Transparent Discussion on Dappered Threads' Moderation

[teerockness]

My point is: "politeness" is the most subjective standard on which to base a pretty harshly worded reprimand.

I choose not to conflate "civil treatment" with "polite treatment". They are very different things.

The former is fairly well understood: "Don't be a jerk." LCDR was not being a jerk.

The latter is extremely subjective: "Doff your cap sir!"

Cheers,
Rich

[bjmcgeever]

Also, who wants to participate in a forum where people are 'reprimanded' for lacking 'politeness'?

Jeez.

Apparently you do.

[Sudonihm]

What are we close about? What do you want to know?

Very fair question I am not trying to personally attack the mods. I appreciate the time and energy you put into maintaining the forum. I believe you take action or respond with the best of intentions. For that, you deserve a more complete explanation - I should have given a more complete, better explanation.

It is probably a matter of thinking more is happening behind the scenes than actually is, but without more information it is difficult to understand the ground rules or even what has happened (or not happened, as the case may be). There is a pattern by some of the participants on this forum (a small percentage) on a regular basis to respond in an impolite or snarky manner. I don't enjoy it, but it happens. My impression is that these actions don't cross "the line." Fine, I can chose to ignore, respond or act accordingly. Then others disappear or are banned without public explanation. That's a decision process by the mods that I accept.

But, it is easy for those with information to say it is not important to those without the information. I personally disagree with not sharing information in most circumstances because it usually is associate with power or impedes good decision making. It rarely works as a long term strategy and, I believe, it is fundamentally wrong.

That is the sentiment I was trying to get across.

[bjmcgeever]

Then others disappear or are banned without public explanation.

Who do you have in mind? I believe that due to complaints of various members, public explanations for bans have been given.

[diversification]

Do you also tell physically fit people that they don't need to exercise because they look like they're in pretty good shape already?

I think instead of making a New Years resolution to workout more, I may just do this. Lowering the bar seems a lot easier than trying to jump higher. Another Dappered life-hack is in the books.

[teerockness]

Who do you have in mind? I believe that due to complaints of various members, public explanations for bans have been given.

I think at least a few people have asked for a clear explanation - in advance - of what constitutes acceptable behavior.

If this is lurking somewhere and I've missed it, then that's on me and I apologize.

Banning people and then explaining why after the fact is the exact problem we're trying to raise.

Rich

[Shomas]

I think at least a few people have asked for a clear explanation - in advance - of what constitutes acceptable behavior.

If this is lurking somewhere and I've missed it, then that's on me and I apologize.

Banning people and then explaining why after the fact is the exact problem we're trying to raise.

Rich

I think "don't be a dick" is the operative principal. Beyond that, what constitutes dickishness is kind of an "I know it when I see it" situation. It's a hard thing (ha!) to be more specific about, but generally abusiveness, gratuitous off-topic criticism, ad hominems, and/or unfounded impugning of others' motives are the kinds of things that would trigger me to issue a warning. If I see a thread veering into trading in cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, or sexual-orientation stereotypes, I might pipe up with a generalized "keep it together fellas" kind of warning.

More importantly, though, people aren't banned for being dicks once or twice. We simply don't swing the banhammer willy-nilly. People get banned for doing stupid, abusive, trolling shit on a repeated basis despite multiple (usually private) warnings. Or for spamming, but that's a different category and one I don't think anyone's complaining about.

[LesserBlackDog]

I think at least a few people have asked for a clear explanation - in advance - of what constitutes acceptable behavior.

If this is lurking somewhere and I've missed it, then that's on me and I apologize.

Banning people and then explaining why after the fact is the exact problem we're trying to raise.

Rich

With the exception of Fred G. Unn and blatant spammers/advertisers, I don't know of anyone who's been banned who did not receive at least one warning first. Depending on the nature or the context of the incident, the warning/reprimand will typically be issued via PM, but may be issued in the form of a comment if, like Bruschetta's comment to LCDR, it is also aimed at the forum generally.

Fred G. Unn didn't get a warning primarily because he had disabled his private message and email accessibility before engaging in the particular conduct that earned him the ban.

In any case, if you do something that the moderators consider unacceptable, we will let you know about it and give you the chance to change your behavior before we resort to something as drastic as a permanent ban. Only if someone engaged in particularly egregious conduct (threats, harassment, racist/sexist/homophobic attacks, posting offensive content, etc) would we be likely to ban a member without giving them notice and an opportunity to correct the problematic behavior first.

