Deletion of posts controversy

I honestly don't care that much about what you deleted. Just the fact that I don't believe you had the right to.

The only rule I could possibly see being broken is #3. Even then, I don't believe anything that was said was all that offensive and it wasn't directed at anyone which is what the rule seems to really imply. Nor do I see any other member complaints here.

Nothing explicate was said. Just the very word was used; if it's so bad why isn't it censored like a real swear word?

The only thing I see you have going is rule 11. That's one hell of a vague rule as is. For it to be used shouldn't there be some sort of agreement between multiple mods rather than one? Or shouldn't the community here be allowed to vote for mods aka who has the privilege to determine what are "undesirable activities"? Correct me if I'm wrong and there is an election; I've never noticed one.

I'm sorry I'm not PMing you about this. I strongly feel this sort of thing should be discussed openly for all to see and participate in. I'm clearly not the only dissenter here; lets have an open, honest, polite discussion about this.
Perhaps that means starting a new thread and moving some of the posts in this one over.

I mean no disrespect Itza. I've talked with you via posts and PMs before. You've always struck me as an intelligent, interesting, decent human being. I understand you want to do your job, just seems like you're over doing it.

 

I've made this new thread to talk about the controversy in the Youngest member on Forum! thread. People wanted to discuss it in public but that discussing it in that thread would pretty much mess up the atmosphere of it, however that doesn't mean that those people shouldn't be able to discuss it in public at all.

First, my response to Psionicz's PM.

It's mainly Rule No.3, but it also involves Rule No.11. Psionicz's posts were fairly directly implied implied that karlo was a predator. His first comment, which was the first reply to that thread said 'Predator much?'. Now that on it's own is alright, I guess, but it's not the sort of thing anyone would want to be brought up in a thread for the younger members. However, when combined with more genuine concerns like his next post, which stated that he thought it was kinda weird that karlo was 'rounding up' young members, not only is it practically an attack against karlo, but it's extremely suggestive and undesirable. Other comments and posts mentioned or responded to people mentioning porn. Again, same goes. Inappropriate for the younger members, not to mention that other things, like drinking, driving, smoking, were also brought up so removing porn was not really destroying any part of the general conversation.

Nothing explicit was said, no, but that does not stop it being inappropriate. It isn't a swear word, it's an abbreviation, so it isn't censored. However, again, that does not make it ok to talk about in the forums, especially in a thread for young members.

Rule No.11 may be vague, but I'm sure you can see that it can apply to this situation. Moderators reserve the rights to take action against any member performing undesirable activities that are not listed in the Forum Rules. Bringing up porn and predators in a thread for young members is an undesirable activity. That's fairly evident. If you're unhappy with what happened and feel that there should be an agreement between multiple mods, etc, then you're 100% free to ask another, but I'll remind you that I was not the only mod intervening in that thread. Also, no there are no and weren't any elections. The mods are chosen by the administrators.

Good to see we're both on the same wavelength. I've also talked over things I've felt strongly about and actions that I felt were unnecessary with mods, so I understand where you're coming from. In this thread, I was extra concerned about keeping it clean for the younger members, which means being extra strict.

No disrespect taken. I remember our PM's as well. The ones about the differing electoral systems, right? They were fun, and most of all, progressive, so I hope the same can be achieved here. As I said before, I, too, have been in your situation before so I understand where you're coming from.

EDIT: Moved BloodHawk's post to this thread.

 

After going through the thread, and checking out what went on, Itza had every right to remove 90% of those posts (Mj. Willy's first one made me laugh, I'm not gonna lie).

While few of the comments were on their own offensive, when placed in that context, they took on a rather pointed meaning. Some of them, though far from the majority, could've quickly erupted into God knows what.

As far as I can tell, there's not any controversy, just some people mildly peeved. You're welcome to make a SJ thread going on about that, so long as it doesn't violate any rules.

Also, Itza, some warning should probably be issued in the future.

 

Yeah, looking back I would have probably made a warning post sooner, but I still would have deleted and edited the posts that I did. Also, Major Willy's post was not deleted by me, but by another mod.

 

Itza is just doing his job. Please confine these types of discussions to PMs from now on. If you have a problem with the way a moderator is functioning and don't feel comfortable discussing it with said moderator, feel free to contact one of the other moderators on the forum.

Thank you.

Topic Locked