Are the moderators here over-moderating?

[Paul]

21 hours ago, major_merrick said:

Now when I post on anything, I've got to check and recheck to make sure the wording is exactly right so nobody COMPLAINS.  And if I make a reference to any kind of fact at all, its like I'd better have a complete APA-style bibliography. 

It's hard, but we're better for it.

If you have a statistic to share about findings about the rate of divorce in Europe, yes, you should have a link to the peer-reviewed research that shows the findings reflecting that claim. Otherwise, you're not sharing safely. If you have a fact to share about a current event, yes, you should have a link to a credible journalistic source of repute that reports factually and with integrity.

If you can't find either of the above, don't share the fact. You are adding nothing of value, other than parroting what you've heard or believe to be true, dangerously furthering misinformation.

If you want to share an opinion on a subjective matter, as what most of what we discuss here is, yes--you should read it carefully and with consideration. You should ensure that you're respecting the value of the people that hold differing subjective opinions, that you're adding your contribution with intention to learn from those who might feel differently, and that you're willfully consenting to be part of a conversation with others who are of a similar mindset, and most likely differing opinions.

If you find yourself wanting to shout how wrong someone is for not holding the subjective opinion you hold, please refrain from sharing your thoughts in that discussion. Understand your limits and respect your personal boundaries.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Paul
Coffee levels low; pressed submit too soon.

[Paul]

16 hours ago, Libby1 said:

I remember a point when if you said something like "your boss is being a [redacted]" or spoke up against "[redacted] shaming" you would be infracted for using an abusive term...even though you weren't using it as part of any attack on anybody on the board.   It did lead to people having to post in a formalised, careful style that took away a lot of spontaneity.  I think that rule has been relaxed now, but there's still far less spontaneity and life on the forum than there once was.

It's still important that we're careful with our words. We want to be sure that the words we use don't lead automated processes to believe that this is a place that is profane. Context is everything, yet there are better, more thoughtful ways to describe these things. The rationale for restrictions on certain words is simply so that we can continue to rely on advertisers to help offset operational costs here. Doing so requires that we keep profane language off of the community.

16 hours ago, Libby1 said:

Ages ago, a whole lot of people who liked to post a lot in the watercooler were banned - because, I think, they were deemed to be too much of a clique.  Inevitably it's hard for once lively discussion boards to recover from that sort of thing.

Removing someone's access to this community should be a measure used only as a last resort, and should be rare. I'm certain that individuals have had their access restricted in the past by moderators acting with the best of intentions, and within the confines of the circumstances that existed at the time, yet without proper cause. It is my belief that no one should fear being ostracized from the community, and anyone who has had their access revoked in the past that would like that changed is absolutely welcome to contact us. We do hear from individuals on occasion and I think, without exception, we've restored access to anyone who has asked (aside from those people who are here to spam with commercial offerings).

The only people who should have access restricted are those who show a willful lack of regard for our guidelines. Do we get it right all of the time? Probably not. However, we'll work to make it right when brought to our collective attention.

17 hours ago, Libby1 said:

I was previously banned for questioning moderating decisions in every bit as polite (or more so) a manner as people are using here.  That was all there was to it.  I wasn't abusing another poster or subjecting them to a personal attack, I wasn't piling on a vulnerable poster who was starting to wish they hadn't opened up on here.  All I did was suggest that the parameters for discussion had become so rigid that it was inhibiting people's freedom of speech.  I don't know if people still get banned for disclosing that they're previously banned members, but I'll take the chance.

Please reach out to us privately about individual moderation actions. Posting publicly about a moderation action is not permitted per our guidelines. We've established that freedom of speech, while an inalienable right of humankind, does not equate to the right to say anything you'd like and without regard for others in the very special venue that is this community. We have signs at the door that condition your ability to participate and interact here, on the basis of setting ground expectations for ensuring we have an environment that furthers our primary directive. You have the right to not enter the venue, and say whatever you'd like outside. Inside, this is a sacred space for growth, learning, and self-discovery.

