Discussion III about the Suspension List

Refusing to address someone with their preferred pronoun shows both disrespect and an agenda.

A question for the moderators and maybe for the tech guys.

Does the 'flag' feature still exist? I don't currently see any flag buttons.
That feature always did work differently for moderators, but I'm surprised to no longer see the button.

Quote: Rule 15

Flagging: The primary purpose of flagging is to rid the forum of spam but can also be used for other obvious rule violations. Flagging legitimate posts, for any reason, is not allowed. (Added 4/15/2016)

One man's 'obvious' is another man's opinion.

Quote: OnceDear

A question for the moderators and maybe for the tech guys.

Does the 'flag' feature still exist? I don't currently see any flag buttons.
That feature always did work differently for moderators, but I'm surprised to no longer see the button.

Quote: Rule 15

Flagging: The primary purpose of flagging is to rid the forum of spam but can also be used for other obvious rule violations. Flagging legitimate posts, for any reason, is not allowed. (Added 4/15/2016)

One man's 'obvious' is another man's opinion.
link to original post

"Flagging" may have been disabled in late 2014/early 2015.
I seem to remember getting scolded for (subjectively) "misusing" it, and shortly afterwards it was not-visible.

As for other definitions of the term, I don't really go to those bars.

This forum doesn't require you to like anyone or agree with them. Except for not being able to say whatever negative thing you want to about them, that's seems fairly relaxed to me. Most of the other rules you may not like but you'd have to own the forum to make your own.

Most of the titillating recent discussion about who did what to whom and with what has been split.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/adult/37774-are-transwomen-women/

The flag button is visible on new accounts that are on their first few posts.

Occasionally we have banned members come in here as sock puppets to further their campaigns.

Rule 16 is applicable
Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer. (Added 6/9/2016)

I believe this means both that whatever the banned member posted here should be deleted at the same time that the sock puppet is banned, because the banning "means we don't want to hear from them any longer," and also that anything that might have been inadvertently quoted from the banned member should be deleted as well (leaving intact only what any members in good standing might have said in response).

In fact, knowingly quoting what a banned member has posted here is itself a Rule 16 violation "Do not quote anything...."

I mean obviously, leaving anything a banned member has posted, whether directly or via quotation, is to allow us to hear from him - but as well, the best way to discourage sock puppets is to let them know that we don't cotton to their nonsense and will not allow sock puppets to be continued mouthpieces for the banned. Make it as if they never came here and sock puppeteers will give up more quickly as they realize it's a waste of their time since no one will hear what they have to say.

Quote: MDawg Bolding is mine

Occasionally we have banned members come in here as sock puppets to further their campaigns.

Rule 16 is applicable
Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer. (Added 6/9/2016)

I believe this means both that whatever the banned member posted here should be deleted at the same time that the sock puppet is banned, because the banning "means we don't want to hear from them any longer," and also that anything that might have been inadvertently quoted from the banned member should be deleted as well (leaving intact only what any members in good standing might have said in response).
link to original post

MDAWG, Why do you raise this here and now?

I don't disagree with MDawg, and when i was moderating, i would often delete anything that had been quoted of a sock.
BUT. It's Wizard's stated policy that a member's post is sacrosanct and that moderators should not generally edit or redact anything in a good standing member's posts. And that includes anything in quotes even from a sock.
The reality was that every case was taken on it's merits.

Yes, agreed, and it doesn't make sense to leave a banned member's quoted posts intact while deleting his direct posts, obviously all traces of the offender should be eradicated.


Ya' follow?

Quote: OnceDear

The reality was that every case was taken on it's merits.
link to original post

That SOUNDS good but all it means in reality is - if the sock posts faster than the mod is able to delete and before someone gets around to quoting, some traces of the sock might remain. That's an inane way to do things; the rule should be applied more even handedly.

Quote: MDawg

Yes, agreed, and it doesn't make sense to leave a banned member's quoted posts intact while deleting his direct posts, obviously all traces of the offender should be eradicated.


Ya' follow?

Quote: OnceDear

The reality was that every case was taken on it's merits.
link to original post

That SOUNDS good but all it means in reality is - if the sock posts faster than the mod is able to delete and before someone gets around to quoting, some traces of the sock might remain. That's an inane way to do things; the rule should be applied more even handedly.
link to original post

I believe that I agree with the crux of your argument, But I tend not to call any of wizard's policies 'Inane'.

Mike's house, Mike's rules.

The policy as I understand it, ( I have a PM, but won't break confidentiality) is that members posts do not get bits hacked out of them, even if it's a quote from a sock.

I'm sure wizard would love to hear your case.

I ask again, out of curiosity. Why do you raise this very specific topic now?