Why I Think Explanations Should Be GIven for Deleted Threads

[KillarneyRose]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Well, as I understand it, KillarneyRose asked in my other thread something along these lines:
Since that thread got deleted before I had a chance to see the question and answer, here is why I think the mods owe an explanation.

The mod needs to be able to explain why such a thread will not be tolerated. "Hints" don't cut it. How did the Shame thread violate the rules of this forum? Deletions without explanations suggest that the rules are whatever a mod wants to them to be. Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but we would say that appears to arbitrary and capricious. If a mod can't articulate why a post or thread violates the rules of this forum, then the post or thread shouldn't be deleted, and GCers have no basis for guaging what is or isn't allowed in the future. (And FWIW, I would always vote for the threads being locked over threads being deleted.)

As others have said, sometimes it's abundantly clear why a post or thread is deleted. But it wasn't at all clear in the Shame thread. As far as I could tell, the only thing happening there was questioning the actions of some mods. The only hint I got from the deletion of that thread was "Questioning the mods will not be tolerated." I can't find that in the rules of this forum anywhere.

As I said, other forums I participate in not only have the mods provide explanations but warnings as well -- "X violates the rules of this forum. If you continue to do x, action will be taken." I think that's a good thing, both for purposes of clarity of what is and isn't tolerated and for the purposes of encouraging even-handed application of the rules. And it's in the best interests of the mods -- it helps avoids even the appearance of arbitrariness.

The way it's been going here the lately makes it appear that some mods are making it up as they go along and are making decisions based not on actual violations of the forum rules but on on a more personal, "I don't like what you said" basis. Note carefully: I said "appear." I'm not saying mods are doing that; I'm saying that's what it can look like to the rest of us.

Simply put, it comes across less as moderating and more as power-tripping. In my opinion, the mods do themselves no favors by not giving explanations.

Thank you, MysticCat, for your opinion. People, THIS how you do it if you want a thread to stay open. Civil, reasonable, no personal attacks, no sock puppetry.

In other words, do not post here after hitting the crackpipe and maybe, just maybe, progress can be made.

KTHXBYE

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

Thank you, MysticCat, for your opinion. People, THIS how you do it if you want a thread to stay open. Civil, reasonable, no personal attacks, no sock puppetry.

In other words, do not post here after hitting the crackpipe and maybe, just maybe, progress can be made.

KTHXBYE

Bet, so now that we've all come to an agreement, can we get the keys to Free DrPhil?

[KillarneyRose]

Originally Posted by Iota Man

Bet, so now that we've all come to an agreement, can we get the keys to Free DrPhil?

One more reply then I promise I'll duck out of this thread and let you all play.

Iota Man, a poster isn't generally banned until a consensus is reached that he or she has, basically, turned the bend to crazytown. If that poster wants to come back and conducts himself/herself in a civil and reasonable manner and abstains from personal attacks, he or she is welcome to rejoin. As far as I know the IP address hasn't been flagged.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

One more reply then I promise I'll duck out of this thread and let you all play.

Iota Man, a poster isn't generally banned until a consensus is reached that he or she has, basically, turned the bend to crazytown. If that poster wants to come back and conducts himself/herself in a civil and reasonable manner and abstains from personal attacks, he or she is welcome to rejoin. As far as I know the IP address hasn't been flagged.

Flagging an IP address doesn't make sense, because IP addresses change all the time. So y'all (as moderators) come to an agreement that somebody has crossed the line? Do y'all ever send warnings to the user? Did y'all send one to DrPhil, because y'all didn't send me shit before coming to agreement to ban me.

With the explanation part of the discussion. I don't think a mod should have to give an explanation of why a thread was deleted because that just opens up room for more debate. Close the shit and be done with it, but at the same time don't sit up here and ban a mofo without giving that username a warning via PM.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Iota Man

Flagging an IP address doesn't make sense, because IP addresses change all the time. So y'all (as moderators) come to an agreement that somebody has crossed the line? Do y'all ever send warnings to the user? Did y'all send one to DrPhil, because y'all didn't send me shit before coming to agreement to ban me.

