2nd Chance: Let's discuss these issues properly.

I'd also say this is pretty cut and dry. The problem is lack of consistency by the Mods.

Well, consistency (with respect to decision making..banning, rule enforcement etc) between mods was something that I asked to be addressed here many moons ago. The answer was simply that its a nice aim, but it cant really happen. Each mod does things differently, there are all sorts of situations that just cant be planned for. Its therefore too tough to be able to adequately cover all mod attitudes, and all possible situations.

I can see the administrations point on this. Everyone does things their own way.

But I still maintain my stance that in many aspects, good guidelines for mods would greatly improve consistency, without stifling them too much. But it is damned difficult to achieve.

 

Issue 1: Mods banning users based on matters of personal opinion, without consulting other administration. Also, bannings without clear explanations, and without warning.

I don't feel that warnings are necessary unless the infraction is an minor first offence. By signing up a username you agree to the TOS and the rules inherent with it. The onus then is upon the user to post within those rules, not the administration to monitor every single post made on the site. Clear explanations deserve to be given and I believe that mods who are involved in a mater too personally (ie: know the offender IRL) then they should defer to another mod with evidence of the infraction. This goes for the JC only. This is why Fan Force RSA's have a tougher gig in some respects.
______________________________________

Issue 2: Locking of threads/banning users due to "spamming" "trolling" "flaming" "abusing" "harrassing" or "derailing" when these terms are not generally agreed upon by the staff. There are gross inconsistencies in what different moderators will call "spam," or what a certain moderator will allow from day to day, or from different posters.

Different users post for different reasons. One person in the Misc "Line By Line" threads posts because he has fun doing it. Another does it to raise his post count. A an educated decision must be made. So the reason behind the post definately effects the way it's viewed. I'll post my own definitions of those terms later.
____________________________________

Issue 3. Detailed explanations should be given at the end of a locked thread, explaining why it was closed.

This I agree with. The level of detail should vary depending on the obviousness of the infraction. If it's not a clear cut case, there's always room for a brief discussion between the mod and the regulars in the thread.
______________________________________

Issue 4: Moderators should be held accountable for their mistakes.

Absolutley. Has there ever been any question of this? THere is a large document set down by the owners in Mod Squad regarding their stance on executive punishment of members of the administration. All newbie mods read it (or should read it) and everyone is aware that we're here to do our best. That being said, we're people too and make mistakes too. We shouldn't be too proud to change our minds and expect the same form the user population.
______________________________________

Issue 5: Moderators should read, actively pay attention, and respond to these discussions in Communications, as well as grievances expressed by anyone. By "respond" it is implied that they should post more than a simple "I'm here" or "You're wrong, end of story."

I disagree with this. Not every mod wants to get involved in board wide politics and teh drama. If there is a specific problem with the forum concerning a particular mod, yes, they should respond to it as the person in the best position to comment. I do not think that a mod brought in to take care of a forum should be forced to comment on issues they a) don't care about or b) don't understand, simply becuase the user population says they have to.
_______________________________________

Issue 6: "This belongs in a PM with X admin." If an issue affects more than just one member, it should be able to be discussed in Communications. PM with an admin is only one avenue of discussion, and sometimes outside opinions can help resolve an issue.

Agreed, it is one avenue but it is also the first avenue. If it involves more than one person at it's inception then by all mean begin a Comms thread. If you seek to involve more than one person, then keep to PM with the mod. If you want to get outside opinions on n issue, do it in private. This forum isn't the place for private grudges and dirty laundry to be aired.
______________________________________


Issue 7: When you are banned, the reasons and severity of the ban should be explained to you by the mode

 

But I still maintain my stance that in many aspects, good guidelines for mods would greatly improve consistency, without stifling them too much. But it is damned difficult to achieve.

I agree that it would be a tough thing to do but some effort should be made to at least try to come up with the "good guidlines" you mentioned.

 

Griffz and Darth Attorney, I really want to thank you for the responses, the input, and for working with us on this. I have been busy, and haven't had a chance to really comment.

Lord Bane, I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I don't have time to expound upon it now. Maybe tomorrow.

And yeah, PB probably wasn't the best mod around. But you knew exactly where he stood on something, and you knew exactly what kind of a problem he had with you if you were banned. He made it clear in no uncertain terms what the issue/problem/violation was. It has been a while, but as I recall, you could argue with him about it, and he'd listen, too, and wouldn't totally dismiss you out of hand, like seems to happen sometimes now. If you made a good point, he would agree.