If you'd like access to a previous account restored, please reach out privately and we'll look into it. We've often merged accounts for others in the past into a single account. If you're here and you'd like to not disclose that you were previously here under a different name, that's okay too. People learn and grow and come and go at different points in their lives. We understand that, and so long as you're willing to agree to the conditions for entry into our special place, we're happy to have you here.

5 hours ago, lana-banana said:

In the Before Times, a moderator sent me abusive messages and even vague threats!

Please let us know about this privately. This is completely inappropriate. No one here, regardless of whether or not they are a volunteer, should ever conduct themselves in this manner. Absolutely abhorrent and intolerable.

We have made changes here recently to help encourage people to reach out to us collectively, rather than individually via private messaging, and to ensure that our communications are always transparent and viewable by the entire team. To that end, we've programmatically disabled the ability for moderators to send and receive private messages, and notices have been added to the private messaging area to alert of this change and with a link reminding everyone how to contact us.

4 hours ago, trident_2020 said:

Due to a post that seemed innocuous he was placed "under moderator approval" for new posts.

Your friend is welcome to reach out to us and we'd be happy to review. We are still making adjustments, and it's entirely possible he was restricted unnecessarily. That said, we're happy if he's found another place out in the world that works better for him. This community isn't right for everyone, and does not intend to be.

 

[Paul]

3 hours ago, MrPlop said:

I think the biggest issue here is the inability to express personal opinions/views/experiences.

You are welcome and encouraged to express any opinion, view, and experience you'd like, so long as it's within the boundaries of our Community Guidelines.

We'd be happy to visit the encounters anyone has had with moderation on a one-on-one basis with you, however speaking generally, a review of the recent posts you've made that were deleted or edited shows that the issues surrounded:

• Making political statements outside of the Politics forum. (You can share political thoughts in the politics forum, and no where else. Period. Sorry.)
• Making remarks that are disparaging to a group of people or person, rather than making remarks about an idea or value shared by a group of people. (Criticize the idea and not the person or group holding the idea.)
• Making statements of fact (x% of y is attributable to z) without providing links to an appropriate source. (100% of facts without attribution are 200% garbage. If you believe something to be the case, but aren't sure, you can state that, and invite others to find data to share--"Someone once told me that 40% of apples have baby rabbits inside of them--can someone please help me learn if that's true?")
• Replying to someone else's post that did one of the above three and making no sense after the offending post had been removed.

[Paul]

2 hours ago, Fair said:

We post questions and all anyone should be doing is answering the question. Not attacking the poster for asking the question. Yet the mods let it go on. All. The. Time. 

It's more likely that we didn't catch it, and not that we intentionally gave someone a pass. There's lots of posts and not a lot of moderators. Please flag posts that you think we should look at. No one should be attacking anyone else here.

Conversely, we sometimes get notes from people who feel personally attacked. When we take a look, we find that sometimes people will confuse being personally attacked with having an opinion they were not prepared to receive shared with them in a respectful and appropriate way. I'm not saying that's the case at all with what you've experienced, but it's an issue we see often enough to mention here in context.

Part of the social contract we make when participating here is that we need to be okay with hearing things we don't or would rather not want to hear in response.

[Libby1]

49 minutes ago, Paul said:

It's still important that we're careful with our words. We want to be sure that the words we use don't lead automated processes to believe that this is a place that is profane. Context is everything, yet there are better, more thoughtful ways to describe these things. The rationale for restrictions on certain words is simply so that we can continue to rely on advertisers to help offset operational costs here. Doing so requires that we keep profane language off of the community.

Ok, that makes perfect sense.   Thanks for engaging so thoroughly with concerns/complaints on this thread.

[pepperbird2]

I hope no one takes offence at this, but the "political" section is not exactly a welcoming place, unless one aligns with the view of the majority of posters. I get it, I'm weird and don't always make a lot of sense,  but I'm also not an idiot or a fool. Just because I don't share the same views doesn't that doesn't mean I should be patronized.

