PnR Decorum and suspensions

[xxlt]

(07-15-2017, 08:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm open to suggestions on how to address someone playing the victim card without addressing the person playing the victim card.

Every time I have been suspended it was my fault.  It was because I wrote something that violated the code of conduct. Furthermore, I knew it. It wasn't because an unfortunate choice of pronouns without any intent to insult someone else. It wasn't because a cabal of snowflakes reported my posts. It wasn't because of overly subjective analysis of my words by liberal moderators. The number of people who report my posts is irrelevant. Because the moderators aren't going to suspend me because my posts are reported or by the number of people reporting my posts. The moderators will suspend me for breaking the rules. Suggesting otherwise is a disservice to the moderators and an insult to their integrity.

I can't speak for all here, but personally I know the Denny abused his position as a moderator at Bengals.com. That's one reason I believe the moderation should be transparent. Plus our legal system is transparent, for the most part. Even Article 15s in the military are posted publicly so people know what isn't tolerated, how punishment is carried out, and what not to do themselves, etc. Plus the members here can learn to trust in the "subjective" judgment of moderators when it comes to pronoun usage. Or we could ask for a change in moderation if it seems someone's judgement is clouded. It protects us from moderators like Denny and it protects moderators from false accusations.

I agree with your assessment there were abuses by moderators at the mother ship. I don't think there are any by moderators here. And, I want to be perfectly clear, by encouraging an assessment of who complains and about what I in no way meant to insult the integrity of our moderators. Quite the contrary, I have stated and will state again, (as breech described above) that when they suspend someone it is for violations of the COC and justified.

What I thought I was hearing was not moderators saying we have a difficult time keeping up with violations of the COC, but rather we have a difficult time keeping up with complaints about our moderation and about other members being "bad" or "mean." If that is the situation, and it seemed to be described that way, then the issue isn't the COC, it isn't the moderators, and it isn't the deplorable behavior of members, it is the people who flood the moderators with complaints.

Hypothetical parallel: our moderators work at CBS and field complaints everyday about The Big Bang Theory. It is the number one show on TV. So, they've created a success, but some people hate Jim Parsons, some hate Kaley Cuoco, some people hate the apartments they shoot scenes in, etc. If you were the people getting complaints (our moderators) would you change the show, pull it off the air (shut down the forum), or tell the nice folks complaining to watch something else?

Or, obviously they could do none of the above and just stay the course. But that seems unlikely - it seems we are at some sort of crisis point and I am curious about why that is. That's why I invited adopting a different perspective.

I have to say I am not a big fan of letting markets regulate themselves, but it seems like on the MB it kind of works. I've started or seen others start threads I thought would be red hot only to see them fizzle, but likewise started or seen started threads I thought would appeal to a very small number of people only to see them go on and on like the energizer bunny. So a lot of it sorts itself out and when the COC gets violated the mods do what is necessary and appropriate and they don't, imo, need "helpers."