Free Speech

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think we need an honest discussion about Free Speech on this forum. Apparently you can be put on probation for cracking a bad joke. This, to me, is not right.

This post, by the way, is not trolling. It is quite serious. Deletion of this post would be evidence of a fundamentally fascist mindset. We do need to talk about this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I wholeheartedly agree that you should not be put on probation for making a bad joke.  You should be on probation when you repost the joke (or a similar joke) 5 times after the joke was infracted though.

[Paul Kemp]

Who determines what a "bad joke" is? Are we talking tasteless/offensive?

I'm legitimately asking. I don't have a horse in this race.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I will note that this policy is not new.  It has been my policy to infract re-posted infracted posts with 10 points for a while now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wholeheartedly agree that you should not be put on probation for making a bad joke.  You should be on probation when you repost the joke (or a similar joke) 5 times after the joke was infracted though.

What's the logic behind this position? I don't see any. It isn't even really a case of dogmatically following the rules, because they're your rules (right down to the interpretation of a bad joke as a crime).

Bizarre.

[Alcon]

Would my participation in this topic be aided by having any idea what's going on?  Or is that beside the point for our purposes?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Would my participation in this topic be aided by having any idea what's going on?  Or is that beside the point for our purposes?

I posted a picture of the Tesco logo in the 'my little pony' thread a couple of times. I made a few other references to Tesco elsewhere. The number of infraction points I got as a result has put me on mod review. I don't entirely understand either.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Who determines what a "bad joke" is? Are we talking tasteless/offensive?

I'm legitimately asking. I don't have a horse in this race.

In the My Little Pony thread, several posters began posting images of dead horses, decaying horses, and other pictures to rile up the MLP fans.  Al posted Tesco's logo, a supermarket who was found to have horse meat in their burgers.  This was infracted at the same level as everyone else who posted what I considered trolling pictures in that thread (with the exception of one person who was infracted less because he had deleted the posts.  Normally I would not infract posts that were self-deleted, but due to the large quantity from this poster and the particularly gruesomeness of some of the pictures, I thought that some points were necessary).

Al ended up re-posting the picture today, and it was infracted at 10 points, the same as I've done when other people re-post something that was infracted.  He then proceeded to continue reposting the picture and starting threads about Tesco until he was infracted above mod review.  Upon reaching mod review, he uninfracted his posts.

[Paul Kemp]

Well it looks like I inadvertently made a pun when I said I didn't have a "horse" in this race...

I'm not that clever, unfortunately.

[Alcon]

Knowingly re-posting a deleted post warrants pretty heavy infraction points.

I also don't appreciate the lie by omission that this thread is, if Inks's summary is accurate.

[Paul Kemp]

Let the pony lovers play in peace, as infantile as it is. Can't really fault Inks here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Knowingly re-posting a deleted post warrants pretty heavy infraction points.

I also don't appreciate the lie by omission that this thread is, if Inks's summary is accurate.

The evidence is all on the reported posts board.

I have used this policy on several posters, and this is the first time that anyone on the mod team has questioned that decision.  And it's one thing to discuss this policy.  If the mod team decide that my actions in giving 10 point infractions for this are inappropriate, I would gladly stop doing so.  But it is inappropriate to continue posting something when you know you are going to get infracted, especially when the person is a moderator.  And then to uninfract yourself raises this to a whole new level.

Typically I don't discuss infractions publicly, but since this has blown up, I feel that the full details are warranted.  If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer them, although I won't be discussing my infractions of other people, at least not without their consent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The posts that landed me on probation were not actually posted on that thread.

Whatever.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The posts that landed me on probation were not actually posted on that thread.

Whatever.

No, and I acknowledged that.  But it was quite clear that when you created the threads, you were not actually curious about people's thoughts about Tesco or where British posters go to get their groceries.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, I was just fooling about a bit. I confess. It was mildly distracting and I was bored. Oh dear. How evil. What a terrible, terrible crime. Ghastly. Ghastly. Ghastly.

I DID UNDERMINE YOUR AUTHORITY.

oh dear oh dear oh dear

Terrible and childish behavior!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And I'm being more than slightly childish now, of course. Because it's late and I'm bored (at least I know I'm a prick, part the thirty third). I am at least a little annoyed though (but more confused than owt else. This is really weird).

But being entirely serious for a moment (as rare as that is), you really need to sort out this whole control thing out. It's not healthy.

[Keystone Phil]

This Al act is getting really weird. We know he isn't serious. Is he just trying to (poorly) impersonate me? Maybe. Whatever the case, we do need a real discussion about how to deal with jokes and this ridiculous policy that questioning of a moderator's motives gets an immediate deletion and infraction points. That's beyond ridiculous.

I hate to say this but entertaining the less than 1% chance that Al is being serious, I'm sort of glad that he has to experience this. Now he knows what the rest of us have to deal with (and sometimes under his watch but mostly under Inks).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Whatever the case, we do need a real discussion about how to deal with jokes and this ridiculous policy that questioning of a moderator's motives gets an immediate deletion and infraction points. That's beyond ridiculous.

You don't get infracted for questioning motives.  But when you make an objectively false statement, yes, it's going to get infracted on this board.

[Lief 🗽]

It looks like the moderating community is being torn apart. This is just the time for the CRI and the Poster's Union to strike.

[Alcon]

we're infracting objectively false statements?

[Keystone Phil]

Ok so I'm allowed to say "Maybe Inks deletes posts because he personally dislikes them" instead of "Inks has a problem with this post on a personal level so he's going to delete it."

Now remember how you blasted me earlier for how I react when people attack me and compare that to how you've been acting...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I wholeheartedly agree that you should not be put on probation for making a bad joke.  You should be on probation when you repost the joke (or a similar joke) 5 times after the joke was infracted though.

What's the logic behind this position? I don't see any. It isn't even really a case of dogmatically following the rules, because they're your rules (right down to the interpretation of a bad joke as a crime).

Bizarre.

So, if you don't get infracted for reposting it, and the person doesn't contact the mod appealing the issue, what does the mod do?  Continually infract the post?  Well that doesn't make much sense.  Let the post stand?  Then you end up having the mods cave in to people who are persistent.

You did nothing to appeal your infraction.

[Keystone Phil]

we're infracting objectively false statements?

Only when it's a "false" claim about Inksy. He's digging himself a lovely hole.

[fezzyfestoon]

It's about time we got serious about moderating, things are getting too loose around here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

we're infracting objectively false statements?

When the accusations are along the lines of "the mods delete things simply because they dislike them" or "jmfcst was banned for no reason other than the mods flexing their power", then yes.  Because those don't further discussion of moderator actions.  They're lies that inflame the community, and they're baseless.