[schigleymischke]

I'm not sure how I could have further softened my language, but I will keep this feedback in mind for the future.

You don't respond with the words, "this is a warning," or "I almost deleted."

[teerockness]

With the exception of Fred G. Unn and blatant spammers/advertisers, I don't know of anyone who's been banned who did not receive at least one warning first. Depending on the nature or the context of the incident, the warning/reprimand will typically be issued via PM, but may be issued in the form of a comment if, like Bruschetta's comment to LCDR, it is also aimed at the forum generally.

Again - what is being requested is a documented policy surrounding what is 'in bounds' and what is 'out of bounds' - in advance, not after a member has transgressed.

This is what "fair and open" means... to the people raising this concern.

This is hardly unreasonable. Even reddit forums (!!) state (in the right hand column) clear definitions of what is fair game and what is not, for this very purpose.

What is being raised to you is a concern that it seems moderators are given fairly wide latitude in applying subjective standards surrounding conduct...

Rich

[LesserBlackDog]

Forum rules, sort of like criminal law, express basically the lowest common denominator for socially acceptable public behavior.

We respect the intelligence, maturity, and discretion of our members. We expect that they are capable of figuring out what is and isn't socially appropriate behavior without us needing to modsplain it to them like children at a playground. When the occasional misstep occurs, we let the person know that their conduct has fallen beneath the standard of what we consider to be appropriate behavior and that further missteps may have consequences for the person's membership. A warning is not a punishment in and of itself, nor is it an indication that the person being warned is a bad person or a bad forum member. It is simply notice to them that they have done something which we, as both moderators and long-time members ourselves, consider beneath what we expect of them and what they should expect of themselves and everyone else here. In the vast majority of cases, a simple warning resolves the issue and everyone moves on. Only a handful of members have ever escalated a conflict to the point where a temporary or permanent ban was enacted.

You are absolutely right that the moderators are given wide latitude to apply standards regarding members' conduct. This is a privately-owned forum. The forum owner has entrusted us to use our judgment and discretion to maintain an atmosphere that encourages people to participate, share knowledge, and learn. Until the forum owner directs us otherwise, that is what we will continue to do.

I don't know what part of that policy is so unjust or tyrannical.

[bruschetta]

Yeah, pretty much what others have said. To be blunt, as somebody who has been involved in a few business transactions of this sort, once a business is sold, all bets are off.

The tone of your response is totally over the top - we're all adults here, and as far as I can tell people generally behave themselves.

Based on a variety of issues similar to this, I'd strongly suggest the moderators develop a one-page handbook standardizing what, exactly, is off limits behavior as well as response protocols. It seems like it is needed.

Rich

Rich, what business transactions are you referring to? You've completely lost me here.

Then others disappear or are banned without public explanation. That's a decision process by the mods that I accept.

I just checked through our ban list. Apart from spammers, there are currently two users banned. One permanently and one temporary. Two users over the (4?) years of this forum.

You don't respond with the words, "this is a warning," or "I almost deleted."

LCDR suggested that Dappered would share readers' information with an outside party. That deserved a warning. He received a warning. I didn't threaten to ban him, I didn't send him an infraction through the forum system, etc. I warned him that he had been impolite.

I would have deleted the post, but I felt it important to stop that rumor in its tracks and point to Dappered's privacy policy.

[schigleymischke]

LCDR suggested that Dappered would share readers' information with an outside party. That deserved a warning. He received a warning. I didn't threaten to ban him, I didn't send him an infraction through the forum system, etc. I warned him that he had been impolite.

I would have deleted the post, but I felt it important to stop that rumor in its tracks and point to Dappered's privacy policy.

But, he didn't. He suggested that Dappered might be sold to an outside party. You could've said that's a false rumor, and left it at that. If he had suggested that Dappered might share readers' information with an outside party, you could've pointed out the privacy policy. Regardless, what he said wasn't impolite. You might not have liked what he said, but that doesn't make it impolite. Statements that you don't like does not equal rudeness. If any of you who are moderators want any kind of open exchange of ideas here, you're going to have to tolerate things you don't like.

[andrewlcraft]

But, he didn't. He suggested that Dappered might be sold to an outside party.........

Including a list of all our email addresses. Read, bro. You're getting awfully fired up for someone with 24 posts.

[schigleymischke]

Including a list of all our email addresses. Read, bro. You're getting awfully fired up for someone with 24 posts.

How many posts do I need?