Public moderation log

[VLS]

This section's goals:

- Be open about resolution of reported posts.
- Informing about the actual forum rule broken thus enabling full transparency of decisions.
- Contesting moderation actions easily.

[VLS]

First report: http://betselection.cc/themissingpiece-site/themissingpiece-site-web/msg53430/#new

Unrestrained optimism...lol [Just testing the mod process]

Action: Optimism doesn't break any forum rule hence post remains in place at this time

[VLS]

Report: baccarat card game strategy by wxiao

spam scams

Action: Topic removed, user placed in pre-moderation to monitor new messages before they are published.

Thanks to the reporting user

[VLS]

Report:  New *** Lottery ***

100% scam

Action: Topic removed, poster placed in pre-moderation.

[Mike]

I'm probably going to regret this, but without taking sides one way or the other, it seems to me that the mods aren't being entirely consistent in their upholding of rule 4, which states:

#4 It goes without saying: No trolling. No name calling. And no personal attacks on individual members because you dislike, or disagree with, what they wrote.

This rule should apply to everyone, shouldn't it?

It seems to me that alrelax is attempting to circumnavigate rule 4 on "technical" grounds. i.e., that because he hasn't mentioned any specific name in his posts, he is attacking "nobody".  However, it's perfectly obvious to all that alrelax is indulging in personal attacks against Stephen even though he doesn't explicitly mention his name in the posts, or even post in the same threads. Furthermore, attempting to dismiss such accusations on grounds of "free speech" and "it's only my opinion" doesn't constitute any kind of "loophole". Personal attacks are personal attacks, which by definition are opinions.

Stephen has been moderated for HIS personal attacks against members, yet alrelax hasn't. Not exactly fair and unbiased moderation is it? I suspect this is because alrelax donates generously to the forum, and Victor can't afford to upset him.

[Chimp]

I'm probably going to regret this, but without taking sides one way or the other, it seems to me that the mods aren't being entirely consistent in their upholding of rule 4, which states:

This rule should apply to everyone, shouldn't it?

It seems to me that alrelax is attempting to circumnavigate rule 4 on "technical" grounds. i.e., that because he hasn't mentioned any specific name in his posts, he is attacking "nobody".  However, it's perfectly obvious to all that alrelax is indulging in personal attacks against Stephen even though he doesn't explicitly mention his name in the posts, or even post in the same threads. Furthermore, attempting to dismiss such accusations on grounds of "free speech" and "it's only my opinion" doesn't constitute any kind of "loophole". Personal attacks are personal attacks, which by definition are opinions.

Stephen has been moderated for HIS personal attacks against members, yet alrelax hasn't. Not exactly fair and unbiased moderation is it? I suspect this is because alrelax donates generously to the forum, and Victor can't afford to upset him.

Ditto

[Mike]

Thanks Chimp. Sometimes it takes courage to agree with the bleedin' obvious.

[greenguy]

I'm probably going to regret this, but without taking sides one way or the other, it seems to me that the mods aren't being entirely consistent in their upholding of rule 4, which states:

This rule should apply to everyone, shouldn't it?

It seems to me that alrelax is attempting to circumnavigate rule 4 on "technical" grounds. i.e., that because he hasn't mentioned any specific name in his posts, he is attacking "nobody".  However, it's perfectly obvious to all that alrelax is indulging in personal attacks against Stephen even though he doesn't explicitly mention his name in the posts, or even post in the same threads. Furthermore, attempting to dismiss such accusations on grounds of "free speech" and "it's only my opinion" doesn't constitute any kind of "loophole". Personal attacks are personal attacks, which by definition are opinions.

Stephen has been moderated for HIS personal attacks against members, yet alrelax hasn't. Not exactly fair and unbiased moderation is it? I suspect this is because alrelax donates generously to the forum, and Victor can't afford to upset him.

Ditto too.

[alrelax]

Posting within my Blog Room, my one and only and FINAL communication about this matter regarding 'Stepehen' and his accusations, threats and statement about me.  Thank you, Alrelax.

[Mike]

"SIGH"

alrelax,

As I said at the top of my post, I'm not taking sides. This isn't about Stephen or you. I'm not "backstabbing" you or defending Stephen. The post was about the lack of even-handed moderation. IMO it ultimately comes down to Victor's decision to allow threads to have their own moderators, which I believe was a very bad one. Good grief, this is a public forum. Are we all so fragile and sensitive that we need to scurry away to our own private space when anyone disagrees with us? Apparently some of us are. It makes it harder for the mods to do their job (a thankless task anyway) and encourages control freaks.

[Mike]

Ditto too.

Thanks, greenguy.

[esoito]

I have removed the Tabone post from this thread.

Why?

Because it contained the contents of PMs between him and another member.

PMs are exactly that - P R I V A T E. 

They should never, never be made public.    That's precisely why a Forum Rule was made for exactly that.

And before anyone tries to criticise my action bear in mind I'm also protecting the sanctity of YOUR PMs.

[esoito]

@ Mike

Well, Mike, given that I have no legal training then after sleeping on the points raised I can only respond with what I fondly imagine to be Common Sense!

A new product was released onto the forum via sponsorship.

Given that the author seemed to keep raising the price with every change of underwear the spotlight turned onto all manner of unsubstantiated claims.

A member began to raise various issues with the author and for a while the heat raised contributed to global warming.

The author's responses and the way he conducted himself overall could be seen as reckless acts of self-disclosure.

Members could then see the sort of person revealed and decide for themselves whether or not to purchase, despite many unsatisfactory answers.

Yes, the questioner came close to the line at times but did not to step over it -- well, not as far as I could tell.


You see anomalies and you have raised them. Fair enough. And I've made the effort to address them as best I can.

I might not have fully satisfied you but I've tried to balance the Wisdom of Solomon with common sense.

Mike, I don't do arguments. So if you want to ride further into battle on a dead horse then I shall leave it to Adulay and Victor to respond if they choose to.

On the other hand, you might prefer to direct your obvious intelligence into finding solutions for other more pressing matters that afflict the human race -- global warming, various cancers, youth unemployment, terrorism and so on.

And good luck with that -- you'll need it.