I think his warnings in threads were helpful: "XXXX, you are about to be banned." Or, "XXXX, once more and you are gone," etc. I think this is why we sometimes remember him as a good mod.

And with locking a thread, the mods can say "I have a problem with xxxxx, and I think this should maybe be locked. Give me reasons to do otherwise." More feedback and communication with each other on both sides is always good, and always leads to better relations.

One last thing: Whimper, I'm impressed.

 

I'm glad to see the thought put into your replies, everyone. I've got a big post coming tomorrow, but for now I just have one point to make.

Issue 10. Blanket generalizations about members of the Slacker Council are being made by both mods and users.

Lord Bane said...

---

they deal with other users more harshly than the average member at the JC. They fish for trouble.[hr][/blockquote] So you respond to a grievance about blanket generalizations by making a couple of big old generalizations?

That is one of the problems here- "The Slackers" don't fish for trouble, abuse members, deal with people harshly, or any of the other things they're accused of. [i]Certain slackers[/i] do. Do you see the difference? One statement is judging seperate individuals based on perceived notions about the group they belong to, rather than on their own actions.

So if someone is a slacker, and they post something in the grey-area between acceptable and not, it will by default be dealt with more harshly because there is the mindset that "Slackers cause trouble." This is the bias we're trying to work against.

 

I think, whether or not it is right, Slackers - and people from certain other spin off boards with not always glowing history - will be watched more closely than the average member. There is precedent that I for one refuse to ignore. I know not every Slacker is the devil or something but I do know that their is definable animosity coming from the SC aimed at the JC. There is a difference between constructive criticism and some of the comments from people who proudly say they represent the SC.

 

---

[color=blue]Issue 1. Mods banning users based on matters of personal opinion, without consulting other administration. Also, bannings without clear explanations, and without warning.

Arguments presented: inconsistency in banning process. Some users are banned without warning for making a comment that offended the personal tastes of just one person. Example: Kephy.

Suggestions: A system of checks and balances. Require personally involved mods to seek outside moderation, require a set amount of warnings, etc.

Rebuttals: Such a system would tie mods hands too much. They need to act quickly sometimes to ban people who are offending them, and waiting for 2nd opinions would compromise their authority/power. [/color][hr][/blockquote]I feel the real issue here is that sometimes moderators are guilty of losing sight of what it truly means to ?moderate?. In the truest sense of the word, in applicable terms here on this message board, we are here to filter out content that might be wholly offensive, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate. We are also here to control the problem of redundant topics of discussion and to keep true spam (solicitation, or repeated messages) off the boards, as they make navigating the forums difficult and annoying.

We are not here to ?punish? people for saying offensive things. I think we?ve gotten it into our collective heads that we are. We?re here to simply remove those offensive things from the public view. The ?nazi? comment made by Kephy, I feel, should have simply been handled with an edit of the original message, removing the offending remark, and a request/warning to the user that they not use such terms, as they could potentially offend members. Surely there?s some other way to get the point across without needing to resort to that type of analogy, if it indeed offends.

In general, I think banning should be somewhat of a last resort. Had Kephy shown no regard for the possibility of offending other users, and had Kephy repeatedly violated the request to avoid offensive remarks, then I could see where a banning would be justified, and would make sense. However, I feel that in most instances, simply removing the offending text, and warning the user would suffice, and likely avoid nasty accusations of mods banning people simply for being offended. We should always try to moderate before banning.[blockquote][hr][color=blue]Issue 2. Locking of threads/banning users due to "spamming" "trolling" "flaming" "abusing" "harrassing" or "derailing" when these terms are not generally agreed upon by the staff. There are gross inconsistencies in what different moderators will call "spam," or what a certain moderator will allow from day to day, or from different posters.

Arguments presented: huge array of threads of differing subjective "value", some seemingly locked or left open without reason or consistency. Overuse and misuse of the word "spam" to describe a plethora of internet-posting behaviours. Lack of a set definition of "spam". Users are accused of "baiting" or "trolling" but these terms are also vague and undefined. Finally, "harrassing" and "abusing" seem to be too inclusive in their current definitions. Now if you're being anything less than polite- it's being called "flaming".

Suggestions: "Spam" was defined in a recent Mod Squad Update thread. The definition included "off topic posting" "posting of solicitations or advertisements" and "repeated posting of the same message". Moderators should agree to more specific definitions of the other terms, and enforce them based on the definitions, rather than personal opinion.