About moderation, this is just my own experience, but I feel it's improved. I don't know who the mods used to be, but when I was member a few years ago, it felt very heavy handed and, at times, rude. I'm not seeing that now. I know it's not a fun job, and i do want to thank them for it.
 

Edited December 2, 2020 by pepperbird2

[ajequals]

I'm going to Say YES. For some reason. there are people moderating on this forum extremely misinformed.  I again got a warning claiming something I wrote is political or a conspiracy theory. Now if you are using the Gauge that the news is the only truth out there then yes under their filter it's a conspiracy But if you have come to the realization the NEWS has nothing to do with reporting the news and you find facts that are undisputed by the people they are about. then that is not a theory. It's the news failing to report the facts on purpose. Just today CNN was exposed doing just that. Not reporting the news and conspiring to make sure No One find the facts from them. I think the Mods need to loose their power to discipline ..Time is the ultimate judge of what is the truth and what is not. 

[Taramere]

2 hours ago, pepperbird2 said:

About moderation, this is just my own experience, but I feel it's improved. I don't know who the mods used to be, but when I was member a few years ago, it felt very heavy handed and, at times, rude. I'm not seeing that now. I know it's not a fun job, and i do want to thank them for it.
 

I concur!  It's clearly more of a two-way process now.  People who are unhappy with a moderating decision can now contact moderation if they feel they've been treated unfairly, and be sure of getting a fair hearing.  I can personally vouch for that.

[Interstellar]

They’re also using the “edited/deleted for political viewpoints” bs excuse if they don’t agree with what you said or if a poster/feminist who disagreed with your post reported you.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Interstellar

[Taramere]

43 minutes ago, Interstellar said:

They’re also using the “edited/deleted for political viewpoints” bs excuse if they don’t agree with what you said or if a poster/feminist who disagreed with your post reported you.

 

 

If somebody's getting into disputes with you and then hitting the alert button then yes it's going to draw moderators' attention to your posts and make you more likely to go through a period of being more heavily infracted.  It's a pain, but when people report posts from those they're in dispute with, they're drawing moderation's attention to their own posts too.  In my experience usually those situations generally come to an end when it becomes clear to moderators that the person regularly hitting the alert button is posting plenty of infraction-worthy stuff themselves.  

I can't see what evidence there is of political bias being involved in these decisions.  Another poster has already pointed out that people across the board, politically, have been complaining about being infracted.  There just generally seems to be more emphasis on a) don't discuss politics outside of the political section, and b) don't present subjective opinion as fact.   I totally get that those aren't necessarily easy rules to follow, and I'm sure most of us fall foul of them ...but if you slip up and somebody reports you, the worst that's likely to happen is that you'll get a politely worded PM asking you to respect the "no politics outside of the political section" rule.   It's not like there are moderators standing on the sidelines rubbing their hands with glee and praying for an opportunity to drag you through the streets while outraged crowds throw rotten veg at you.

[Paul]

Hi there, @ajequals,

You just included a conspiracy theory in your post about moderators being "extremely misinformed" by informing you that you included a political statement or conspiracy in your post in a forum that was not our Political Proselytization & Warmongering forum. Since this is the third post made in this thread, which is not in the Politics forum, that has included politics and conspiracy within the body of the post, let's use this as a learning opportunity for everyone.

7 hours ago, ajequals said:

For some reason. there are people moderating on this forum extremely misinformed.  I again got a warning claiming something I wrote is political or a conspiracy theory. Now if you are using the Gauge that the news is the only truth out there then yes under their filter it's a conspiracy But if you have come to the realization the NEWS has nothing to do with reporting the news and you find facts that are undisputed by the people they are about. then that is not a theory. It's the news failing to report the facts on purpose. Just today CNN was exposed doing just that. Not reporting the news and conspiring to make sure No One find the facts from them.