With the explanation part of the discussion. I don't think a mod should have to give an explanation of why a thread was deleted because that just opens up room for more debate. Close the shit and be done with it, but at the same time don't sit up here and ban a mofo without giving that username a warning via PM.

You might have deserved a warning, but DrPhil didn't need one.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

Thank you, MysticCat, for your opinion. People, THIS how you do it if you want a thread to stay open. Civil, reasonable, no personal attacks, no sock puppetry.

Since when have you known several people in one discussion being civil, and reasonable? Whenever you have several folks debating about one topic, shit is going to get out of hand at some point.

[lovespink88]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The mod needs to be able to explain why such a thread will not be tolerated. "Hints" don't cut it. How did the Shame thread violate the rules of this forum? Deletions without explanations suggest that the rules are whatever a mod wants to them to be. Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but we would say that appears to arbitrary and capricious. If a mod can't articulate why a post or thread violates the rules of this forum, then the post or thread shouldn't be deleted, and GCers have no basis for guaging what is or isn't allowed in the future. (And FWIW, I would always vote for the threads being locked over threads being deleted.)

Quoting for emphasis.

THIS is what causes the whole uproar to begin with. I know at this point we're never going to get an explanation as to why Tallulas thread was locked and why the Wall of Shame was closed, but a simple explanation as to how those posts violated GC rules would have been helpful because if people continued to carry on there would at least be basis for all the deletions/locking.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by lovespink88

Quoting for emphasis.

THIS is what causes the whole uproar to begin with. I know at this point we're never going to get an explanation as to why Tallulas thread was locked and why the Wall of Shame was closed, but a simple explanation as to how those posts violated GC rules would have been helpful because if people continued to carry on there would at least be basis for all the deletions/locking.

Tallulas' thread was locked because carnation didn't like being called out on having her daughter's invite round groups picked before rush even started. There are certain groups that carnation has deemed below her family's worth. And, just for clarity, this isn't an attack on carnation. If that's how she wants to run her family, she has every right to do so. Certain people just wish she didn't try to pretend otherwise.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

If that's how she wants to run her family, she has every right to do so.

I agree.

[lovespink88]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Agree to disagree.

Yes.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Tallulas' thread was locked because carnation didn't like being called out on having her daughter's invite round groups picked before rush even started. There are certain groups that carnation has deemed below her family's worth. And, just for clarity, this isn't an attack on carnation. If that's how she wants to run her family, she has every right to do so. Certain people just wish she didn't try to pretend otherwise.

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

[tcsparky]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Tallulas' thread was locked because carnation didn't like being called out on having her daughter's invite round groups picked before rush even started. There are certain groups that carnation has deemed below her family's worth. And, just for clarity, this isn't an attack on carnation. If that's how she wants to run her family, she has every right to do so. Certain people just wish she didn't try to pretend otherwise.

And this is why it doesn't pay to over-think things read on a message board. I thought that she had chosen names for when the PNM got to four-party day and was just going to start the thread there. Other posted have started after day 1, to avoid a long list of "I met this chapter for five minutes, they were nice, etc..." and wait until the parties were longer and there was more of substance to say.

I am interested in hearing how Tallulahs Rcuitment goes!!!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by tcsparky

And this is why it doesn't pay to over-think things read on a message board. I thought that she had chosen names for when the PNM got to four-party day and was just going to start the thread there. Other posted have started after day 1, to avoid a long list of "I met this chapter for five minutes, they were nice, etc..." and wait until the parties were longer and there was more of substance to say.

I am interested in hearing how Tallulahs Rcuitment goes!!!

Posters often skip the first day to conceal the number of groups at their school, and thereby maintain more anonymity.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Tallulas' thread was locked because carnation didn't like being called out on having her daughter's invite round groups picked before rush even started. There are certain groups that carnation has deemed below her family's worth. And, just for clarity, this isn't an attack on carnation. If that's how she wants to run her family, she has every right to do so. Certain people just wish she didn't try to pretend otherwise.

Tallulah's thread was locked because of same-old same-old and AlphaFrog, you claimed to understand why I arranged it as I did. Instead, you're trying to start another pile-on and as you see, lovespink has readily accepted your word as the truth.

