Does Posting Policy Apply Equally to All Users?

[KirbyDome89]

 

No, it wasn't allowed to stand. Go back and look, it was also removed.

My point was that it was allowed to stand until I finally responded, but again, this isn't what the actual discussion is about. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

And for the record, I do think it's sad when the only solution to resolve bickering in a thread is to close it. I'm sorry you don't like that comment, but that wasn't even directed at you only and personally because that wasn't even your comment. That was a suggestion another poster made. But in some ways it really was directed at everyone because that's what in thread moderator warnings are and why no one's post was quoted nor no names were used. But why I think it's sad is because that means that posters have either bickered the thread to death or it's gotten so derailed and is such a mess that there just is no saving it and there is no alternative. Or that discussion has just gone around and around and around because one or more parties in a thread are talking past one other, saying the same things over and over again because they either fail to really listen to one another or they are so certain they are right that they refuse to accept any kind of disagreement and continue on instead of acknowledging you just disagree, agreeing there is no resolution and walking away. It's sad that we as adults cannot carry on discussion without getting so offended over said disagreements and begin taking and making things personal. For any thread to get to that point, I find that sad because to me it just is.

As for referring to the discussion at hand as sad and boring, I agree, that was over the line and those words were removed almost immediately by myself without any prompting or suggestion. All the moderators have their own set of standards, but we generally work together and discuss everything that goes on to come to consensus. We also work extra hard to police ourselves and one another because if we are going to try and help facilitate discussion through moderation, we have to hold ourselves to a certain line as well. But we aren't perfect and are only human and as a result, I have issued warning points to/from myself and have apologized to offended parties. Neither of which are warranted in this case, imho. I'm sorry you disagree.

As for my own part in this current thread, I'm done. You have been given many explanations as to the why and wherefores of your and our actions. You can continue to disagree, but I'm walking away. The results are still the same.

I wasn't making the claim that is was aimed only at me. I definitely said "we," in the OP. 

 

You absolutely have the right to feel that the discussion in that thread was sad and boring. Maybe some of those involved did as well. I might feel that the way another person uses their time is sad and boring. We're all entitled to those opinions, and honestly I have 0 problem with that.

 

I'm also not offended in the least. The only reason I had for pointing out the overstepping of bounds was in reaction to the penalty I was assessed. I'm definitely not asking for perfection. We don't disagree nearly as much as you may think. Honestly, you're right, those self assigned points aren't warranted. I would encourage you to remove those points as I had requested mine be as well. There also is no need for an apology. Whether I'm offended or not (I'm not) you expressed exactly how you felt and acted in accordance with that. I might disagree with aspects of it, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm owed an apology. 

 

You're right, we'll continue to agree to disagree regarding the penalty following our posts. At this point I wouldn't expect the results to change. That is precisely why I decided to highlight what I feel is an inequitable outcome on this forum. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

For the record, I followed that thread while it was happening (for what seemed like weeks on end, honestly).

 

ChiTown's post wasn't directed at a single poster (and the poster most closely associated with her response didn't seem to take offense), it was directed at the thread.

 

If you can't see the difference between saying "come on people, it's kinda sad and boring that instead of just walking away, some of you want to lock the thread for everyone" versus "you're making condescending posts and playing the victim card", then the problem here isn't moderation, it's your obviously slanted interpretation of the situation.

 

The former post is part of a moderator's job. The latter is an obvious rule violation.

 

We don't lock threads because posters are irritated and want them locked because of course we don't. That's a terrible way to run a forum. And, yes, it's kinda sad that some people can't just walk away from a thread and instead want to see it locked for everyone. That's the internet equivalent of getting mad at the other kids and taking your ball home, ruining everyone else's day in the process.

 

If a moderator has to even consider making such a post, that means the thread has already gone to hell in a handbasket and that circling of the drain was not the moderator's fault. Blaming the moderator after the fact is akin to punching the mailman for delivering a past due bill notice.

It did go on for a long time.

 

I want to point out that I never claimed I was singled out by the mod post. I also have stated that I took no offense. Neither or those have anything to do with the concern that I expressed. The feelings of the other poster are irrelevant to the points I've brought up. 

 

You've changed the wording of the post. That isn't how that was phrased.

 

I see no way in which calling another members posts "sad and boring," is acceptable and saying another poster is being "condescending and playing the victim card," is not. There is no slant. Each is clearly a violation of posting policy. 

 

I'm not contesting that the thread ran off topic. Again though, that is a tangent. 

[nicksaviking]

 

A discussion that ultimately answers the question of whether posting policy application is uniform. 