Rebuttals: Openness and vagueness are necessary in the definitions of all these terms, because if they were too specific, someone might get away with something. Specificity would tie moderators hands in red tape, when those hands are needed for banning and locking. "Spam" definition should include posts that aren't specifically valuable and interesting to the entire JC community. [/color][hr][/blockquote]This issue is a little tricky

 

Man, you don't post for a couple of days, and there's 500 odd posts of Comms discussion.

Without having read through anything yet, I do think that there's waaay too many issues being presented in here for just one thread. But, I guess it's worth a shot.

I don't have time right now to read through all this, unless someone wants to PM me the readers digest version of all the fun i've missed the last few days...

 

Wow. It looks like a lot of progress might be made here.

Anyways, I've been harping for months now that Community should not be moderated like the movie forums. Starting last May, all the forums have been moderated with the utmost scruitiny, which was warranted in the majority. But JCC is a catch-all, and really should be left free and open. Aside from trolls or flaming, I think almost all topics should stay open.

Referrring to the example Sapient posted waay back on page one, I enjoyed reading and replying to that thread, even though it was juvenile and silly. I think if a few people enjoy a thread, it does more harm than good to close it. If someone doesn't like it, go on to a different topic. If people do like it and it's closed, you've just spoiled people's fun

And yes, the forum's are all a little too over PC at the moment, as I've said several times before. It's good to see that other people, and others in charge are noticing this trend as well, and hopefully, everyone will ease up a little.

My concern is that, as stated several times in this thread, moderator A will find something questionable, but leaves a thread open regardless, while moderator B just closes the thread. Concievably, you could have one moderator who gets offended too easily, or doesn't like certain topics, and starts closing. I think it would be best to always err on the side of caution when closing threads or banning users, except in extreme circumstances (ie overt flaming and swearing, posting goatse, etc.)

 

I want it on the record that I agree exactly with everything that Vertical just posted. If he were King of the JC, I would pay tribute to him with vegetables, goats, and cattle.

AYBABTU?

 

If you were king of the JC, why would you pay tribute to anyone?

Would it help if mods would on certain bannings and locks point to certain sections of the TOS? That way users know they broke an agreement they should have read before they joined.

 

Yes! Cattle!

Vertical

 

the goats go to stinky.

veggies go to bane, for his huge salad bar in the senate.

cattle to vert? ahhhhhh, dunno about that; then he'd be the chief beef herder. hmmmmm unless he's donating all the steaks for the JC BBQ.

in keeping with the topics at hand, thank you, vert, for stopping by with your words of wisdom.

epic, waiting to hear your thoughts.

discussion here is good. points raised are valid. comments are thought provoking. need to find that balance, to keep the balance.

 

To keep everyone updated, many of these issues now have dedicated threads in Mod Squad. For instance, I started one this morning about requiring us all to sign our names when responding to unban requests. So please know that we read through here, try to listen and particpate with everyone to the best of our abilities, and try to work through the issues to come to a policy, decision, or agreement that is good for the boards as a whole.

 

Vert, I applaud that post. I can see exactly what you are saying. Now can everyone get on the same page, by drawing a comprise?

Thanks for the update DS.

 

Thanks, Vert, for the nice, long, but thoroughly explained post. And thanks for the update, Sapient.

 

Yes, thank you Vertical for putting so much thought and consideration into that post. I hope those points you made are being brought up in the Mod Squad as well.

As for my banning, I'm over it, but I hope it serves as a good example of when someone should think twice before hitting that ban button. Had my post been edited and I given a warning, I would have stopped right then and there and realized I had crossed the line. As it was I missed out on many hours of conversation I would have much liked to participate in, just because I said one thing that offended someone I did not mean to offend.

As for moderators being required to respond when something they did is being discussed, I would like to point out that not once has the mod who banned me addressed this issue publicly even though it's been brought up many times. I would like to know how he stands on this and if he still thinks he acted fairly, now that alternative actions he could have taken have been brought up.

 

Issue 1. Mods banning users based on matters of personal opinion, without consulting other administration. Also, bannings without clear explanations, and without warning.

Suggestions: A system of checks and balances. Require personally involved mods to seek outside moderation, require a set amount of warnings, etc.

