MovieChat Forums > Moderator3 > Replies
Moderator3's Replies
It is not impersonating a moderator. Again, no one here can close a thread.
No, it wasn't. However the sentiments expressed were very similar and was obviously a matter of venting about personal circumstances.
If someone posted a thread titled "I Hate Men" and went off on a general misandric rant, yes, that thread would be deleted and the poster given a warning.
The poster you're referring to did not do that, and later in the thread, once calm again, admitted she'd gone too far by saying she hated men.
Naps you have repeatedly, knowingly, clearly broken the no-flaming rule here. Many times. You know this.
The other member, until recently, had clearly broken a rule only once. Edged around, yes. Had a few posts silently deleted, as did you, yes.
That is equal treatment. Sorry.
Changing the title of a thread, including putting "Thread closed" in it, is not impersonating a moderator. If someone created a Moderator[#] account, or Mod[#], account or one called MCModerator or anything like that, it would be impersonating a moderator.
No one can close threads, not even us, BTW.
However, modifying a thread's title or content of the OP, is not what Jim intended when he gave us this ability. This will no longer be allowed.
Another member posted very similarly about the women he's encountered. We took no action on that either. In both instances they were personal vents, not actual attacks on either gender.
There is no rule about creating and playing word or any other kind of games on this [i]General Discussion[/i] board. We have explained this to you many times. That member has done nothing wrong by doing so and there is nothing to let her off of.
It is a problem when you change the title or content of your old threads.
Jim did not give us the ability to edit titles and posts to be used this way. Do not do it again.
Thanks.
You too have been given fewer warnings than have been technically warranted, Naps. The sword swings both ways. It's not unequal or biased treatment.
We would prefer to not have to give out any warnings, because no rules are being broken. That however isn't the case and isn't realistic.
You may be surprised to know that hasn't yet happened. It's a nuisance when we get reports and no rule has been broken, because it takes up our time unnecessarily.
Jim hasn't made any rule about abusing the report system, so I can't answer your question beyond all doubt. Since it hasn't been an issue with any one member, we have taken no action.
Because he only had 1 warning on his record. If he'd had 2, the ban would have been longer. If he'd had 3, it would have been even longer.
No one has been disciplined, if you're speaking about this current situation with one member. One person's post was silently removed, no warning was given, and her record remains spotless.
The other party involved has been disciplined, given a formal warning and later a 24-hour ban. That's not getting off scot free.
You're not breaking any rule by saying what you think. I appreciate your acknowledging moderating isn't always an easy job.
We can't possibly read each and every post, and so there will be times when we'll miss some that should be deleted, and a warning given. We always appreciate it when someone takes the time to report posts for that reason.
The thread Dazed linked to was not the thread where all of that was going on. It was long. I never saw the short thread she linked to. My best guess is the person in question posted that flame after mod who deleted several posts on that thread was in there. It makes no sense any mod would have seen that and left it intact after deleting several others.
It's not difficult to tell when reports are a result of two posters getting into it, or one who has a grudge against another and is using the report system for revenge and no rule has been broken. We do not take action in those circumstances, unless a rule has been broken in the first example.
Many times I've seen people post they knew they'd been reported by someone, when that wasn't the case. The reality was one of us mods saw the post and took appropriate action.
I hope this clears up some misconceptions.
Everyone is treated equally, providing they have the same record. You have been issued 3 formal warnings, later given a 2-day ban, and now a week ban. All for breaking the same rule of flaming other members.
If the other member had the same record, the same thing would have happened. But he does not. He had 1 formal warning, but then he became so disruptive I issued a 24-hour ban.
We do. Often we're already familiar with the posting history of members. We also look at entire threads, and context.
I didn't see that post, and no it wasn't reported. I deleted all that I saw, and issued a formal warning. That member was not given the choice to edit his post, because it was so far out of line. The other member was given that opportunity, so the rest of her posts could remain, because it was mild by comparison, although still a flame.
I see the post you linked to has now been deleted. Thanks for pointing it out.
We do understand why people are taking exception.