This thread went from "new rule to allow OP to censor opinions from their own thread" to members disagreeing, and now backpedaling from the staff..
Really goes to show you how hastily new rules are implemented, it appears without thinking about them.
I'd like some further clarification on how a rule specifying an OP can request a post be deleted is any more necessary than just saying "all members can report posts". Will the OPs opinion about "their" thread be taken into account when a borderline deletable post arises? As in, if the OP reports it, will their report be given more weight/be the straw that broke the camel's back?
Furthermore, the staff seems to consider all arguments bad. (since they apparently need a dictionary lesson): a discussion involving differing points of view
As with the definition provided, this means we are no longer allowed to have differing points of view, or our post may get deleted as "potential arguement".
There really needs to be some serious thought from the administrative team (Amy and Grizzly) about how they are telling their moderators/administrator to operate the site - if the instructions to do these things are, in fact, coming from the higher-ups. If the instructions aren't... (interpret that how you may).
Really goes to show you how hastily new rules are implemented, it appears without thinking about them.
I'd like some further clarification on how a rule specifying an OP can request a post be deleted is any more necessary than just saying "all members can report posts". Will the OPs opinion about "their" thread be taken into account when a borderline deletable post arises? As in, if the OP reports it, will their report be given more weight/be the straw that broke the camel's back?
Furthermore, the staff seems to consider all arguments bad. (since they apparently need a dictionary lesson): a discussion involving differing points of view
As with the definition provided, this means we are no longer allowed to have differing points of view, or our post may get deleted as "potential arguement".
There really needs to be some serious thought from the administrative team (Amy and Grizzly) about how they are telling their moderators/administrator to operate the site - if the instructions to do these things are, in fact, coming from the higher-ups. If the instructions aren't... (interpret that how you may).
No, Whispered it's not because we're not ALLOWED to argue on the forums.
It's just that PEOPLE on these forums cannot HANDLE arguments on the forums. Time and time again the mods have allowed arguments to go on, only for the arguments to get out of hand and escalate to personal insults.
People apparently aren't mature enough.
The moderators should, if they can do their job as a moderator, be able to moderate discussions. From the dictionary: moderate = kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits.
As such, the moderator should not censor discussion, nor shut down discussion, but should keep it within reasonable limits. If the moderator is unable to do this, then do they really have the qualifications to be a moderator? It's certainly possible to let discussion go on, no matter what topic (excluding highly controversial ones such as abortion and the likes), and keep it within a civil, respectful manner. Yet, one of the staff here (and potentially the others) seem to think the only way to calm a discussion is by shutting it down when it gets nasty towards them. Hmm...
Thank you for that grand display of your higher intellectual prowess. I am thoroughly impressed.
