Why I Think Explanations Should Be GIven for Deleted Threads

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by carnation

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.

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your explanation of only listing four groups. Then you locked the thread, which made it pretty clear that you were backpeddling.

Once again, this isn't a personal attack. If you feel there are groups that are below your family, then it's fine. We're not blind enough to think the whole world can hold hands and sing kumbaya. Yes, GCers did get involved in one of your daughter's rushes, and many people here know why. It was an unfortunate circumstance.

[carnation]

Obviously, the thread was locked because someone decided to start nastiness with a snide remark. And it wasn't only a snide remark; she hoped to start the ten-year-old fight again.

Although she's not quite my age, she's far too old to start crap.

I'm not backpedaling and I love the names of my 4 groups.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your explanation of only listing four groups. Then you locked the thread, which made it pretty clear that you were backpeddling.

Clear to whom? I would say that Carnation has the most Panhellenically-minded family of anyone on this forum.

I personally saw the locking as "I've got the groundwork for the story started & I don't want to hear a bunch of shizz from people until I can tell the whole story after the fact".

She explained her reasoning for listing 4 groups...why can't anyone take that at face value?

[UGAalum94]

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.

I don't think we can actually know this, and I think it's petty to make these kind of claims.

Carnation picked four names for a thread; we have no way of knowing if a real GLO corresponds to each or not in Carnation's mind at this point. Pretending that you understand her intentions better than she does is kind of nutty.

And about not wanting her daughter to join a certain group, if I remember the story correctly, the real life basis for this was a daughter who de-pledged and re-rushed rather than continue her bid with a chapter that ended up folding while the daughter was in school. The daughter got a bid the next year to a chapter that's still going strong.

I suppose that everyone is free to judge and say that the daughter should have stuck in out with the chapter. However not wanting your kid to join a specific chapter that's already having membership issues and thinking that entire GLO are below her family's worth are hardly the same thing.

[Kevin]

Sometimes you don't need an explanation. The poster(s) in question knew exactly what they were doing and had to understand that they were targeting a certain moderator. These poster(s) have repeatedly ignored mods even when there has been an explanation given.

In some cases, no explanation will be given when a thread is started which, for example, contains personal information about a PNM in it. That thread will disappear and often, so will the posters. No explanation needs to be given.

Sure, if it's just a simple mistake, yes, an explanation should be given. If anyone thinks these threads were just simple mistakes, then you really don't know what you're talking about and no, no explanation has to be given.

Agree to disagree.

[MysticCat]

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

So then, what was objectionable about the oroginal Wall of Shame thread?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sometimes you don't need an explanation.

Going back to the initial Wall of Shame thread (which of course we can't refer to to see if it denigrated in the last 10 minutes of its life or if there was some other obvious reason because it's been deleted), the only obvious reason for its deletion that I could see was that some posts in that thread criticized (again, tamely by GC standards) one moderator for locking her own thread when people questioned something she said in that thread. The only reasonable explanation for that mod's actions, to me at least, was that she want her earlier comment questioned or criticized. I think that a mod's actions in those circumstances is fair game for comment.

The only reasonable explanation I can see for why the original Wall of Shame thread (and maybe first or second repeats) was banned was that a mod was being criticized. I think that's fair game for comment.

I know that DrPhil made quite a few people angry, you included. To my mind, that's neither here nor there. The crux of this to me is that all of this could have been avoided if there had not been the appearance of heavy-handed modding to start with.

I should say that I think there absolutely are times when immediate deletions or immediate banning, without warnings or explanations, are justified. Times when someone posts ritual secrets would be an obvious example.

But many times it really isn't clear at all to anyone except the mods in question, or those involved in mods' discussions, why certain action are being taken. In those instances, a quick "thread deleted/locked because __" or "poster banned because __" goes a long way to protecting moderators from the perception of arbitrariness (or favoritism) and informs everyone else where the boundaries are. As I keep saying, as a general rule transparency is in everyone's interest, including the moderators.

