Topic: On the posting of 'This will be locked' posts, WAS: How To Care For Trans* People: A Friendly Guide

[OVOxo]

That's not really justifiable for a warning though. It's a valid point; this topic had plenty of potential. The idea and intention behind it is great. However, the wording isn't helpful or subsequent reactions caused from particular posts. Yes, this topic can be educational and should be highlighted for that but right now it's not going to do that. As a former forum moderator I know how a topic can develop but I'd be surprised if people actually reacted to that comment. The second sentence adds to the contribution because the writing is the problem.

I guess though it's not my place to argue with the reasoning. I'm just disappointed by it.

-sigh-

I do hope people learn from this topic. Like I said, great potential here.

[Joeno]

I split this off as it's still off topic...

The reasons for the warning are explained in the PM that was sent to you about it.

Second, all that is still not a justification for going off-topic. It's not a justification for adding on to the pile of messages. It adds, at best, nothing to the topic, but can draw people in to make it worse.

You say that you act as a former moderator - as one, you should know what it's like to post things to keep it calm, and then have someone else post two posts later saying this will be locked. By the time of your post, several forum staff has posted. None have locked it. They've put in a warning, but let it continue.

I see no reason for your post, and to me its more harmful than helpful.

Edit: It's worth remembering that at this point, doing anything about this topic would go against the sentiments expressed in this topic. We want this to be open for debate.

[OVOxo]

I saw but it's still too far. If it was seen as against the rules then surely a deleted post and subsequent comment would have been enough? A 15% warning is too far. I'm not really gonna go into this part of it any more since it's not really necessary. I'll just talk about the topic instead =]

I said that post because that's what I thought would happen. Sorry.

As for the problems; well, that's still being discussed in the original topic... but surely the topic you quoted should be referenced (very good topic infact). I mean, there isn't really a problem with the act situation but the fact that it has been wanted to be brought up is fine, it's the particular approach that has been taken. A few comments here and there have been said which shouldn't have and have caused other reactions to take place.

Some people aren't the most aware and so maybe awareness could be added but in a manner which can come across as condescending.

An issue doesn't really need to be made of it. Meh.

[f3raligatr]

I saw but it's still too far. If it was seen as against the rules then surely a deleted post and subsequent comment would have been enough? A 15% warning is too far. I'm not really gonna go into this part of it any more since it's not really necessary. I'll just talk about the topic instead =]

Alex, you broke three rules in one post. Add to that the insensitivity of the comment in comparison to the topic, I'm not entirely sure how you can even remotely think you're in the right for making a comment like that.

I said that post because that's what I thought would happen. Sorry.

As for the problems; well, that's still being discussed in the original topic... but surely the topic you quoted should be referenced (very good topic infact). I mean, there isn't really a problem with the act situation but the fact that it has been wanted to be brought up is fine, it's the particular approach that has been taken. A few comments here and there have been said which shouldn't have and have caused other reactions to take place.

But yours was one of them, and the only one that didn't offer anything to the topic. Do remember that you're not a moderator anymore, you cannot make a post like that anymore (you shouldn't have made a post like that if you was a moderator anyway but that's beside the point completely) and you've been warned for it.

An issue doesn't really need to be made of it. Meh.

You made the topic..?

Edit made by thetotalidiot™ - Totally didn't see that Jeroen had split your post away from the main topic, sorry there

[OVOxo]

I didn't really want to go into this but okay...

Alex, you broke three rules in one post. Add to that the insensitivity of the comment in comparison to the topic, I'm not entirely sure how you can even remotely think you're in the right for making a comment like that.

Let's break down the three rule breaks then:

Posts stating 'Oh, I'm sure this will get locked':
1) Don't contribute to the topic and are therefore off-topic
2) Are rather unnecessary moderator-like warnings
3) Only make it more likely the topic descends into a flamewar

And should therefore not be made. Trust the moderators, report if it gets too bad, and stay out of it beyond that.

The post in question:

I give it another page or two before this ends up getting locked. I can see people taking it too far. It's kinda standard thinking about it.

It's a shame I guess because the idea for the topic is great but the execution has been done in the wrong way. Oh well.

1) Contribution to topic -> I said it is a good idea but the execution of it wasn't. That's constructive contribution. Maybe if I expanded the point then it would have been slightly better but yeah. The first sentence really is where I presume the problem lies? I can see that... but not enough as  a warning.

2) What mod-like warning? A mod like warning would be completely different. As a mod I would have approached it much different; in fact I would have probably left it. Position = different approaches. Shame it's that way but that's how it is.

3) That's making a presumption so to see the evidence of this you'd have to wait until subsequent posts. Jumping the gun isn't fair. If it did lead to a response then I'd then offer my suggestion of helping out.

I didn't make the post to be a douche. I did it because the topic could potentially be very good but yeah, it was approached in the wrong way.

So I can see at least two of those rule breaks being wrong. I guess that it's open to interpretation though. If I were moderating that though, I would have done what I presume was the standard thing which would have been to highlight the problem and simply delete the post. It's only two lines long so it's been pushed to be very excessive.