I think that the appeal process works to take care of this problem--sometimes, a user needs to be banned immediately, and a mod can't be tied up with this. The appeal process gives us a chance to look over a ban and discuss it as a judiciary body. Unfortunately, we're also an executive body, and the ban is analogous to the original "arrest"--it can be beaten, and the system can overturn it, but it happens quickly. Even if we divided powers a la the U.S. Constitution, the ban would come before the defense.

Issue 2. Locking of threads/banning users due to "spamming" "trolling" "flaming" "abusing" "harrassing" or "derailing" when these terms are not generally agreed upon by the staff. There are gross inconsistencies in what different moderators will call "spam," or what a certain moderator will allow from day to day, or from different posters.

Rebuttals: Openness and vagueness are necessary in the definitions of all these terms, because if they were too specific, someone might get away with something. Specificity would tie moderators hands in red tape, when those hands are needed for banning and locking. "Spam" definition should include posts that aren't specifically valuable and interesting to the entire JC community.

Darth Sapient added:
The Bill of Rights is also vague, thus the fact there are and will always be discrepencies and differences in interpretation. The overall values and terms by which we moderate are the same.

I absolutely agree that we need to define these terms more clearly than we do--we do go by the same values, but it would help a lot if we could have some written definition to which we could refer. Yes, that opens the door to contesting it, but c'est la vie. That's why we write the definitions carefully. I don't suppose we have a lawyer around? Anyway, the Bill of Rights is vague and short. The Constitution is longer. The U.S. Code of Laws is complex and long, and often very specific and concerned with definitions. As mods, we're more along the line of the court system. We interpret the TOS into rules.

The problem is, the court system has a precedential structure, therefore when one case is tried, it forms the paradigm for the next one. It creates consistency. If the next judge wants to override a decision, he or she has to provide good reason for it. I think it might help us keep up consistency if we kept a group of these precedents--"So-and-so called Amanda Lucas a nasty name. Received warning." If there were a way for us to index that... well, it might help so that when we see "Such-and-such got a seven-day-ban for calling Kathy Tyers a name," then we can see that we're not being consistent in our enforcement. Maybe there's a reason, maybe not, but I think it would be helpful to keep these things in some permanent place. It would also be fair.

Aunecah Skywalker added
This might seem silly. But maybe we could have a Forum (or a thread) in which the Mod, after banning someone, explains why he banned that person? That way, we can ensure greater equality and fair-treatment?

I think this is a bad idea, and not particularly from the mod side. Maybe a person was banned unfairly--does s/he want doubt of that posted publically, by having the offense there for everyone to see? Or maybe it was a fair ban, but the person realizes that s/he was wrong and wants to get a clean start. Having an open thread saying, "Hey, DarthPeterWiggin was sending obnoxious PMs, spamming four threads, swearing at everyone, and flame-baiting in the fanfic forum" is not going to be conducive to coming back as a member in good standing.

Issue 8. Both the "political correctness" and "protection of users feelings" need to b

 

---

[color=red]Issue 1. Mods banning users based on matters of personal opinion, without consulting other administration. Also, bannings without clear explanations, and without warning.

Arguments presented: inconsistency in banning process. Some users are banned without warning for making a comment that offended the personal tastes of just one person. Example: Kephy.

Suggestions: A system of checks and balances. Require personally involved mods to seek outside moderation, require a set amount of warnings, etc.

Rebuttals: Such a system would tie mods hands too much. They need to act quickly sometimes to ban people who are offending them, and waiting for 2nd opinions would compromise their authority/power. [/color][hr][/blockquote]
I've seen things handled, by my fellow Admins, in ways that have made me cringe. But we're all individuals, and some people are going to overreact and others will underreact to particular cases. I disagreed with the "poop" thread being closed, I disagreed with [b]gundark[/b] being banned, and I do disagree with [b]Kephy[/b], and others who were banned when I wasn't here.

Sometimes the only solution, when we're dealing with individuals making decisions, is for discussion to occur following the incident. I think Mods should be held personally responcible when they make personal errors in regards to bannings and thread closures, but I'll get to that later.

[blockquote][hr][color=red]Issue 2. Locking of threads/banning users due to "spamming" "trolling" "flaming" "abusing" "harrassing" or "derailing" when these terms are not generally agreed upon by the staff. There are gross inconsistencies in what different moderators will call "spam," or what a certain moderator will allow from day to day, or from different posters.

