If it was meant for a public discussion why was it
titled "
Moderators, Rob, BAN..." ?
Strikes me as disingenuous. Perhaps so, perhaps not.
Everybody already knows the situation, it's no secret.
Not everybody. Some people have better things to do than read every blog repeatedly. Or even once. That's why we do rely in part on the membership to bring things to our attention. I wasn't aware of this new development until it was mentioned.
So, good of her to do so, but in the wrong location so it's been moved.
She is not pointing out or creating any new criticism that hasn't already been voiced by others.
Not voiced in the public forums. Nor should it be in such a way.
As a thread started to the detriment of another member it is considered harassment and IS a ToS violation, hence it's removal from public view.
By including a link to the offence she actually helps to further the offence itself. Again, cause for the thread's removal.
She acknowledges her own ToS violation in her post. More cause for removal.
Simplified.
IRL you can protest and picket any event you like. If you break the law doing so you can be asked to stay within the legal boundaries, removed from the event or even arrested.
On here you can protest occurrences. If you break the ToS doing so you can expect to have that dealt with according to site procedure as well.
In short, as far as that post is concerned, the mods already look bad by appearing to favor trolls, who, it has been noted by many, are on Rob_E's friends list, over the general membership.
General membership or a select few with a telling common interest?
Note away. I'm can't explain who has who on their friends list. I would submit however that it would look silly for a site owner to institute a feature and not allow those who sought to use it with him. I know that I have people on my friends list with whom I've never had any private contact but I liked a post or gallery pic so I accepted the request.
Nice of you to casually imply something with the mention, though.
As for the moderators looking bad, this is nothing new.
No action is seen until the word banned comes under some-one's name and that only happens after the ban is discussed which only happens after warnings, which in turn only happen after discussions.
Because you can't see the discussions or the early stages of action being taken it's ever so easy for those who want to cause division to cry foul or favoritism. It's a common ploy and it's disappointing to see how easily this ploy is fallen for time and time again.
Analogy time again.
The morning newspaper comes. It has articles to read. You can assume from such that the authors of those articles researched the story, interviewed a person or two and wrote it up for submission. You can also assume that it was approved by the editor for that day's edition.
Longer investigative pieces can take time to research and write. The editor may decide that it's incomplete and not ready for publication as yet or even that it's a bad piece and never to print it.
Just because you haven't seen an article on the front page doesn't mean there has been no work done on it.
Just because you can't see the moderator discussions or the early stages of action DOES NOT mean that they aren't happening.
Like I've never had to explain that before.
People will believe what they want to believe. People will also try to persuade you to believe what they want you to believe.
So I'll ask again. Why would an intelligent woman address a thread to one group (
"Moderators, Rob.. ") but submit it to everyone?
You mention the historical cases of this. Can you honestly not intuit that those instances were also to drive public opinion and put additional pressure on the decision makers?
3:57AM where I am...so...7:57AM where Kotch is...
I'm going to pass the torch.
(sorry Kotch)
She always explains things much better than I do anyway.
