Moderated?

[boulderjohn]

it was deleted as a personal attack and was labeled as such. Water under the bridge. Nothing to see here, move along.

Really? Who was attacked?

"Cave Divers are about as organized as a sack of wet rats"

I don't see that even remotely close to a personal attack.

 

[scubadada]

@boulderjohn

Go back to the posts in Accidents and Incidents. It was the moderator's judgement. End of story. It's everyone's choice to participate or not. It's not in anybody's interest to second guess, you should know that. It's generally a very friendly, helpful board.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

My opinion..... which I guess no one gives a rats ass about...... is that this forum is a platform (house) that we are all invited to cuss and discuss or whatever... If the owner of that house makes decisions or rules, then we need to live by them. Otherwise, feel free to start your own forum and set your own rules.

 

[boulderjohn]

@boulderjohn

Go back to the posts in Accidents and Incidents. It was the moderator's judgement. End of story. It's everyone's choice to participate or not. It's not in anybody's interest to second guess, you should know that. It's generally a very friendly, helpful board.

I think an explanation is in order so that we can have guidance for the future. We don't want to run afoul of the ToS, and for that reason, we need to understand the ToS. I was always led to believe that a personal attack should attack an individual personally. As the opening post in this thread nicely indicates, the person moderated did not know why he was being moderated. Whom did he attack personally? Don't you think he merits an explanation beyond "moderator's judgment"?

I am not literally a rat, but I am a cave diver. Was he attacking me personally? I cannot see it, because I don't see how it demeans any particular cave diver, and I have to believer that nearly every cave diver would agree that it is accurate. In fact, it does not attack cave divers either as individuals or as a collective except to point out an obvious truth--they are not at all organized.

Back when I was a moderator, we were told in colloquial terms that in personal attacks, the writer plays the man (the individual supposedly being attacked) rather than the ball. You can attack what the person says, but not the person saying it. For example, in this most recent exchange, it would have been considered acceptable to say that "most people would find the language Scubadada used in his last few posts rude, arrogant, and condescending." In contrast, it would not have been acceptable to say "Scubadada is rude, arrogant, and condescending."

I just want to know how the rules have changed so I know how to post in the future.

 

[FF / EMT]

The moderator's username is not automatically included in an Alert when a post is deleted or moved. It is a manual process for the moderator to add their name to the reason. See post #51.

In the case of the errant question mark in the OP, we can only guess that it is a typo. Unfortunately there is no option to edit the reason for the action once the moderator clicks the go button.

I think it’s important to add initials to something, I always do, that way if anyone has questions, they can follow up privately, I don’t think i
Would’ve started a thread, but w/e, OP was good about it and wasn’t insulting or demeaning. So I think @boulderjohn hit the nail in the head.
Also, moderators can see what posts have been moderated in a thread, they just click the three dots and select “moderator actions” and it’s all logged.

This thread did beat the **** out of something pretty elementary but it’s not the first time something has beaten to death here.

 

[Centrals]

Is it such a big deal to have post edited/removed?
It did not bother me a bit even though I did not agree with the decision.

 

[Bob DBF]

Are you being frank with him?…

He is Frank with everyone.

 

[pauldw]

It's not in anybody's interest to second guess

BZZZZT! Wrong answer.

 

[ofg-1]

Is it such a big deal to have post edited/removed?
It did not bother me a bit even though I did not agree with the decision.

No, it is not a big deal. What bothered me was that the moderator was anonymous, and the reason given led me to believe they were reading from book of stale fortune cookie fortunes. "Don't let your animosity get the better of you"? Really?

Being the sarcastic arsehole that I am, I have had more than one post removed, and more than likely, will have others removed in the future. In fact, I expect this one to be removed.

@scubadada, I am not sure it was your intent, but what you have communicated to me is, we are the moderators, we are going to do what we want, our judgement is similar to God's, the final word, we don't have to tell you who we are, and if you don't like it just go away. Just update the terms of service so it is clear.

 

[Centrals]

No, it is not a big deal. What bothered me was that the moderator was anonymous,

Most of them are.
How about yourself?
You cannot expect every moderator treats every post equally! We are human being. Even your Supreme Court judge does not agree with his/her colleagues most of the time. Otherwise there is no point to appoint 9 of them.