The section I bolded above:

• Has nothing to do with the primary directive of this community, which is the discussion of issues pertaining to interpersonal relationships
• Is wildly off-topic and has nothing to do with this thread, which is discussing whether or not moderators over-moderate the community
• Is making multiple statements of fact ("the news has nothing do with reporting the news," "the news [is] failing to report the facts on purpose," "just today [cable television network] was exposed doing just that") without providing a link to appropriate sources (peer-reviewed journals, journalistic sources of noted repute, etc.)
• Includes a conspiracy theory that a particular cable television station is intentionally not including something in their broadcast to "make sure no one finds the facts from them."

I'll reemphasize what I stated a bit earlier in this thread. Please pay special attention to the part I emphasized in bold below:

On 11/29/2020 at 7:07 PM, Paul said:

This is a community with a special purpose and with expectations, standards, and guidelines for participation and discussion. This is not a venue for free, unfettered speech. That said, I don't think it's accurate to say that we make decisions on what is accurate and what is not.

Moderators determine whether or not a participant, making a claim or statement of objective fact, have provided an appropriate reference to a source of repute (widely acknowledged by professionals in the corresponding field of study as authoritative). If you'd like to state something other than your personal opinion here, we ask that you link to such a source to help educate others.

If you'd like to discuss why those professionals are wrong, or whether or not established sources are legitimate, those are conversations that are beyond the scope of a relationship community and are topics to discuss elsewhere. On-topic discourse here will be most appropriately referenced in peer-reviewed scientific literature, published in various academic psychological and sociological journals. Information about current events will be most appropriately referenced by well-established journalistic outlets.

These are, whether you appreciate them or not, part of the conditions for participation here. Participants have three choices:

1. Be willing and able to participate within the confines of the conditions for participation we set out ("I'm here to engage, to learn from others, to share with the intention to engage rather than preach, and to recognize the purpose and scope of this place.")
2. Be self-aware of one's own personal limitations in certain topics of discussion and make an intentional effort to not partake in those discussions ("My beliefs about certain things are such that I'm not at place that I'm willing and able to hear opinions different than my own, so I'll bow out of this particular discussion, rather than allow myself to forget the purpose of this place and forget that I'm here to learn from others")
3. Be unable or unwilling to make one of the two choices above, and have their ability to participate taken from them to keep this a safe and productive place for those who are able to do so.

We'd much prefer you choose options 1 or 2. In your post above, you chose option 3.

Your post is something we'd typically remove from the community, but we're leaving here for the purposes of learning through example. We're not removing these statements because we're "extremely misinformed," or because the comments made don't correspond with our world view. For all intents and purposes, through your post, you performed the online equivalent of walking into a conference room, where people were conducting business and discussing whether or not we could improve our system of sorting and categorizing books, screaming something about how your favorite fast food restaurant ran out of ketchup.

Maybe they did run out of ketchup? Maybe they don't give you any ketchup, but everyone else gets ketchup, just because they really want to mess with your ketchup needs and no one else's. Maybe they didn't give me ketchup either, and I have the same experience as you. Maybe they gave you plenty of ketchup, but you've been sent here by some nation state trying to convince us all of a ketchup catastrophe to destabilize the world's tomato markets.

Regardless of what of any of that is true or not true, by talking about ketchup when we're talking about sorting books, you're disrupting our conversation, you're breaking our social contracts, and you're impeding our ability to make progress toward our goals.

Best,
Paul

[Paul]

2 hours ago, Interstellar said:

They’re also using the “edited/deleted for political viewpoints” bs excuse if they don’t agree with what you said or if a poster/feminist who disagreed with your post reported you.

This is just false, utter nonsense. Your posts are being edited for failing to meet our guidelines. If they're not, reach out and we'll address the issue.

You chose to use the word "feminist" as a pejorative term in the context of your statement, berating a group of people, rather than discussing what quality you think a person might hold that you aren't in agreement with. I would have removed this post and sent you a message, however in the interest of learning, am leaving it up.

