-->
@Raltar
If you've blocked them, they can't PM you or direct comments at you. How would granting moderators access to your PMs help you with their public comments about you?
Moderation Comment Period: PM Access
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
131
-->
@bsh1
I am not going to continuously re-hash with you what has, in many ways, already been beaten to death. If you don't like the explanation for why I made the decision I did previously--that not enough people weighed in in favor of reinstating anonymity--so be it. Continuing on in this fashion will neither further elucidate the issue nor persuade me that my approach was somehow invalid. Moreover, I was fairly clear, from the moment the voting the previous public thread closed consistently up until now, that I am willing to revisit the issue of anonymous reporting if a clear consensus emerges. If you want to encourage change on this issue, than the most constructive course of action, rather than griping and issuing personal attacks, would be to identify other voices who share your views on the subject.
Then tell me what the secret number to reach is. There is literally no objection to providing this number unless such a number doesn't exist but you still want to retain the ability to arbitrarily ignore whatever vote happens regarding it.
5-2 is not enough. 7-0 is. Where is the cross-over? 6-2? 6-1? 7-2? What?
I'm not trying to change your mind. You are clearly obstinate when it comes to this. My goal isn't to change your mind, it is to pin you down to specific agreements so that public pressure discourages you from reneging.
-->
@drafterman
You continue to obstinately ignore the element of my response which directly answers your concerns. Your concerns about voting process and threshold are all answered in that text. I repeat:
You're question here is disingenuous, as I have already told you that there is a presumption, in my eyes, against implementing the policy. I told you that on post 38. The logical corollary to such a presumption would by that a clear majority of the site would need to be in favor of implementing the policy in order for it to be implemented. The "as it currently stands" qualifier acknowledges that voices which may yet contribute to this thread may be out there, but that qualifier in no way obfuscates the underlying point, which I was fairly clear on from early on: a clear majority of users would need to be in favor of the policy in order to implement it. A clear majority is more than 8-7, and certainly more than the 2-7 the vote count currently reflects.
-->
@drafterman
Because they started sending PMs before I blocked them. If the moderators can't access those private messages, then I can't point to them as evidence of wrongdoing.
Regardless, I think a stronger block feature would probably resolve this issue. I'm still hopeful that someday this site will embrace that viewpoint and implement better social controls and limits on who can and cannot interact with your content on the site.
-->
@bsh1
You refuse to define what a "clear" majority is. I want to know the minimum numbers required.
-->
@Raltar
I agree with a stronger block feature, but giving access to mods about PM will provide you no more protection than the block feature will. Furthermore, the mods won't be guaranteed to side with you and if the behavior isn't a CoC violation (and is just annoying) then they're just going to tell you the same thing I have: block them.
Blocking them will either A) stop it altogether or B) force them to continue in publicly, in which case you have public evidence to provide them.
There is no case here that requires mods to dive into anyone's PMs.
-->
@Raltar
Also, I just want to clarify that they aren't asking for permission to go into your own PMs. They are asking for the right to go into anyone's PMs based on a separate third party asking them to. So it's less: "this guy is harassing me, come look" and more: "I think those two people are talking about me privately, go stop it"
-->
@drafterman
I agree with a stronger block feature...
Cool. I hope other folks agree too.
Also, I just want to clarify that they aren't asking for permission to go into your own PMs. They are asking for the right to go into anyone's PMs based on a separate third party asking them to. So it's less: "this guy is harassing me, come look" and more: "I think those two people are talking about me privately, go stop it"
That is a valid distinction to make.
Is it possible that we could have a rule similar to the way votes work, that a particular item has to be "flagged" before a moderator can act on it? (But once flagged, it gets automatically assigned for action?)
-->
@bsh1
1. No. Mods should only be able to access PMs if the specific user agrees to the search. This would involve a feature update where a person could check a box, select a specific conversation chain (or entire history), and then choose "send to mods".1. Should moderators be able to access a user's PM if (1) all three admin officials unanimously agree that (2) the three part test outlines above is met?2. Should moderators never--in any circumstance--have the ability to access a user's PM3. Is there another solution to this problem or a suggestion for how to improve the proposed checks?
2. Yes. I would prefer "never" to "at will". Perhaps consensual searches could be added as a feature.
3. If someone is going to doxx another person in a private message, they could just as easily use an email or something else not connected to this site.
If someone is being harassed IRL, it would seem to be a matter for law enforcement.
If someone is making accusations based only on suspicion, there should be requisite skepticism.
Perhaps the mods should detail an explicit burden of proof.
Individuals can block specific users they don't want to interact with already. Criminal accusations should be referred to law enforcement.
I'd also be perfectly happy with "PMs will not be moderated and cannot be used as evidence of COC violations".
The vote count, as it currently stands, reflects an 8-2 stand against giving moderators access to users PMs, regardless of the circumstance. As I said in this thread, it would take a clear majority in favor of giving moderator's access to see that policy implemented, given the presumption in favor of privacy concerns. Since such a majority has not materialized, and indeed, since most participants do not want mods having such access, I will honor that decision, as I said I would in the OP. In short, moderators will not be permitted, in any circumstance, to access users PMs. The comment period for this proposed policy is now closed, and the thread may be locked shortly to reflect that.
TLDR: Moderators will not be able to access user's PMs, per the feedback provided during this commentary thread.
I suppose I'm a bit late to the party. But I have no qualms with the decision reached. Too bad I missed another draft/bish cage match. Whatever else one might say of them, they're never boring.
I told Castin, argent_tongue and others that others watch PMs and they laughed at me.
I did not, in fact. Skepticism is not laughter. I'm still skeptical that any of the staff are actively reading our PM's, though I'm fully aware that Mike has the power to read them.