-->
@David
The limit I don't agree to, you would be limiting active/addicts/weekend-visiters/day-off-bingers etc giving you genuine reports.
Limiting should be placed upon poor-rate reporters and they should be notified of it.
Moderation Comment Period: PM Access
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
131
-->
@RationalMadman
That's actually a good point but I believe we could track "good" reporters automatically, at some point.Anonymous reporting is absolutely stupid. A highly successful reporter should get their reports handled faster and you should gamble that they will give accurate reports more readily if pressed for time. A poorly accurate reporter, especially if high volume and rate needs to have a violation that you should add to CoC called report spam that can disallow them to report for a period of time until they learn. If they keep at it, a site ban should be in order no joke.
-->
@David
What I'd like to see is something where you have to select a reason for the report and then write a comment on why you believe the post should be moderated.Same thing with votes. WHen a vote is reported state why the vote should be removed.I'd also be open to limiting 5-10 reports per day
We already have the 10 reports / day limitation in place
-->
@RationalMadman
Most of the time there are multiple reports for the same thread. The mods generally read what's going on around the thread to get a good idea of the context. In cases where one post is reported for a person, if we have multiple COC violations in a given thread, we will usually see it and won't need to be reported.
-->
@DebateArt.com
Regarding the PMs, truth be told, I am also not a fan of disclosing them, but bsh1 pointed out some situations where it could possibly make sense and I believe we decided to bring this up on the forum and discuss it and that's what this topic is about. But then you've also provided some good points so it's going to be a hard decision. The best idea I've got is to maybe provide access only in some very serious cases (death threats and whatnot) and limit the access somehow so that the mods wouldn't be able to access it on a whim. But then, I can't come up with decent logic for this request PMs feature...so it's going to take some time and thinking.
+1
-->
@DebateArt.com
So @drafterman pointed out that we may no longer need the reports to be open ( as in, not anonymous ) and I am thinking if we should indeed roll it back. What do you think? I wonder if I am missing something here?
The site already agreed on capping the amount of vote reports at 10 per day per user (not capping the number of votes). I agree that takes a lot of oomph out of the argue for non-anonymity. I have no objection to making it anonymous, I simply haven't seen a clear consensus in favor of making it anonymous. Knowing the identity of reporters might help, for instance, in understanding whether a user is spite-reporting someone, but that's not really important for mods to know, though it could be potentially helpful in some cases.
-->
@ethang5
I don't recall Napoleon the pig ever inviting feedback like this or tolerating harsh criticism. Besides, I think you mean "like 1984." There aren't a lot of privacy issues going on in Animal Farm. Just a lot of weirdly Soviet livestock...Mike, can you not see what bsh1 is doing? This is becoming like Animal Farm.
I think Mike's agreement to put this proposal up for discussion is good. Unlike Drafter, who would simply have Mike rule by fiat, the democratic process here of seeking feedback is probably the best. The comparisons of me to some kind of dictator are also a bit ludicrous insofar as I have put this up to public discussion (and promised to abide by the result of that discussion) and am subject to scrutiny.
That said, so far, I have seen two points emerge. That mods should never have this power, and that if mods had this power, users should be notified when their PMs are read. I invite further feedback and commentary.
-->
@Outplayz
Like i said earlier, we have no idea what you guys do in the background. Mike can very well give you guys access momentarily and we'll never know. I think this situation should always be up to Mike to handle since it is beyond moderation and can hold legal consequences. He should do everything he can to keep things like that off his site. How he does it we really can't ever know. But getting an okay from this community to allow you guys to enter PMs is asking a little much. Just leave this sort of thing up to Mike. How he handles it is up to him. There shouldn't be any need of a permanent okay from us for you guys to have access. This is a rare occurrence that Mike should handle... and yes, if you guys do get access... it should only be through Mike. I don't think there should be any permanent extra ability to enter PMs.
I think it is important to get the community's approval before mods have access to any user's PMs. The idea that Mike could unilaterally give us approval in certain cases necessarily circumvents the democratic agency of the community. That agency is important to respect, however, particularly when the privacy rights of members is at stake.
-->
@bsh1
There never was an argument for non-anonymity. It was a fluke.I agree that takes a lot of oomph out of the argue for non-anonymity.
Unlike Drafter, who would simply have Mike rule by fiat, the democratic process here of seeking feedback is probably the best.
The site isn't a democracy nor have you implemented democratic principles (requiring some undisclosed number of total votes to apply to arbitrarily selected issues before you'll act on them isn't democratic) . If you had, reporting anonymity would be restored. Democratic principles having failed, I basically have to appeal directly to Mike. Mike should absolutely rule by fiat to squash horrible ideas like this.
The comparisons of me to some kind of dictator are also a bit ludicrous insofar as I have put this up to public discussion (and promised to abide by the result of that discussion) and am subject to scrutiny.
I didn't compare you to a dictator, I compared you to a sniveling adviser who used his proximity to leadership to poison the well of with bad ideas.
There is absolutely, positively no case that requires accessing user PMs that is also so frequent that Mike can't handle those cases himself. This idea should to be conclusively shelved, permanently. This isn't a hard decision that requires time and thinking.