Please go back and re-read my posts in this thread.

[Paul]

8 hours ago, Taramere said:

I can personally vouch for that.

I hope it's okay to share publicly, yet @Taramere clearly had their account restricted and posts deleted inappropriately, without any justification by a moderator who has long ago stopped being a volunteer here. Taramere saw this thread and was kind enough to reach out, and we restored access and restored their posts immediately once it was brought to our attention.

I assume and expect, most regrettably, that there are others that find themselves in a similar situation. I'd encourage anyone reading to reach out to us and let us know if they believe they have have been restricted without cause. No one should have ever been treated in such a manner, and we're determined to right any past wrongs and make sure those mistakes do not happen going forward.

We're human and mistakes can and do happen. My sincerest apologies.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Paul
Oops. Too many 'and' words.

[Happy Lemming]

Personally, I've become a little "gun-shy" about posting in anything controversial or posting a relatable experience/story.  Moreover, I fear if I question a moderator's decision, the punishment/restriction will be extended (which was your policy in the past).

I'm now asking myself -- "Is it worth the risk to post in a particular thread??"  I mean I have something to say about the subject or have a relatable story, but I don't want to go back on punishment/restriction for 3 days (supposed to have been a 24 hours punishment).

Unless someone is profane or abusing another poster, why not just delete a "story post" or "unrelated post" rather than punishing them?? I was neither profane, nor abusive but got a 3 day punishment because the experience I shared did not coincide with the general viewpoint of the other posters.  It was the opposite side of coin and offered a different position on the dilemma.

For me... I no longer feel free to post on threads that could be considered the least bit contentious. 

I think the moderators have damaged your forum.

[Paul]

1 minute ago, Happy Lemming said:

Unless someone is profane or abusing another poster, why not just delete a "story post" or "unrelated post" rather than punishing them?? I was neither profane, nor abusive but got a 3 day punishment because the experience I shared did not coincide with the general viewpoint of the other posters.

I agree, and we're working to fix this. I am of the opinion that we all make mistakes, we all let our emotions get the best of us at times, and as long as someone is coming from a place of good intention, it's improper to impose restrictions on a person's account.

If someone is having a hard time repeatedly, or makes a really poor decision, they may be in choice #3 land I referenced a bit earlier. That's when it makes sense to start monitoring a bit more closely with doing things like reviewing posts before they appear publicly for that individual.

[Haydn]

I like the moderation now. I usually get a slap on the wrist for being a tad cheeky or commenting on peoples living arrangements. Irony is very different between countries... 

[Paul]

11 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Moreover, I fear if I question a moderator's decision, the punishment/restriction will be extended (which was your policy in the past).

We ask that you contact us privately about specific moderation actions. We'll be happy to discuss and clarify (and correct). Posting publicly in a thread that you're upset that a previous post in that thread was removed is not okay. Continuing an earlier example, doing so is akin to coming back into the room, interrupting the meeting that you were just asked to stop interrupting in, and continuing to complain about the lack of ketchup and that even though you were asked to stop talking about ketchup in this meeting involving something else, you now feel that we should all talk about how your ketchup-speaking rights were infringed upon when you were asked to please stay on the topic at hand.

In an in-person setting, you'd ask to speak with someone privately to have your grievances addressed, and we expect the same in this venue.

[Taramere]

8 minutes ago, Paul said:

I hope it's okay to share publicly, yet @Taramere clearly had their account restricted and posts deleted inappropriately, without any justification by a moderator who has long ago stopped being a volunteer here.

It's more than fine to share it publicly.  Part of the reason I'm back posting as Taramere is to let others see that if they want to contact moderation to have a previously banned account restored, they will in fact get a fair hearing.  The question then is, I suppose, whether people are actually interested in using a process like that....or if it's more a case of them wanting the site to return to being what it was a couple of years ago and digging their heels in with regard to the vision that the person/people who actually own and run this site have for it. 