I am sick of the lies that have been spouted out over the last TEN years. Were any of you aware that some GCers went to my daughter's school in 2002 and physically tried to interfere in her rush? Were any of you aware that one of the same people went to another GCer's campus (no relation to me) and destroyed her rush? And that that person interfered in a third GCer's rush from home?

When I started Tallulah's thread, I tried to figure a way that I could have a theme and name the 4 groups she'll hopefully be returning to for first invitationals. We do hope she'll have 4 but she may not get 4. I am certainly not saying how many groups are at her school. But--people want to drink the "haterade", as they used to say, and believe that 4 groups were pre-selected as favorites.

Some of you are happily accepting what some push as the truth--that my family and I reject certain sororities as being below us. I would like you to prove that. Some of the people who are touting that as the truth weren't even on GC in 2002, they just believe what someone has told them was true. And it isn't. I have several friends on GC who are members of that group and they know that we respect that sorority.

Let me remind you all that personal attacks are a violation of the TOS. They can get deleted, they can get you banned. Remember that.

[lovespink88]

Calm down, carnation, "very interesting, thanks for the info" does not imply that I am accepting AlphaFrogs explanation as the be all end all truth. FWIW, you've always come off as unbiased to me. Other GCers may have different opinions, but that's their business. I tend to form mine on my own personal interactions.

Originally Posted by carnation

Let me remind you all that personal attacks are a violation of the TOS. They can get deleted, they can get you banned. Remember that.

Now, if we had a little more warnings like the one right here, this may have not have escalated like it has!

(not that I like to see that directed at a poster I like, but this is the kind of things that mods need to be doing before we start seeing mass deletions/locking)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The fact is that there is a very reasonable explanation. It's also a fact that the explanation is none of anyone's business.

I've seen what carnation wrote in this thead, and I thank her for posting it. I can see the frustration in it.

You're quite right that lots can be going on behind the scenes that the average CGer may not know about and probably doesn't need to know the details of. And I know as well as anyone that GC can have its drama, in-fighting and personality clashes. I remember some of the reports to HQs.

But here's the catch: Under those circumstances, it should be no surprise that average GCer, who doesn't know all the backstory, might raise an eyebrow at what happened in that thread. My point is that under those circumstance, I think it's in everyone's best interests, including the moderator's, to do something other than just lock or delete, even if it's just "We've been down this road before and we're not going again. Thread locked." That tells me, average GCer, that there's more to the story.

You say comment, I say harassment and bullying.

As I have said, what I have been asking about was the deletion of the original Wall of Shame thread. I don't recall anything there that rose to the level of harrassment or bullying. If there's backstory that the average GCer doesn't know (and doesn't need to know), I think the better practice is to lock the thread or delete the offending posts with a mod's note that the thread is veering into a repetition of harrassment or bullying. Then you avoid "What happened to that thread? What was wrong with it?"

Context is very important and you cannot just assume you have all of that context and it is not reasonable to assume you are entitled to an explanation.

Again, I've tried to be clear that I don't think anyone is entitled to an explanation. I actually think it does more harm than good to talk in those terms about this.

And of course we can't know all the context. But surely there is a middle ground between filling everyone in on all the backstory and saying nothing while those without context have the impression of arbitrariness.

I agree. In recent months, I can't say I have much nice to say about DSTChaos. I wouldn't let that enter into my decisions moderating her posts though.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I think I was trying to get more at that my focus in this discussion has been about what happened before all the drama started -- or at least when it seemed to me that the drama started. (And yes, I'd agree that this was DrPhil's swan song, at least for now. She knew what she was doing -- she saw an opportunity and used it.)

I really don't see the harm in keeping a list of banned posters unless that list is kept for the purpose of harassing moderators. Then it'll be deleted post haste. It would be awfully naive to think that the posting of that thread was unrelated to the goings on in the recruitment forum.

I guess this to me is why locking or deletions of posts rather than deletions of threads should be the way to go -- we're all talking about what we remember of the thread without having it to look at.

I feel like I've said all I can say on this, and I know I'm repeating myself. I think I've been heard, so I am going to fight really hard the urge to have the last word.

Y'all know how hard that is for me.