 

If that's the lede it was addressed by Chief (or North) but has been buried under the rest of this discussion. However I think I can answer it:

 

If the concern truly is if posting policies and points are awarded uniformly, I'm sorry it's just not going to be made transparent for everyone. We don't and will not disclose actions taken against other posters (or mods) with anyone else. It can't be any other way, we're not going to be painting people with Scarlet Letters for everyone else to see.

 

If you or other posters can't trust us to be as fair as we can, I'm sorry, but that's how this has to work.

[ashbury]

I am curious, what outcome would you like from the moderators, at this point?

A discussion that ultimately answers the question of whether posting policy application is uniform. 

A discussion was implicit by opening the thread, and you've gotten one - in fact quite a lot in a short amount of time. If "at this point" a discussion still leads off how you view your un-met expectations, I suspect you are wanting more than we can ultimately give you.

 

Each of the moderators, in their individual ways, is uncomfortable with the "application" (enforcement) aspect of the role. (I'll go out on a limb and state that IMO this might be an important qualification for the role. ) But think of speed enforcement on the freeway. Is it uniformly enforced? Yes, and no. If you choose to go 95, your odds of being pulled over approach 100%, given a certain amount of time. If you choose to go 75 in a 65 urban freeway zone, will you get pulled over? Maybe. Might depend on a host of factors beyond your control, including the fact that 100% monitoring and/or prior restraint is not attempted in most places. Finally, might the traffic cop end up doing 95 briefly, in the course of such duties? It's not hypocrisy to do that, if it seems the most effective way to get the job done.

 

If you never get tickets, great. Or if you get tickets for going 95, you probably already have lost your license. But if you occasionally get ticky-tack penalties for going 75, it's more your own call as to whether to adjust your behavior a little, to reduce the number to a more acceptable level, or adjust a little more and stay entirely with the flow of traffic, which often involves speed a little above the letter of the law anyway.

 

TD moderators don't flag every word that might be a little out of line. Who would want a site like that? But then you are faced with a site involving multiple small judgment calls every day. Uniformity is unfortunately a will o' the wisp to chase. We do aim for it, though, as other moderators have already tried to explain.

 

The TD Comment Policy, which others have already commended to your careful attention since you appear to want to explore edge-cases (so did the writer after the first post within it, apparently ), makes much ado about respectful posting and not being disruptive. But important though they are, these are not ends in themselves. Ultimately we don't care if one poster respects others, just so long as language to them in public puts on a good simulation of it. We're trying to build an online community here, and we want to foster mature discussion centering on the Twins. That's the goal, not "respect". To the extent that perceived disrespect or disruption hinders that larger aim, that's when the moderators take steps.

 

Sometimes a little disrespect is un-read by any moderator, or is simply missed, or is thought to be too small to be disruptive. Since none of the moderators is on the site anywhere close to 24/7, even-handed application is going to be moot even if we all agreed on what "uniform" means.

 

Few people enjoy receiving correction, even from acknowledged superiors, much less from peers (if we mods may flatter ourselves in such a way). I hope the several posts you've received in response in this thread will help you reach some peace with the situation you experienced.

[glunn]

I would add one thing to what my fellow moderators have stated. If you vehemently disagree with someone in a thread, you will be on safe ground so long as you make the effort to be polite when you respond. We mods all want to encourage interesting, passionate debate. It's the personal attacks/bickering and disrespect for other posters that lead to most interventions.

[KirbyDome89]

 

If that's the lede it was addressed by Chief (or North) but has been buried under the rest of this discussion. However I think I can answer it:

 

If the concern truly is if posting policies and points are awarded uniformly, I'm sorry it's just not going to be made transparent for everyone. We don't and will not disclose actions taken against other posters (or mods) with anyone else. It can't be any other way, we're not going to be painting people with Scarlet Letters for everyone else to see.

 

If you or other posters can't trust us to be as fair as we can, I'm sorry, but that's how this has to work.

I'm not advocating for anybody to be tarred and feathered. I've said nothing along those lines. The issue I have is with the severity of the penalty assessed to me. The only reason to point out that the mod content was allowed to be edited and stand was to show the discrepancy. Chi disclosed that a point was self assessed and I disagreed with the need for that. I'm not on a crusade to bring justice to every poster who crosses a line. I'm simply pointing out that action taken against me was heavy handed and the best way to do that is a direct comparison to another party that was closely involved in the situation. 

