Ceri the Urt wrote:The In Crowd: I didn't want to Ban her because I was to involved in the discussion and the Mods and myself as an Admin try not to moderate things we are to involved in.
All of the information, the edited posts, etc are all kept on the staff boards so all of the mods can review entire issues and make judgments such as bannings in case something like this happens where a mod backs out because they are to involved and don't know if they can be unbias.
We do are best to try and be as fair and neutral to everyone as we can. Heck one reason the mods are anonymous are not just to protect their true identity from harassment, but because the other mods have no idea who each other are so they can mod one and others posts (on their actual persona) and be unbias about it.
The other mods wanted a perma ban. I told them to do a one week. What everyone has to remember is the only thing we really "show" are bans. Warnings and such are not shown to the public. So while everyone thinks that those involved were let off the hook scott free, they were not. Warnings were given out. People were spoken to. No bans were issues because in nearly all the cases it was everyones first offence. Kiana was warned, she was warned verbally, she was told quite a few times not to do something, she was talked to in PM and she still wouldn't drop the subject and made it clear she was going to grief the boards when she changed her avi. THAT is what got her banned.
Garrgon wrote: A flag only draws our attention to the flagged post.
TrollinWitMyHomies wrote:Actually, I was completely clear on the process. I know that not every flagged post generates a warning or an edit. I think that this is actually what I take most issue with. I believe that more should be looked at than simply that flagged post. The entire thread should be taken into account and the words on the screen should be taken at face value. Assumptions and 'reading between the lines' should not play a part in determining if a warning or even an edit is issued. Is it a lot of work? Yes. But, I think if a fair, full picture view is to be gained, then that is really the only way.
TrollinWitMyHomies wrote:The goal of moderation should always be to neutralize any kind of escalation that is destructive to a thread, not encourage it. By editing a perfectly relevant post based on an assumption and someone's hurt feelings because they think it just might be about them actually escalates a situation instead of diffuses it. This is, of course, just my opinion, and Ceri and the mods will always have my support in doing what they see fit on their forums, but I think that it is a relevant criticism of a current moderation practice to look into.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests