I hate to break it to you, but DGirl and I are friends off-line and on Facebook and I am not too confident that she will return. While I understand that it isn't cool to delay reporting of problems, I am not all that sold or even sure about how you can edit the logs of a conversation. Knowing that the chat runs on Flash software, I know cut and paste functions don't quite work the same way (or maybe it just depends on how your PC executes Java, if you've got a Mac, whatever). All I know is that you click the yellow exclamation mark, and the site just asks you to slip in a comment and then it submits it on ahead. You don't know what's in the report -- just that it's being forwarded.
So, riddle me this, Batladies and Batgentleman. What objective guidelines are in place to determine if things are edited inappropriately? I can understand snipping out certain parts of a conversation; you just don't need to read everything but the actual offense happening at the time. Or, do you?
Second, is the editing so inappropriate that it suggests that DGirl (or anyone else interested) is literally snipping out text and reinserting different text? What's the giveaway? Would vocabulary give it away? If the alleged editor and the person fighting are of different national origins or backgrounds, would British English versus American English be the indicator? What about text color, speech patterns, or curt responses? Punctuation? Not to belabor the point, but it might be helpful to spell out in fuller detail the conditions that constitute "proof" of doctoring a chat transcript.
Finally -- and it's just because I have to write a take-home exam about the problems of subjective evaluation and wide discretion -- we as non-moderators need a better sense of the deliberation process. I say this because, as we've fought it out before, moderators are not in a titular vacuum on the site. They are friends with one another and have friendships with different members and antagonisms with others. So, like always, it's good to get a sense of how a problem is deliberated. We don't need to know who said what. We just need to know how you guys arrive at decisions.
Am I totally neutral in this? Nope. I'm friends with DGirl offline, and as angry as she is about the temporary ban, that anger belies hurt. Saying someone doctors chat transcripts is an all but direct jab at honesty and self-worth, and if you see yourself as an honest person, that's all but a blow. Unlike spamming posts or nitpicking each other for grammar, to be called a liar like this is an understandable insult.
This is coupled, of course, with some differential sanctions -- literally, that controlling for the TOS violation, some people get banned, some people get kicked, and others emerge scot-free. I know that this has been worked on, but it's not so bad to revisit this idea periodically.
Thanks for hearing me out.
So, riddle me this, Batladies and Batgentleman. What objective guidelines are in place to determine if things are edited inappropriately? I can understand snipping out certain parts of a conversation; you just don't need to read everything but the actual offense happening at the time. Or, do you?
Second, is the editing so inappropriate that it suggests that DGirl (or anyone else interested) is literally snipping out text and reinserting different text? What's the giveaway? Would vocabulary give it away? If the alleged editor and the person fighting are of different national origins or backgrounds, would British English versus American English be the indicator? What about text color, speech patterns, or curt responses? Punctuation? Not to belabor the point, but it might be helpful to spell out in fuller detail the conditions that constitute "proof" of doctoring a chat transcript.
Finally -- and it's just because I have to write a take-home exam about the problems of subjective evaluation and wide discretion -- we as non-moderators need a better sense of the deliberation process. I say this because, as we've fought it out before, moderators are not in a titular vacuum on the site. They are friends with one another and have friendships with different members and antagonisms with others. So, like always, it's good to get a sense of how a problem is deliberated. We don't need to know who said what. We just need to know how you guys arrive at decisions.
Am I totally neutral in this? Nope. I'm friends with DGirl offline, and as angry as she is about the temporary ban, that anger belies hurt. Saying someone doctors chat transcripts is an all but direct jab at honesty and self-worth, and if you see yourself as an honest person, that's all but a blow. Unlike spamming posts or nitpicking each other for grammar, to be called a liar like this is an understandable insult.
This is coupled, of course, with some differential sanctions -- literally, that controlling for the TOS violation, some people get banned, some people get kicked, and others emerge scot-free. I know that this has been worked on, but it's not so bad to revisit this idea periodically.
Thanks for hearing me out.