Personally I think moderation was extremely authoritarian a few years back, so it really surprises me that people are implying that things have become more authoritarian of late.  In my opinion, when there's genuine scope for two way discussion, negotiation and some sort of appeal process, that's far more democratic than moderators exercising the ability to impose lifetime bans on posters just because they can.  

 

[gaius]

I don't know how much information there is in whatever database mods use about an event from years ago, but I was reading the board the day Taramere was banned. And it was in response to a diatribe she posted against moderation on the open forum that was rude to the point I assumed as soon as I saw it that she would be banned for it and she was. There was nothing polite or respectful about what she said. And that was during a time where it was crystal clear crapping on moderation on the open board was against the rules and would get you banned.

Not that I supported the banning, nor do I want to keep people banned or have anything against anyone here but there seems to a little revisionist history going on. The previous "volunteer" wasn't perfect but he did give endless hours of his life to the community and turned the place from one where Neo-Nazis and spammers had free reign to one where a lot of good things happened. And despite his imperfections I would be skeptical of accusations unless proof is provided because I've already seen things that just aren't true being presented as fact. 

[Taramere]

14 minutes ago, gaius said:

I don't know how much information there is in whatever database mods use about an event from years ago, but I was reading the board the day Taramere was banned. And it was in response to a diatribe she posted against moderation on the open forum that was rude to the point I assumed as soon as I saw it that she would be banned for it and she was. There was nothing polite or respectful about what she said. And that was during a time where it was crystal clear crapping on moderation on the open board was against the rules and would get you banned.

 

I linked Paul to the post which resulted in me being banned.  It read as follows:

Quote

 

Is there scope for debate any more, though? I don't know how it is in the US generally, so LS is my main point of reference. Certainly on here, discussing the current administration is now taboo unless that discussion takes place within very narrow parameters. Which means that discussion of some key political events will also be taboo.

If that's commonplace in forums that attract people from a variety of political perspectives, then you're going to increasingly get the situation where people from each side confine their discussions to echo chambers. Not healthy.

 

I'm not seeing what's so rude or diatribe-like about that post...but then I guess people are bound to be biased about their own posts.

[Paul]

1 minute ago, gaius said:

I don't know how much information there is in whatever database mods use about an event from years ago, but I was reading the board the day Taramere was banned. And it was in response to a diatribe she posted against moderation on the open forum that was rude to the point I assumed as soon as I saw it that she would be banned for it and she was. There was nothing polite or respectful about what she said.

We reviewed the post, and it was not, by any stretch of the imagination rude or inappropriate. Here's a direct link to the post that resulted in @Taramere being banned and has since been restored:

There is not a single thing wrong with that post to warrant it being deleted, nor to warrant the account from being permanently restricted. We further went back through historical posts made by the same person and saw multiple examples where posts were removed without any discernable issue. Again, nothing in violation of our guidelines then or now. @Taramere, without question, had a significant number of posts removed and an account restricted for no justifiable reason that we could identify.

It's personally devastating that a person who had, at the time, contributed over 12,000 thoughtful things to our shared conversations would have their ability to participate taken away like that. It's wrong, and there's absolutely no excuse for it.

7 minutes ago, gaius said:

Not that I supported the banning, nor do I want to keep people banned or have anything against anyone here but there seems to a little revisionist history going on. The previous "volunteer" wasn't perfect but he did give endless hours of his life to the community and turned the place from one where Neo-Nazis and spammers had free reign to one where a lot of good things happened. And despite his imperfections I would be skeptical of accusations unless proof is provided because I've already seen things that just aren't true being presented as fact. 

It's wonderful to have had so many dedicated people volunteer their time and energy here, and it's understandable that in the circumstances in which moderators were left with at the time, that frustrations bled into decisions that were not the best. Make no mistake about it, all of our volunteers past and present have given and give of themselves to this community in immeasurable ways. However, we must be prepared to acknowledge when and where we, as the individuals entrusted to host these discussions, have gone wrong, and ultimately the responsibility and blame falls on myself and myself alone. For this, an in any other instance where we failed as a team, I am truly sorry.

