Rules and Moderator information

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Given all that context, in answer to your specific question, if someone starts a thread to "be disruptive," there really isn't any rule that applies.

It’s literally UR #8.

-_-

[Gadianton]

could you also infer the intent of other posters who start threads, and if you conclude it is done with the intent to disrupt, could you ask them, in red ink, to desist?

Right, as an example, A-Mike started 4 threads in Terrestrial last night. Two were 100% intended to disrupt and to be attacks on Philo. A third was intended to disrupt, and a fourth had the full force of disruptive anger behind it, but got constrained to the point where it was a legitimate post.

So the two posts that made negative references to Philo are still there, because, well, takes a while to get to stuff when 9/10 posts are violations, and then taking time to make sure we're extra fair with the discontented.

[Res Ipsa]

I thought moving this to the mod thread was a good idea. Shades issued his ruling on sexual harassment weeks ago. The ruling is clear that sexual harassment in Paradise/Terrestial is deleted from the post or moved to Prison/Telestial, whichever is more appropriate to the post. Shades also included his own definition of "sexual harassment" that is much broader than pornographic language. I disagree with your parsing of the language, as it would equate "you are a boy" with a graphic description of a sex act.

To my knowledge, Shades does not have a set number of violations that automatically leads to a suspension or to being placed on the queue. As I understand it, the purposes of any kind of sanction is not punitive but to encourage rule compliance. In both of the two cases you mention, my understanding is that Shades resorted to using the queue only after being convinced that the person simply would not comply with the rules. It's a matter of judgment and how the person responds to less drastic feedback.

So following the suspensions of two posters, has the behavior changed?

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

[Res Ipsa]

Given all that context, in answer to your specific question, if someone starts a thread to "be disruptive," there really isn't any rule that applies.

It’s literally UR #8.

-_-

in my opinion, it's literally not. Intent to "be disruptive" is not the same as "disrupt the smooth operation of the board."

[Atlanticmike]

could you also infer the intent of other posters who start threads, and if you conclude it is done with the intent to disrupt, could you ask them, in red ink, to desist?

Right, as an example, A-Mike started 4 threads in Terrestrial last night. Two were 100% intended to disrupt and to be attacks on Philo. A third was intended to disrupt, and a fourth had the full force of disruptive anger behind it, but got constrained to the point where it was a legitimate post.

So the two posts that made negative references to Philo are still there, because, well, takes a while to get to stuff when 9/10 posts are violations, and then taking time to make sure we're extra fair with the discontented.

Yeah! And how many threads did the backwards professor start? In how many threads did he TYPE LIKE THIS!!!! I invited the professor to share his experience and pancakes got triggered and erased my invitation. I understand you guys treat him like he’s a celebrity and you’ll protect his status, but to me he’s just a guy that eats fried chicken while driving a truck! 🛻

[Binger]

had the full force of disruptive anger behind it, but got constrained to the point where it was a legitimate post.

So was it disruptive anger or a legitimate post? (Question is for Gad, not for the Moderators)

Gad's comment is good, and it shows how intent is subjective to the bias of those not executing the intent.

[Binger]

So following the suspensions of two posters, has the behavior changed?

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

I was one of the posters that was suspended. I am enjoying this thread and the authentic responses from The Moderator. In light of that, I specifically do NOT want private conversations related to the suspension made public here in this thread. But, if anyone wants to discuss it at SSP or in hell, go for it and let it rip. Pick your poison, constraints of heaven, or the fire of hell. Either works for me. Just not here. The Moderator is free to change my mind however.

[Binger]

Question for the Moderators:

If in your professional life you have legal training in mediation or de-escalation, what specific professional skills or tactics are used in moderating this board?

and the follow up question,

What mediation (in real life) skills are not relevant to a judge (in real life)?

[Jersey Girl]

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

I was one of the posters that was suspended. I am enjoying this thread and the authentic responses from The Moderator. In light of that, I specifically do NOT want private conversations related to the suspension made public here in this thread. But, if anyone wants to discuss it at SSP or in hell, go for it and let it rip. Pick your poison, constraints of heaven, or the fire of hell. Either works for me. Just not here. The Moderator is free to change my mind however.

I wasn't talking about divulging private conversations. Get a grip.

[Jersey Girl]

So following the suspensions of two posters, has the behavior changed?

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

That was more of a thought provoking question, not a dig for information, RI. If you feel it appropriate, and if I were you, I'd raise the issue in the MF. If the suspensions were predicated on specific behavior patterns, and if you haven't already, I think you guys should discuss whether or not that behavior has been modified and if not, what the next step might be.

From this side of the screen, I don't see that anything has changed at all. If I don't see change, then I'm assuming there has been no change. Apparently I'm not the only poster who sees no change.