Arguments presented: huge array of threads of differing subjective "value", some seemingly locked or left open without reason or consistency. Overuse and misuse of the word "spam" to describe a plethora of internet-posting behaviours. Lack of a set definition of "spam". Users are accused of "baiting" or "trolling" but these terms are also vague and undefined. Finally, "harrassing" and "abusing" seem to be too inclusive in their current definitions. Now if you're being anything less than polite- it's being called "flaming".

Suggestions: "Spam" was defined in a recent Mod Squad Update thread. The definition included "off topic posting" "posting of solicitations or advertisements" and "repeated posting of the same message". Moderators should agree to more specific definitions of the other terms, and enforce them based on the definitions, rather than personal opinion.

Rebuttals: Openness and vagueness are necessary in the definitions of all these terms, because if they were too specific, someone might get away with something. Specificity would tie moderators hands in red tape, when those hands are needed for banning and locking. "Spam" definition should include posts that aren't specifically valuable and interesting to the entire JC community. [/color][hr][/blockquote]
I think, in the midst of the whole "JCC Reform", that certain Mods have taken it too far by closing legitimate threads that, while not being the most intelligent in the world, are still legal in Community -- if, for no other reason than the fact Community is [i]designed[/i] as the place to just "hang out". That shouldn't mean that if you post a comical, silly thread, that doesn't break any rules, it should come under a cloud and be locked because it's labelled, "spam".

Community is not Community without, like Vert said, "fluff". We need to remember that.

[blockquote][hr][color=red]Issue 3. Detailed explanations should be given at the end of a locked thread, explaining why it was closed.

Arguments presented: often topics are locked without any explanation, despite the administration's encouragement to leave one. Explanations are often cryptic, or unhelpful. One word explanations don't sufficiently educate posters as to what was wrong with the thread, so they will make m

 

Thank you, epic, for posting all of that as well. I think we all appreciate it. And as for your question of who came up with this list of grievances, mainly it was "Slackers" and people who agree with our complaints. I am really happy to see this being taken seriously by the administration.

And thanks also to JediGaldrial. However, I do want to comment on one thing she said, about the political correctness on these forums, and the protection of users feelings. We aren't trying to get permission to be rude and uncouth to people. We are asking to be able to have differences of opinion. If we say someone's argument is wrong, is a non-sequiter, doens't make sense, isn't logical, isn't well thought out/researched, etc. people get all bent out of shape. We are instead asking to be allowed to respect someone's opinion, but not necessarily the arguments they present in defense of that opinion.

I don't think anyone in their right mind here would say that someone is not allowed to have their opinion on any given subject. We can respect their right to have and voice an opinion at the same time we disagree with what their opinion is. And by the same token, we have a right to voice our disagreeing opinions as well. I think what ends up happening, though, is people often times do take things out of perspective and way too personally.

Also, facts are often edited because they are not PC either. If I say Canada is more socialistic than the U.S. is, I would be right. I am not calling Canadians communists, or even saying they are wrong, but they are more socialist than is the U.S. They have a much different tax structure that subsidizes a lot of things, and their public health care, and what not all leads to a more socialist form of government. However, if I said that, albeit as a joke, I would probably be banned by the same mod that banned Kephy for much the same thing, and that is stupid, and it is wrong.

 

And thanks also to JediGaldrial. However, I do want to comment on one thing she said, about the political correctness on these forums, and the protection of users feelings. We aren't trying to get permission to be rude and uncouth to people. We are asking to be able to have differences of opinion. If we say someone's argument is wrong, is a non-sequiter, doens't make sense, isn't logical, isn't well thought out/researched, etc. people get all bent out of shape. We are instead asking to be allowed to respect someone's opinion, but not necessarily the arguments they present in defense of that opinion.

Well, I apologize if I misinterpreted, but that definitely has not been my experience in this sort of argument. My experience--long before I was a mod--was in the TPM forum, when bashers insulted the taste, intelligence, and family heritage of people who disagreed with them (often without reference to whatever actual argument was going on), then screamed "free speech" and "down with the PC--I have a right to my opinion!" when someone suggested that they try to be polite. My own opinion is that you can hold any opinion you want, as long as you keep a civil tongue in your head and a civil hand on your keyboard. I was active in the PC-wars on my campus, as part of a group against silly hypersensitivity (eg, spelling "women" as "womyn" and so on), so I certainly don't support PC agendas... but like I said, that has not been my experience with this issue online. Calling people with whom one disagrees "Nazis" is not an exercise of free speech; it's a bullying tactic designed to deprive others of free speech. It's not a legitimate argument, and in fact prevents legitimate argument (that's why there used to be a rule on most Usenet groups I frequented that when the Nazis came up outside of discussion of WWII, the conversation was over). It's also disrespectful to the millions of people who suffered under Nazism. But when I've complained, I've been told to "get a thicker skin" and "stop being PC." So my experience seems to be different from the norm, if this is not in fact what you're talking about.