Having re-read the actual rules not one of them states specifically what I have done wrong. I can't even read the playing the mod one but I'm probably reading wrong or something (even though that is a widely known one... but yeah I didn't play the mod any ways).

But yours was one of them, and the only one that didn't offer anything to the topic. Do remember that you're not a moderator anymore, you cannot make a post like that anymore (you shouldn't have made a post like that if you was a moderator anyway but that's beside the point completely) and you've been warned for it.

It did though! The second line doesn't break any rules and infact shows that I was willing to make contribution to the topic. Had a reply been made then it would have been extended. Maybe I should extended it initially too. Like I said, if I were still mod then it wouldn't have arose. Even so, it wasn't acting like a mod in any way. It was just a small comment that has been blown way out of proportion. I do believe the warning is excessive; the standard procedure would have been much more suitable to the situation. Plus, considering this is the first time that I've been perceived to break the rules in a long time a big warning such as that seems very harsh.

I do accept why it has been deemed that I have done wrong. I just don't accept the punishment whatsoever. It's like getting a straight red for kicking the ball away in football. Far too harsh.

I'd just like to add this in:

Any breaking of these rules will result in edits of the posts, closing of topics, deleting of the posts, disabled signatures, warnings, or bans, depending on the severity of the offense. All of which can be discussed or in some cases appealled, but that's for then.

Call this an appeal. 15% of a warning is too harsh. I've given sufficient evidence that at least 2 of those are wrong and should be reduced. Plus of course that it's just not fair anyways.

I agree that mistakes can be made and I hope that this one can be seen to. I thank you for taking time to read this =]

(I also know that it would have been best to have done this in private; my apologies but considering it's already reached this phase we might as well carry on here. Plus, I don't think too many people are aware of this so it'd be another good learning experience for the forums. See, every little helps ^^)

EDIT: I found this too which should be mentioned:

Actually, I was going to leave this until later, but..

Consider this a warning actually; we're trying to keep this topic as one full of discussion, not full of childish insults. You're really not helping yourself there.

Yet no warning value had arised from this. Surely equal treatment should be added?

(I'll say this too; if it turns into out of fairness xhanatos gets a warning value then my bad, didn't intend for you to get a warning too, just want mine decreased which it should be; if it is deemed to be just a written warning then mine should immediately drop down to 10% without even considering the fact that it's harsh to begin with)

[Joeno]

1. Your post was still off-topic. Nothing related to the starter post or anything related. 5%
2. Commenting about what point a topic would be locked at? Don't see you have that power, don't see you making that judgement, nope, nothing to suggest that. You're making that judgement there and then. Arguably, other forum staff had already extensively commented on that - you'd really almost have to be forum staff to bypass that. Just plainly ignoring our decisions and comments on it? Yeah, it's in that sort of area. 5%
3. You were jumping the gun yourself by stating it would be locked soon. You didn't see how the topic would go, you didn't see where it'd end up, you just added to the whole "People are going too far" debate. I'd say that's adding to the flames, adding to the arguments that people are posting unsuitably, rather than discussing the topic. Part of rule 2... yeah, 5%

It'll be there for a week. I just consulted some other admins, to quote one other "It's just a week". I'll see whether more comes up, but as it stands, I see the three being relevant.

Furthermore, you are not in a position to demand what we do to anyone else. We decide who we warn. You are not a moderator. You're not on a shortlist for it. You're not close to it. Whether and how we punish anyone else is up to us, not you, and we take other things into consideration. Please refrain from such comments in the future, as per the rules. These demands are not helping you right now.

[OVOxo]

1. The mention of me thinking it was a good topic is related.
2. A prediction rather than a definite. Predictions can be wrong.
3. It was a prediction but I wasn't forcing it. There was no intention to create any sort of arguments and it hasn't led to that.

So why has xhanatos not been given a 5% warning then? And just verbal warning instead? Surely by that logic it should be verbal + 5% + 5%. That's already less. Add to the fact that it's gone far beyond what it should be. I think it's in my rights for fairness to be sought after when I've been harshly adjudged. I'm making relevant comparisons here to try and get what is the right result.

The majority of the last paragraph isn't relevant to this and I actually have no idea why it's been brought up. Moderator shortlist? Why bring that up? I'm not trying to force a warning to someone else but instead get mine (rightly) reduced.

These "demands" are out of fairness. Also, as I stated, I'm allowed to appeal. Here I am appealing. It is stated it'd be listened to yet all that's happening is it being shut down (wrongly).

This is being seen as doing 3 rule breaks from one post where a problem comes from one line. Sorry, but I don't see how you can over-exaggerate it to punish me further than what the standard would be, which would be a post deletion and that's it. I have a right to know why it has been exaggerated to this point.

I'm doing this out of fairness. There's nothing wrong with that. Every member deserves equal rights after all.

[Joeno]

We do not discuss other's punishments, all I say is that it's been taken care of and there wasn't any getting away with anything.

Three admins agree on the original, you made your appeal and it's been denied. If you want it, then don't rely on 'it's unequal'. It's not.

[OVOxo]

All I can say then is that I'm very disappointed and feel hard done by. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Lord Raven]

dude there are fights worth picking

this isnt one of them

it goes down by like 3% every day anyway