ok I got it now. it was a personal message from MWW to me. here it is in its entirety:
------------------------
your thread
I regret to have to read a rather embarrassing exchange between yourself and Time Violation. He has seen a lot in his time on this board with some extremely stubborn and uncompromising posters who can make mods' life hell, and perhaps why his attitude towards you wasn't the greatest, though of course not excusable. Naturally as a moderator, he also has to defend the site moderation when it is being challenged (not necessary implying we are right all the time, of course).
For me, as one of the youngest moderators on the site (and one of the lesser experienced, started in October last year after 9 months on the forum), I have tried to merge moderator and poster values together. You will see that it is hard to balance this well. We'll have some posters who think we are too overzealous in our moderation and banning, while others consider us too lenient and let too many trolls post etc. If you walk onto the next site, tennisforum, their posters will say very different things about how TF is run and moderated. I am the greatest moderator on this site to some, and also the worst moderator on this site to others and both stand to be correct!
Thus I think it would be worthwhile to have a positive discussion on the issue. Your concerns have lead me to start a thread for mods to consider amending the 'moderator change edit' rule. The issue sometimes is with whether mods apply a liberal approach, or by the book. By the book is the 'easiest' approach but does have its difficulties at times and doesn't take into account poster motivation or intent. Originally the rule was set to prevent troll posters who would repost problematic posts after they had been deleted. I definitely think how the rule is applied these days has drifted from the original intent and we do have complaints about it. You won't be the first nor the last so I hope the mod team can sit and come up with suitable revision.
The situation with your thread arose based on reports that your thread title 'directly quoted' off Stan and was considered misinformation. I would not have made any changes if it were up to myself because I did not see any intentional malice or attempt to confuse with the information. Only a few posters found objection to it and reported it. Legal aspects are probably the most difficult for moderators to really apply. I remember in another case, a poster who contributes interesting articles got reported for sending in a complete article, someone reported it and cited 'copyright' infringements. There is also a hidden rule that posters should avoid posting 'getty images' based on similar ownership and IP laws. So I regret that this situation has happened but it's something we can all learn from.
There are some situations where seemingly strict rules have purpose. Slasher1985 introduced a policy that posters must use objective thread titles when reporting match result threads or WWW threads, and in polls. You will see this is a far cry from tennisforum where player nicknames are often used. The importance of the rule on our site is to avoid derogatory language and player bashing, as well as to make archival of results easier as the players' actual names and score are very clear to see.
I hope you can contend with us. We are a small team and we don't always satisfy everyone's wishes. We can't and even more so because of our diversity in nationalities, gender, beliefs and age. But we hope to be open to suggestions to make the forum run smoother. In fact your return to the forum was only possible because of such suggestions regarding permaban policies.
.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/IMG][/URL])
Home
Search
Calendar
Arcade
Advertise
Login
Register
