Duncan Edwards wrote:I was a moderator for three years so I know what it's like. The "do their damn jobs" quote is mine and I'll tell you why. You basically have two jobs here. One is a very specific task of enforcing the rules of the board. The other is a broader job of keeping peace and harmony for all of the users. Engaging in yet another public argument with a repeat offender serves neither purpose. Troublemakers are shown the door temporarily if they want to behave or permanently if they can't. It's like any other public establishment you walk into. Many people here regard this as a place to hang out or even "home" and maintaining order is important. If you don't want to do that then it's your decision. If you take the job then do it.
As far as enforcing the rules of the board goes, that task was done to the letter. Rule #2 (Under-age) was violated and reported, and the appropriate action (removing the link) was taken. This violation was unintended and no further action against the original poster was needed. The continued discussion in the thread did not break any other rules and no further reports were made on my watch. The Rules thread in fact states: "We are going for a fairly laid back moderating style". I interpret this as not being autocratic and draconian in removing "possible" troublesome threads and only deleting or locking when I personally identify, in my use of the forum and engagement in forum discourse, that something is a violation of the rules, or if someone else reports (and therefore makes a complaint).
As far as keeping peace and harmony, at the time of my contribution to the thread, and in fact in the subsequent posts afterwards that I viewed after the thread was locked, I did not judge the thread to be in violation of the spirit of peace and harmony (except for the "Big pile of shit" image). I consider this one of the most civilised and restrained "disagreements" we've had on the forum for a long time. Apart from accusations of being underage, there has been no name-calling, no loss of temper, and mostly the posts have been expressions of frustration and confusion. (Rule #9: Have fun, and express yourself when you feel like it. - I interpret the spirit of this rule as members being allowed to express their thoughts, ideas, feelings and opinions, as all parties did in the locked thread).
I have been
very patient with this user in the past and always assumed good faith, always having given advice on his past contributions and, even now, trying to elucidate his situation and suggest the best course of action for his enjoyment and overall wellbeing. Maybe he's being a troll, but in
assuming good faith, maybe he's honestly clueless. In my experience in dealing with people like him, and also factoring in patterns in his creative work, I would not be surprised if there was a developmental issue with the user that would explain his relative immaturity and lack of awareness of norms and cues.
I don't see an argument in that thread. Most of the responses are genuine concern and questioning, not a public beating. There have been many others who have been giving and receiving abuse, but this user is not one of them.
This is what you said:
Duncan Edwards wrote:Okay, if the guy is doing something wrong then take appropriate action. Otherwise leave the public beatings for the old days at Deepsinking.
In your white knight stand, you called me out for taking part in a public argument against a repeat offender and troublemaker. And Dave agreed.
In my defense, no argument was taking place. The user had not, in his history on this forum, broken rules or caused trouble. Since no rules were broken (other than the original link), the appropriate action was to do nothing to stop the flow and discourse of the thread until such a time that it escalated to the point where it would have disturbed the peace and harmony of the community and was reported, and that happened while I was asleep and Dave was around to intervene.
If this is truly a troublemaker's case, then this has been the most pleasant and well-mannered incident that I've had to deal with.
If you want a real argument, sure, let's take a look at this:
Duncan Edwards wrote:FWIW - I just want to reiterate that bogbud did the right thing by reporting it as he should and then waiting for the mods to do the job. This is quicksandfans not shitfans.
Sure, it's quicksandfans and not shitfans. And it's also not junglegirlfans or cementfans or buriedindrysandfans or superheroesinperilfans or toplessfans or mudfans or oobleckfans or wetlookfans or safaricostumefans or bondagefans or pantyhosefans. The quicksand fetish has many associated interests that some, or many, share. Are we going to call out Qsvgitguy for making a video that was half-filled with non-qs stuff and saying "this is not vorefans"? Are we going to put an embargo on BondageCafe videos and say "Sorry, this is not masturbationfans"? Scat is a whole fetish in itself, and people are bizarrely attracted to it as much as heels, sheer pantyhose, headfirst submersions. If we're going to ban specific topics because they're generally considered undesirable and "wrong",sure, no problem with that. But that closing statement has absolutely nothing to do with the issue raised. bogbud did the right thing by submitting a report, and the report was handled as specified.
tl;drI did my damn job.
If I'm in the wrong here, I resign.
If the way I handle issues and interpret the rules is not the way that you, Dave or the community sees as appropriate, I have no qualms about leaving it to someone who is more in line with what should be done to ensure peace and harmony in this community.