 

Distrust might be a strong word. Annoyance with the amount of latitude granted when assigning point totals would be more accurate. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

A discussion was implicit by opening the thread, and you've gotten one - in fact quite a lot in a short amount of time. If "at this point" a discussion still leads off how you view your un-met expectations, I suspect you are wanting more than we can ultimately give you.

 

Each of the moderators, in their individual ways, is uncomfortable with the "application" (enforcement) aspect of the role. (I'll go out on a limb and state that IMO this might be an important qualification for the role. ) But think of speed enforcement on the freeway. Is it uniformly enforced? Yes, and no. If you choose to go 95, your odds of being pulled over approach 100%, given a certain amount of time. If you choose to go 75 in a 65 urban freeway zone, will you get pulled over? Maybe. Might depend on a host of factors beyond your control, including the fact that 100% monitoring and/or prior restraint is not attempted in most places. Finally, might the traffic cop end up doing 95 briefly, in the course of such duties? It's not hypocrisy to do that, if it seems the most effective way to get the job done.

 

If you never get tickets, great. Or if you get tickets for going 95, you probably already have lost your license. But if you occasionally get ticky-tack penalties for going 75, it's more your own call as to whether to adjust your behavior a little, to reduce the number to a more acceptable level, or adjust a little more and stay entirely with the flow of traffic, which often involves speed a little above the letter of the law anyway.

 

TD moderators don't flag every word that might be a little out of line. Who would want a site like that? But then you are faced with a site involving multiple small judgment calls every day. Uniformity is unfortunately a will o' the wisp to chase. We do aim for it, though, as other moderators have already tried to explain.

 

The TD Comment Policy, which others have already commended to your careful attention since you appear to want to explore edge-cases (so did the writer after the first post within it, apparently ), makes much ado about respectful posting and not being disruptive. But important though they are, these are not ends in themselves. Ultimately we don't care if one poster respects others, just so long as language to them in public puts on a good simulation of it. We're trying to build an online community here, and we want to foster mature discussion centering on the Twins. That's the goal, not "respect". To the extent that perceived disrespect or disruption hinders that larger aim, that's when the moderators take steps.

 

Sometimes a little disrespect is un-read by any moderator, or is simply missed, or is thought to be too small to be disruptive. Since none of the moderators is on the site anywhere close to 24/7, even-handed application is going to be moot even if we all agreed on what "uniform" means.

 

Few people enjoy receiving correction, even from acknowledged superiors, much less from peers (if we mods may flatter ourselves in such a way). I hope the several posts you've received in response in this thread will help you reach some peace with the situation you experienced.

I'm glad it has received a lot of attention in a short amount of time. That is a good thing all around. 

 

I think uncomfortable might be the perfect way to describe the feeling I'm getting from others talking about the application of policy. I can understand the desire to not be pinned down. I'm sure as a mod having that sort of freedom is nice. I'm in favor of that set up, but I would much rather see it used as a way to be lenient rather than severe.  

 

If I were to pose my own analogy I think that its like a teacher grading an essay. A rubric (posting policy) is handed out and every paper is expected to include that content. If 2 papers (posts) are turned in and each one lacks one component of the rubric yet one receives a B while another is given a C. That is frustrating. I understand the human element, and like I said I support it as a means of being tolerant. If that same human element is allowed to be used a way to be restrictive or come down harder on others then thats a problem. 

 

I wouldn't enjoy the site if it was moderated down to every word of every post. Just like in the OP, I'm not calling into question moderator actions as a whole, rather, I'm pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in the way one issue in one thread was handled one time. 

 

I do think I've received an answer, although, it has been more from what hasn't been said or touched upon than what has. 

[nicksaviking]

 

The issue I have is with the severity of the penalty assessed to me. The only reason to point out that the mod content was allowed to be edited and stand was to show the discrepancy. Chi disclosed that a point was self assessed and I disagreed with the need for that. I'm not on a crusade to bring justice to every poster who crosses a line. I'm simply pointing out that action taken against me was heavy handed and the best way to do that is a direct comparison to another party that was closely involved in the situation.

 

Distrust might be a strong word. Annoyance with the amount of latitude granted when assigning point totals would be more accurate. 

 

That wasn't your issue you listed above. You said you were concerned about uniform posting policy application. You had two offending posts in 20 minutes despite getting a warning personally and a warning in the thread after the first one. I'm quite confident you understand that the severity of the second infraction was entirely due to your utter disregard of your first infraction. You're not getting the same penalty again if the first one gave you no pause to follow posting policies.

 

There was no comparable offense because nobody else flouted the warnings and no one else had two violations in succession.