 

You are right, that isn't at all what I was talking about, and I can certainly see your points. In my experiences, it seems things go along the lines of:

"This is what I think."
"I disagree, that doesn't make any sense."
"How dare you insult me and my beliefs, I am entitled to my opinion, you big meanie!"
Thead=locked, member banned.

 

---

[i]Issue 1. Mods banning users based on matters of personal opinion, without consulting other administration. Also, bannings without clear explanations, and without warning.[/i][hr]

[color=blue][b]I think a Mod shouldn't have to consult with other Mods unless the case isn't clear cut. There are cases where no warning is needed and the person should be banned. In the not-so-clear cases, it's not a bad idea to PM the user in question and talk with them about it. It's also not a bad idea to watch the thread for a while and see how people are reacting to it. If you're not sure then consult with another Mod. I think people deserve a warning before they get banned unless they blatantly screw up. I don't think it's too much to ask to speak with people on a level instead of hammering the ban button.[/b][/color]

[hr][i]Issue 2. Locking of threads and banning users due to "spamming", "trolling", "flaming", "abusing" "harrassing", or "derailing" when these terms are not generally agreed upon by the staff. There are gross inconsistencies in what different moderators will call "spam," or what a certain moderator will allow from day to day, or from different posters.[/i][hr]

[color=blue][b]I totally agree there at least needs to be a good guideline as "Dagsy" put it, for all the Mods to agree on. There is no possible way to take personal prejudices out of Moderating but at least make the effort to be on the same page with regards to definitons. I also understand you can't make rules for all occasions. This will require a group effort between the Mods and users. The Mods need to be united on the standards and the regular users need to be in agreement with those standards. Each side should have no doubt where the other stands and each side should agree on what's expected of them.[/b][/color]

[hr][i]Issue 3. Detailed explanations should be given at the end of a locked thread, explaining why it was closed.[/i][hr]

[color=blue][b]If a thread isn't deleted there needs to be a reason stated as to why the Mod felt the thread should be closed. I don't think that's too much to ask. The same holds true for posts that are edited. If they aren't deleted, then there should be an explanation as to why it was edited. "Brevity is the essence of Wisdom". In other words, don't write a book about it. Just be clear on why it was edited.[/b][/color]

[hr][i]Issue 4. Moderators should be held accountable for their mistakes.[/i][hr]

[color=blue][b]I think everyone should be in agreement about this. I do, however, believe Mods should be held to a higher standard given the nature of what they do here. I'm sure there are Mod standards somewhere around the JC. If not, there should be so the regular users know EXACTLY what is expected of Mods and the punishment for not following those standards.[/b][/color]

[hr][i]Issue 5. Moderators should read, actively pay attention, and respond to these discussions in Communications, as well as grievances expressed by anyone. By "respond" it is implied that they should post more than a simple "I'm here" or "You're wrong, end of story."[/i][hr]

[color=blue][b]I posted in another thread that anybody with a mind and opinion can post in Comms. It may take a little time to think out responses but in the end, Mod-Regular User relations will be better. This is the Communications Forum. Let's all communicate. I don't think anybody on any side should be condescending or abusive. There is also no reason to write off an opinion just because it's been heard over and over. If these opinions are being heard over and over by different people, then perhaps there's some substance to it.[/b][/color]

[hr][i]Issue 6. "This belongs in a PM with X admin." If an issue affects more than just one member, it should be able to be discussed in Communications. PM with an admin is only one avenue of discussion, and sometimes outside opinions can help resolve an issue.[/i][hr]

[color=blue][b]I agree with this. If it's a situation that affects many users then keep it public. Obviously if it's

 

"This is what I think."
"I disagree, that doesn't make any sense."
"How dare you insult me and my beliefs, I am entitled to my opinion, you big meanie!"
Thead=locked, member banned.

Well, I'd give a spank to someone in this scenario, but it would be the one yelling "you big meanie!" Warning first, though. (Though I might suggest the middle person explain why something doesn't make sense.)

 

Cetera - you mentioned you pretty much disagreed with all I said. Why is that?