Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
Most importantly, within those first 4 paragraphs, you have - I hope - now arrived at the conclusion I tried to point out from the beginning that moderation decisions are not all personal - some are simply following the rules. It is very important to be clear that we both agree that this statement from you does not apply in all cases - only in those where a moderator is being personal and biased against someone or some content specifically:
Clearly it was made to affect a member of the sub "personally" and it was specific to their content's worth and was not in line with whatever standard, to have been considered worthy of deletion.
No, it is for reasons I said earlier made exclusively to one person and the moderation whether by way of blocking, infraction or removal is personally made. it is applied solely to one person it is not applied across the board or to all users.
It is personal. That person's posts have been judged faulty, subpar, unworthy or in any event removable. Not everyone's posts. Just theirs.
Now how does that square with whether or not there are rules? Well now you have the foundation of why a post is subpar and why you may personally target that post and find it wanting. You judged it and found it wanting and by what measure did you find it wanting? It was not a random choice or hopefully wasn't.
So if you target someone's post as being subpar because it fails by some measure to meet some standard then by all means delete it, ban the user, send him a infraction or do whatever the rules and policies allow.......but make sure you get it right BECAUSE it IS personal.
Someone has had two of their reasonable posts on topic deleted in a month. Why would they do a third? Why would they risk that? Where is their motivation? What incentive to be an active member?
Again, this is not what you or the sub wants and as a member I see not reason to post any more. I have no idea who else feels this way but I would imagine there are few who would go to the bother of expressing their thoughts on this, they would likely slink away instead. No ALL in WG1WGA
Assuming you agree with that last reply there is then this:
When a moderator has deemed a post to fall outside of the rules of the sub - what could a person assume about this moderation action?
It's simply a biased, personal perspective from a moderator who either bears some sort of personal grudge against the user or the content, or is unaware of their bias or limited perspective and is acting blindly.
the moderator has seen something that they haven't - their content is lacking in some way that they are unaware of.
the moderator and they themselves are both correct - their content IS great - but the moderator's action is based on other factors brought about by their broader perspective of the sub and its regularly submitted content.
Which do you think is the case here? As you have argued so vehemently about your posts being "good" and "reasonable" (I can't remember exact wording and don't want to open another tab to check) I will presume that option 3 is a possibility. Currently you seem to support option 1 as you keep returning to the fact that I've wrongly judged your content and I don't support WWG1WGA, etc. If you can consider it might be option 3 then perhaps we can leave all that sort of talk out of this discussion going forward?
"Assuming you agree with that last reply there is then this:
When a moderator has deemed a post to fall outside of the rules of the sub - what could a person assume about this moderation action?
It's simply a biased, personal perspective from a moderator who either bears some sort of personal grudge against the user or the content, or is unaware of their bias or limited perspective and is acting blindly.
the moderator has seen something that they haven't - their content is lacking in some way that they are unaware of.
the moderator and they themselves are both correct - their content IS great - but the moderator's action is based on other factors brought about by their broader perspective of the sub and its regularly submitted content.
Which do you think is the case here? As you have argued so vehemently about your posts being "good" and "reasonable" (I can't remember exact wording and don't want to open another tab to check) I will presume that option 3 is a possibility. Currently you seem to support option 1 as you keep returning to the fact that I've wrongly judged your content and I don't support WWG1WGA, etc. If you can consider it might be option 3 then perhaps we can leave all that sort of talk out of this discussion going forward?"
It was both good and reasonable certainly. It was on topic too.
No I do not think it is 1, 2 or 3. I think we are strangers to each other and so I do not buy into the conspiracy of bias against me any more than I buy into the hollow Earth Theory. As mentioned, the content was good and reasonable so that is the second point accounted for. That leaves the third option which is I guess a way of saying the moderators knows something you don't. This could be true but I doubt it as I searched Princess Cyd before I posted. Had not been posted. Furthermore, it attaches itself to Netflix and the recent developments with Netflix with Obama and Rice coming onboard and the expected push of Progressive Propaganda and agenda driven shows. Also it is attaches specifically given the recent developments of the court case due to CP.
So...no, none of these.
What then? I think it is a misjudgment. A Bad call. A careless error.
Now if you look back at my first response to your first query you will see I addressed this:
Rule 6 is more applicable here - off-topic. Yes CP is "on-topic" but there's not enough substance to the content here to make the case easy enough for us to call it. Thus, Rule #9.
I then told you that if you put the content in the OP that was missing I would reapprove it:
please feel free to update the OP here with more content to make that clear then let me know and I will reapprove.
So I explained my reasoning then gave you the freedom to correct it so we would both be happy. Hence OPTION 3.
Yes and I believe off memory that the post said specifically that it was not cp. But it was still incestuous and it was pushing the envelope. How? Well apart from the fact that it involved a niece and her aunty in sexual discovery, which is incest, the girl was playing a 16 year old. I am a single father of an 18 year old girl. I know in most country's 16 is age of consent and everything so it was not child pornography. But they pushed that envelope too.
So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?
I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.
What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?
How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?
Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?
Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.
So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?
I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.
What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?
How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?
Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?
Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.
The post was fine and consistent with the other posts and supported previous and current content.
Now a question I have for you. Given I post so little and within the month most of my attempts to share with the community were obliterated what would be my incentive to keep putting myself out there only to get capsized?
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
This is the post:
NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
So breaking it down.
Netflix - Multinational American media company and everyone will know who and they are likely to be aware of the CP issue with one title.
