threads about these topics, so I am not sure what the problem here is.

I was referring to the "special condition" whereby a moderator's personal opinion about who is the biggest troll on this entire forum

Who's the biggest enemy of free speech in the entire forum?