We are moving forward and working to ensure history is not repeated here. In this instance, a mistake was clearly made, and I assume that there is a likelihood that there were other mistakes made as well.

[Taramere]

20 minutes ago, Paul said:

We reviewed the post, and it was not, by any stretch of the imagination rude or inappropriate. Here's a direct link to the post that resulted in @Taramere being banned and has since been restored:

There is not a single thing wrong with that post to warrant it being deleted, nor to warrant the account from being permanently restricted. We further went back through historical posts made by the same person and saw multiple examples where posts were removed without any discernable issue. Again, nothing in violation of our guidelines then or now. @Taramere, without question, had a significant number of posts removed and an account restricted for no justifiable reason that we could identify.

It's personally devastating that a person who had, at the time, contributed over 12,000 thoughtful things to our shared conversations would have their ability to participate taken away like that. It's wrong, and there's absolutely no excuse for it.

 

Thank you, Paul.  It was somewhat disturbing to find myself and my comments being misrepresented to that extent, so I very much appreciate you clarifying that there are in fact reliable records of what took place. 

[Paul]

6 minutes ago, Taramere said:

I very much appreciate you clarifying that there are in fact reliable records of what took place. 

Yes, for additional clarity, we have maintain automated, read-only audit trails of every action moderators take, and posts that are removed/edited are able to be restored as needed. As we've been around for over twenty years, and have migrated to various different platforms, some things from decades ago may take a bit of sleuthing and time to sort out of the archives.

[Piddy]

On a positive note.  In the section of the sandbox I hangout (Politics Forum), I like that instead of being punitive to a poster for being off topic, the deemed off topic post is now used as a topic for a new thread.  Good work whoever came up with that idea. 👍

Disinformation is a huge problem on social media.  So I’m a big fan of pro actively moderating that.

Not a big fan of the punitive moderating on seemingly innocuous stuff though.  

Hopefully from now on someone will monitor the Contact Moderators area, so an appeal can be heard relatively quickly on an infraction.

I realize we’d all run our own sandboxes differently.  On a personal note I’ve found Paul to be very open to hearing complaints. We don’t always agree, but he’s always been very fair hearing me out.
 

Since it’s his sandbox that’s all we can ask for.  No one forces us to be here.

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Piddy

[gaius]

54 minutes ago, Paul said:

We reviewed the post, and it was not, by any stretch of the imagination rude or inappropriate. Here's a direct link to the post that resulted in @Taramere being banned and has since been restored:

There is not a single thing wrong with that post to warrant it being deleted, nor to warrant the account from being permanently restricted. We further went back through historical posts made by the same person and saw multiple examples where posts were removed without any discernable issue. Again, nothing in violation of our guidelines then or now. @Taramere, without question, had a significant number of posts removed and an account restricted for no justifiable reason that we could identify.

That's not the post that I remember. But even if my memory isn't perfect after a few years, which is possible, it's still very hard for me to not interpret that post as a passive aggressive swipe at moderation. And an off topic one at that. The thread wasn't about what moderation allowed and didn't allow on LS.

I'm not trying to come at this like I have any authority on the board Paul but back then the moderators frequently said they couldn't get in touch with you for months or years and would draw lines on rules based on what they thought you would want. One rule they spelled out clear as day was you didn't crap on moderation in public in any way shape or form and doing so would get you banned. And in that context the post was made. 

It seems like there's a very bitter and somewhat context lacking campaign going on right now to rid the board of someone who's contributed 50,000+ posts and held the place together for years. Albeit imperfectly. It was a tragedy that we lost so many contributing members to banning but let's not compound one tragedy with another. Nobody here has been perfect or been treated perfectly. He's not a mod anymore, we can't just all find a way to just move on?