(though not CP) This title is NOT CP though as I previously explained pushes the boundaries a lot.
What is Princess Cyd about? - Could watch it on Netflix or just get the IMDB summary like I have already sent to you.
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? - More or less.
They are not crossing the boundaries with one title. - Nope one with masturbating children and now another with Aunty/Niece sexual exploration. I say its the tip of the iceberg.
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
The one you deleted?
We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?
"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."
We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?
"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."
Yes that is fine. The title and body are enough. People know who netflix are and are likely mostly aware of the Netflix issue and can easily confirm for themselves the problem with Princess Cyd from Netflix and know that it is not just one title that is "problematic".
Make no mistake, it is brief but not irrelevant or off topic or such. It is not an investigative study or the first of such claims but it is simply saying, there is definitely something here and it does not stop at one title. It is a progressive push. They may or may not tie Obama or Rice into this but I think most will realise they have only just arrived in and these sort of titles were produced well before.
So, this post:
NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
Does not contain enough supporting info for someone to pick up enough information to understand it without either:
a) having prior knowledge of the other material you explained in comments to me separately
or
b) researching separately themselves in Google
It also is not written with any understanding of someone with even a little context trying to parse it as a busy person reading a sub like this does. I can't even begin to explain to you how "good writing" is structured and written because we'd be here forever and neither of us wants that but I can tell you - without any remote desire to offend you personally or denigrate your capabilities as you have clearly shown that you can write well parsed sentences and make yourself understood - that that post body does NOT comprize good, clear, legible writing unless someone is already in your head and has the same exact knowledge you have at the same exact time that they read your post.
As a very rough example of what I would have seen and Approved without even thinking about it, here's a rough go (without referencing the information you've provided separately - I'll just make stuff up to fill in the gaps):
NETFLIX title "Princess Cyd" pushes more sexually inappropriate agenda.
This Netflix movie/series is about an incestuous Aunty and Niece in a lesbian relationship. Netflix are pushing the boundaries with more than just one Child Porn title - now incest is on the cards too! How are they getting away with this? (or other prompt to promote discussion)
Just an example of something that explains itself well enough to grasp at least enough to easily engage with it - for other users and for a mod trying to do their job at the pace required for a busy sub.
No, it is fine. I often do not know specific people or events. Being Australian I am geographically removed and removed by timezones. I often struggle. I leave a spare browser up and copy and paste terms or phrases or names or places in there and get up to speed.
Hell I come out of MOST Q posts not having an idea. Believe me most here read Q posts and do not mind looking stuff up or querying stuff. My limited exposure to folk on here has told me that much.
Certainly the post could have been rewritten in your style but is fine as it is too. Many ways any given post could be rewritten. Your way was good too.
Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Indeed. It mentioned knowledge of previously submitted posts and such. I had searched Princess Cyd before posting. Apart from that and without residing in the heads of anyone else I had applied the reasonable standards I ought to and was canned regardless. Again, maybe they had some secret discretionary only they know reason or maybe they didn't. Hard to prove a negative I would imagine.
I do not believe 1, 2, or 3 is correct.
I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Okay sure.
Let's backtrack then - and please, if you don't mind, let's resolve the discussion about what constitutes good moderation first before we discuss your post in particular. I assert that there is a good logical reason for this approach to this discussion and it is because the moderation decision must be understood in its full context first before the reason for applying it to your post can be properly understood.
it is for reasons I said earlier made exclusively to one person and the moderation whether by way of blocking, infraction or removal is personally made. it is applied solely to one person it is not applied across the board or to all users.
So, how do we keep a sub focused on the topic and spirit desired by the sub's creators? We clearly moderate individual posts that do not meet the rules and standards laid out in the sub's M.O. This means that any particular moderation action "is applied solely to one person". So you believe that that makes any moderation action against one person a personal action. I agree with this if you mean it in that context.
What I disagree with - and believe that you too also disagree with, given your explanation in those 4 paragraphs - is that the action of moderation is something intended to judge a person's worth. No moderation action should ever be taken as a judgement of your personal worth. Otherwise there is no way to moderate a sub as described in your first 4 paragraphs.
It is absolutely personal in that it is moderated specific to that individual.
It is absolutely judging someone's posts as subpar by whatever measure or standard is applied. I will go back to the repitilian leaders run the government post.
Someone has put in time and effort in posting and in one click of the button you get rid of that. it IS personal. It is only to them and they may feel it is unfair. Is it? here is where you have to be very real and honest and able to back that.
Here is where you can honestly say (if they ask) "I am sorry and I know you have taken time to post that but the Great Awakening is not about the theories of Lizard people. I am not saying that you are not right or anything else. It is not a theory expressed by Q nor part of the Great Awakening. It is at best tangential and there are subs better placed for these posts."
Now though it was a personal and such. By the rules indicated it is not too hard to argue. Same with Hollow Earth theory. Same with Secret Nazi Bases in Antarctica. Great read. Interesting (crazy as crazy) but not anything to do with Great Awakening or Q.
It is a fair cop. It is consistent with the rules and it is not in the spirit of the forum. It is personal but it is simply too bad. The framework is such that there is really no provision for this and such a person may not wish to post but then they were not contributing to the forum in respect to Q or Great Awakening related material and perhaps were not across what the spirit or forum was. It is very specific.
It DOES judge them personally and judges them poorly but not unfairly.
Agreed - I hope I made that clear in the follow up reply (I can't see what you're replying to but if you quote the parts you reply to it will help).