-->
@drafterman
I wasn't referring to you in that post, but I hardly think, if I were trying to manipulate things behind the scenes, I would drag discussions like this out into the sunlight.I didn't compare you to a dictator, I compared you to a sniveling adviser who used his proximity to leadership to poison the well of with bad ideas.
There never was an argument for non-anonymity
Even if you didn't see it or agree with it, there was.
-->
@bsh1
I think it is important to get the community's approval before mods have access to any user's PMs. The idea that Mike could unilaterally give us approval in certain cases necessarily circumvents the democratic agency of the community. That agency is important to respect, however, particularly when the privacy rights of members is at stake.
In any case, we wouldn't know. All i'm saying is i disagree with mods having the option themselves to look into PMs. This should only happen through Mike and preferably by Mike if it's going to be allowed at all. Maybe do the notification thing too... but now i'm seeing that isn't really a good idea since Mike or anyone else shouldn't be entering other PMs anyways. Just add me to the disagree box for this to be an option for the mods.
I wasn't referring to you in that post, but I hardly think, if I were trying to manipulate things behind the scenes, I would drag discussions like this out into the sunlight.
I fully acknowledging that you are manipulating Mike rather openly.
Even if you didn't see it or agree with it, there was.
Dude, Mike admitted that it was an accident.
-->
@drafterman
I am not disputing that. That it came about via accident does not mean there wasn't an argument for retain it, and thus for it.Dude, Mike admitted that it was an accident.
I am a happy slave. I am a comfortable slave.
Mike, can you not see what bsh1 is doing? This is becoming like Animal Farm.
I don't recall Napoleon the pig ever inviting feedback like this or tolerating harsh criticism.
Just the kind of thing Napoleon would say. Maybe its been too long since you've read the book. Mike is the reason this thread is up, not you. And reading the book would probably help him see what you're actually doing.
Besides, I think you mean "like 1984."
No, Napoleon, I mean Animal Farm.
There aren't a lot of privacy issues going on in Animal Farm. Just a lot of weirdly Soviet livestock...
This isn't about privacy. As Drafterman said, there isn't a problem. You manufactured one to grab power. This is about overreach and fakery.
You will try again, to be sure. This site will never be safe as long as you are head mod.
I say we should wait until such a scenario arises before giving mods carte blanche authority (albeit with unanimous mod approval) to do so. Then, we can assess the situation as a community and respond accordingly.
I love how ethang and drafterman preach so harshly against bsh1 and ignore the complete, utter, immovable oligarchic capacity to spy, use and abuse all private information of users able to be obtained via accessing this site (including page you came from and left the site to) haha you have blinkers on if you think "Mike" is the good guy and bsh1 is the evil one whispering in his ear.
I do not give a damn what you say, there is nothing we can do to defeat Mike. You have submitted now pay the price, stop pretending there's an option 2 where you fight bsh1 and feel less like you're under absolute, immovable oligarchy.
-->
@RationalMadman
I love how ethang and drafterman preach so harshly against bsh1 and ignore the complete, utter, immovable oligarchic capacity to spy, use and abuse all private information of users able to be obtained via accessing this site (including page you came from and left the site to) haha you have blinkers on if you think "Mike" is the good guy and bsh1 is the evil one whispering in his ear.I do not give a damn what you say, there is nothing we can do to defeat Mike. You have submitted now pay the price, stop pretending there's an option 2 where you fight bsh1 and feel less like you're under absolute, immovable oligarchy.
-->
@DebateArt.com
YASSSS. Lol.
-->
@bsh1
We're building kleptocracy haha
-->
@DebateArt.com
Mike is the Russian troll the media warned you about
-->
@David
Rofl.
The public commentary period for this topic will be open until sometime on Friday, but it seems like the consensus emerging so far is against any mod power to examine users' PMs. If that holds, that consensus verdict will be honored.
-->
@bsh1
I just ask that you give me tips. Like you spy on me and say 'you could have handle it better this way' or 'she's into you' or 'he is being sarcastic'. Thanks for your help.
Glad drafterman is here so I don't have to spend energy on this shit.
-->
@DebateArt.com
We've been played like a deck of cards from a Las Vegas casino dealt by big Busted Barbara. You guys are sick.
This isn't PM related, but more "Moderation Comment Period" related. Which, if any, of the following statements are accurate?
1. "The Rules and Code of Conduct are the sole law on this Site, though certain individual users might be subject to national laws governing speech on the internet and similar cyberspaces of a hateful, obscene, blasphemous, or politically inexpedient nature, and the Mods may take no action against any user (beyond that which is within the power of any user, not taking into consideration differences in social sway and/or popularity) except where a violation of such has occurred."
2. "The Mods are discretionary officers of enforcement who use their judgment to decide not only under what circumstances the Rules and Code of Conduct are enforced and to what degree, but also how it ought to be interpreted."
3. "The Mods would be open to hearing appeals by a party qualified to represent another against the finding that a ban, of a temporary OR permanent nature, is an appropriate response to an offense, real or perceived, single action or a wider pattern, or against the deletion of a vote on a debate, or against the revocation of voting privileges, or any penalty of a similar or relevant nature."