And FWIW, I have no clue why Greek_or_Geek was banned. That one wasn't obvious at all, at least not to me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The only reasonable explanation for that mod's actions, to me at least, was that she want her earlier comment questioned or criticized. I think that a mod's actions in those circumstances is fair game for comment.

The fact is that there is a very reasonable explanation. It's also a fact that the explanation is none of anyone's business. Not all situations merit a play-by-play of the mod's decisionmaking. For what it's worth, you've seen how I moderate my forum, I wouldn't have handled this issue any differently than carnation. That's all you're going to get on this issue. I support what she did 100%.

The only reasonable explanation I can see for why the original Wall of Shame thread (and maybe first or second repeats) was banned was that a mod was being criticized. I think that's fair game for comment.

You say comment, I say harassment and bullying. Some of us have a much thicker skin than others and some mods have become targets outside of GC as a result of their actions on GC. You're a very reasonable even-tempered person, so it might not occur to you that moderators have been attacked outside of GC in the past by some very unreasonable and ill-tempered people and that a modicum of caution is quite reasonable even though it might seem unreasonable to you. 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. That may or may not be the case here, I'm just illustrating my point.

I know that DrPhil made quite a few people angry, you included. To my mind, that's neither here nor there.

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 should say that I think there absolutely are times when immediate deletions or immediate banning, without warnings or explanations, are justified. Times when someone posts ritual secrets would be an obvious example.

That's a good example. There are others possibilities. The reason for the locks/deletions were very obvious, or should have been obvious to the original poster. Her actions in the end were her own. I'm sure if she wants to come back and behave like a decent human being, we can get along just fine. Otherwise, she can own her epic flounce and stay gone. I don't really care what happens.

But many times it really isn't clear at all to anyone except the mods in question, or those involved in mods' discussions, why certain action are being taken. In those instances, a quick "thread deleted/locked because __" or "poster banned because __" goes a long way to protecting moderators from the perception of arbitrariness (or favoritism) and informs everyone else where the boundaries are. As I keep saying, as a general rule transparency is in everyone's interest, including the moderators.

I completely agree with you that what you prescribe is a good general rule. There are exceptions.

And FWIW, I have no clue why Greek_or_Geek was banned. That one wasn't obvious at all, at least not to me.

I have no insight there whatsoever. All I can say is that sometimes (as with Chaos), a sock puppet/poster will post something like one of your above-proposed verboten subjects. They will be banned and the post deleted without comment. We used to have some real problems in the moderating community here--problems which transcended GC and resulted in calls to various HQs and other such very personal harassment. That has stopped completely. I trust every single one of our moderators to exercise sound judgment and discretion and I think they did so here.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Alright, so basically, people know what they are doing and why it isn't okay. If you, as a third party, don't understand why it isn't okay, perhaps you should ask the person doing the inappropriate posting, because I think they know what the issue is in just about every case.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Alright, so basically, people know what they are doing and why it isn't okay. If you, as a third party, don't understand why it isn't okay, perhaps you should ask the person doing the inappropriate posting, because I think they know what the issue is in just about every case.

You're a mod, so that's your job to ask the username "out of control" what the issue is. If they continue after a warning has been given then continue with the ban.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Iota Man

You're a mod, so that's your job to ask the username "out of control" what the issue is. If they continue after a warning has been given then continue with the ban.

No offense, but I think we'll not be taking moderating advice from you.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No offense, but I think we'll not be taking moderating advice from you.

LOL I'm not offended. I really don't give a shit who you take advice from, I'm going to post my opinion regardless.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Iota Man

LOL I'm not offended. I really don't give a shit who you take advice from, I'm going to post my opinion regardless.

And we're all dying to know what you think.

--sarcasm, btw.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Iota Man

You're a mod, so that's your job to ask the username "out of control" what the issue is. If they continue after a warning has been given then continue with the ban.

For the record, I don't have the power to ban anyone. Nor is moderating a message board my "job".

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

For the record, I don't have the power to ban anyone. Nor is moderating a message board my "job".

I never said what you had the power to do or not to do. I don't know what your job is in "real life", don't really give a shit, but you are a moderator, so it is "your job" HERE to moderate.

[AlphaFrog]