 

We're glad you posted your question here but your concerns have been discussed and explained from every angle you have thought of so far. You can probably find more angles or repeat the previous ones if you are looking to continue this topic indefinitely, but at this point I feel confident that the moderators have sufficiently provided you reasonable explanations to your question so don't get frustrated if further responses on this subject are not directly replied to. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

That wasn't your issue you listed above. You said you were concerned about uniform posting policies application. You had two offending posts in 20 minutes despite getting a warning personally and a warning in the thread after the first one. I'm quite confident you understand that the severity of the second infraction was entirely due to your utter disregard of your first infraction. You're not getting the same penalty again if the first one gave you no pause to follow posting policies.

 

There was no comparable offense because nobody else flouted the warnings and no one else had two violations in succession.

 

We're glad you posted your question here but your concerns have been discussed and explained from every angle you have thought of so far. You can probably find more angles or repeat the previous ones if you are looking to continue this topic indefinitely, but at this point I feel confident that the moderators have sufficiently provided you reasonable explanations to your question so don't get frustrated if further responses on this subject are not directly replied to. 

It absolutely is the issue I've brought up this entire thread.

 

It directly comparable because other points were awarded to those involved in the same situation. If you're going tell me that points were doubled because infractions occurred in succession then there must be a ton of members with content bans as all infractions occur in succession. 

 

Its boils down to this: 

You didn't like that I pointed out an obvious disparity in the type of posts that were allowed to stand. Because of that you decided to hammer me. I see the first instance as an uneven application of posting policy. I see the second as a blatant abuse of moderator freedom in enforcing policy. Both of those relate directly to the question I posed in the thread title. 

 

My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive.

 

One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points to ensure a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a self assessed point and sentence being edited.

 

There is no uniformity in that handling.

 

If no further responses are offered thats fine. I'm not talking in a circle. I'm looking for a clarification on a question I asked and not a rehashing of personal policy breeches I've already owned. Like I said before, it has been the lack of a concrete or clear answer that has provided the most insight into the question. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

There is no uniformity in that handling.

No, there isn't. And it happens on this board. Every. Single. Day.

 

You've received your explanation. Some moderators edit posts, others hide posts (they're not deleted FTR, they're hidden from view). It is entirely at that moderator's discretion whether to hide or edit a post.

 

Personally, I edit posts most of the time if the entire post isn't a dumpster fire (unless I'm on my phone, which is an entirely different situation with different editing/hide tools). Other moderators only hide posts. Some do a mix.

 

This is a human decision with judgment calls. And it's going to stay that way because that's the only way to run a forum.

[KirbyDome89]

 

No, there isn't. 

A direct answer was all I asked for.

 

I may disagree with the human actions taken, and the answer may not be the most satisfying, but its a response that can be appreciated nonetheless. 

[biggentleben]

Goodness. It was my post suggesting to just put a lock and key on the thread that the moderator was responding to. It was something where multiple times I read a response and wondered if it just hadn't been stated in a way that rang true because numerous posters were posting similar comments, but it wasn't ringing true, and after trying a few different methods myself and finding that exasperating, I responded with the suggestion to simply close down the thread for the safety and sanity of those involved (I don't completely remember the post, but I probably had some attempt at humor regarding keeping everyone's sanity in the midst of an insane holiday season/winter/etc. or something as well). That post was removed, and it appeared that the post called most in question in this thread was in nearly direct response to my post based on the wording of that post. I certainly had no issue with my post being removed (and I didn't get a PM about that removal, but still not an issue) because I knew I wrote it from a point of frustration.

 

I frequently run afoul of thought patterns here due to a very different view on the humor of Twins situations than many people who are more intensive fans do. Much like I find it entirely distasteful that nearly every time my team of choice is brought up (especially with those who weren't part of the crew who I posted with dating all the way back to the ESPN boards) that Hrbek/Gant becomes a "joke", while I find the situation not very funny at all for multiple reasons. We come to this forum with different views on things. I've received warning points in my times here, and I've had good discussions with moderators multiple times about posts being deleted, and I've also been quite upset about the brevity and reactivity to other comments, but having also been a moderator in forum settings before, I understand the thankless position they are all in, and while I won't "wear warning points with pride", I'll understand why they're there and attempt to have a logical discussion about a differing viewpoint on this site.

 

For all the stuff that's come across this forum over the last year-plus, if this is the issue that really caused a fracas, then, well, wow. Somehow a thread about the election went all year long with plenty of reminders and nudging, but still survived the year, but discussing Chris Sale being traded leads to unrest. That seems an odd hill to take a stand upon.