The mod board decided to delete your post because it was presented as a disruptive personal attack. On GAW the same reportable rule is stated as "respect other readers", but we haven't decided on reporting this thread, and would likely make such a decision in agreement.
A moderator banned user Andy_Man45 - 3 days with reason: Stop acting a fool. Disruption of the community is not the purpose. We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?
Edit: I am personally quite lenient with these so-called "personal attacks," I believe freedom of speech should trump people's feelings. I think Andy_Man45's post shouldn't have been deleted, and I am fine with the ban message. I am just saying, if the moderators didn't want personal attacks, they should refrain from giving personal attacks themselves.
Without the intention of fanning any flames, can this all be treated as a bit of an impromptu “intervention”? Clearly Andy isn’t the only person to feel that sometimes moderation on c/Christianity can be a bit...personal sometimes.
Could it maybe be resolved, that we can seek to separate how we feel about a person overall, from their individual comments?
I personally feel I am “baggaged” by my past interactions with the mods. If I make a comment about one thing, someone dredges up a comment I made months ago about something else to attempt to invalidate what was just said. If I repeat a users words back to them I am being “incivil” , etc. etc. ...
How about, instead of rushing into removing comments, you (the mods) post a disclaimer first, laying out the issue with the comment. If objective belligerence is the response, then consider removals, and lastly, bans. Right now it seems like an unfortunate case of “respect mah authoritah” more than “let’s come together in Christ, while seeking to minimize error”...
Good idea! In fact we just posted that idea this morning: "Moderators have now migrated to a system where basic enforcement (exclusive of deliberate violations) follows a graduated track of verbal warning, then deletion, then 1- or 3-day ban." Andy has already had repeated deletions and the new post was more inappropriate than most anything I've seen from him, so the ban was consistent with these rules.
Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you is that it's obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log.
This would be a good point, out of respect for decorum and due process, to give the mod board a decent moment to evaluate the evidence presented before a secondary answer is provided.
RE "I found this in c/Christianity/logs "A moderator banned user Andy_Man45 - 3 days with reason: Stop acting a fool. Disruption of the community is not the purpose. We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby"
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?"
Hi u/Andy_Man45 - You were BANNED?? - But you just Voluntarily got back to the Forum, after Voluntarily leaving the last time you were called a "liar" repeatedly. -
Myself DIStancing after yesterday something Shocking was Disclosed to me, -
I do Not know what has befallen you this time around. You are a KNOWledgable christian who I look up to for that. For this selfish reason I want you to Stay in the forum. Maybe how much I Appreciate you doesn't mean much, that I can understand, but this latest disaster... is UNjust.
For the record, just because someone is promoted to "moderator"-status does NOT give them the right to LORD-over others & call them Abusive... names , simply because they can get away... with so doing. Swampy has told us before "US MODERATORS STICK TOGETHER" - iow there are "NO consequences for Abusive-moderator behavior" ??
Instead, such a moderator should be strongly Admonished to Self-moderate their own behavior.
Failure to so do, only encourages a moderator's Emotional abuse to continue... as evidently today once again. And - in c/Christianity/logs... that QUOTE is Nowhere's to be found. much like DS actions = trying to cover up actions already. Doubly shameful.
PS: re "We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby = what does that mean, & how is it even Addressing the issue ??
People are not just leaving the forum over other members, but also over the Moderators. - Dear Jesus please come take us HOME Quick...
You're mostly right, Rainbows. The ban note was a mild personal attack and the mod team is deciding what to do about it. And Andy returned voluntarily after a conflict, and yet we decided to give him another cool-off period because it appears that conflict jumped back to the surface and a block was the first thing we attempted, in accord with the block policy that we had previously just posted in the Improvements thread. (Remember when you asked us for better ban enforcement?)
There are consequences for abusive mod behavior, but they require more patience, process, and consultation because they are a more sensitive charge. We have privately disciplined ourselves in at least two cases where we were charged with imperfections. Usually that doesn't get published, but this relates to a public event, so it needs a public response.
I don't know what you mean by the quote not being found, we do not change or cover up the public logs after they are published and the quote is still visible at your link. The quote cuts off before the end, so "baby" was actually "babysitter". This is in reference to our recognition that sometimes an outburst is an expression of fight or flight (adrenalin or testosterone) and 3 days is a recommended cooling-off period on biological grounds. The intent is that the user recognize this too.
The best solution, Rainbows, is to wait patiently on the mod board for its resolution, and to speak positively where there is any virtue or praiseworthiness. Thank you for your bringing these points to light.
Why did you delete my post?
The mod board decided to delete your post because it was presented as a disruptive personal attack. On GAW the same reportable rule is stated as "respect other readers", but we haven't decided on reporting this thread, and would likely make such a decision in agreement.
Why didn't you contact us privately with the same concern, a subject all 3 of us and others were just talking about in a related situation? https://communities.win/send?user=c:Christianity
"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses" (1 Tim. 5:19 KJV). Might that apply?
I found this in c/Christianity/logs
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?
Edit: I am personally quite lenient with these so-called "personal attacks," I believe freedom of speech should trump people's feelings. I think Andy_Man45's post shouldn't have been deleted, and I am fine with the ban message. I am just saying, if the moderators didn't want personal attacks, they should refrain from giving personal attacks themselves.
Without the intention of fanning any flames, can this all be treated as a bit of an impromptu “intervention”? Clearly Andy isn’t the only person to feel that sometimes moderation on c/Christianity can be a bit...personal sometimes.
Could it maybe be resolved, that we can seek to separate how we feel about a person overall, from their individual comments?
I personally feel I am “baggaged” by my past interactions with the mods. If I make a comment about one thing, someone dredges up a comment I made months ago about something else to attempt to invalidate what was just said. If I repeat a users words back to them I am being “incivil” , etc. etc. ...
How about, instead of rushing into removing comments, you (the mods) post a disclaimer first, laying out the issue with the comment. If objective belligerence is the response, then consider removals, and lastly, bans. Right now it seems like an unfortunate case of “respect mah authoritah” more than “let’s come together in Christ, while seeking to minimize error”...
Just my $0.02
Good idea! In fact we just posted that idea this morning: "Moderators have now migrated to a system where basic enforcement (exclusive of deliberate violations) follows a graduated track of verbal warning, then deletion, then 1- or 3-day ban." Andy has already had repeated deletions and the new post was more inappropriate than most anything I've seen from him, so the ban was consistent with these rules.
Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you is that it's obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log.
This would be a good point, out of respect for decorum and due process, to give the mod board a decent moment to evaluate the evidence presented before a secondary answer is provided.
Um, did I really deserve that?
re "Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you
obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log." - So where is the Transparency??
RE "I found this in c/Christianity/logs "A moderator banned user Andy_Man45 - 3 days with reason: Stop acting a fool. Disruption of the community is not the purpose. We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby"
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?"
Hi u/Andy_Man45 - You were BANNED?? - But you just Voluntarily got back to the Forum, after Voluntarily leaving the last time you were called a "liar" repeatedly. -
Myself DIStancing after yesterday something Shocking was Disclosed to me, -
I do Not know what has befallen you this time around. You are a KNOWledgable christian who I look up to for that. For this selfish reason I want you to Stay in the forum. Maybe how much I Appreciate you doesn't mean much, that I can understand, but this latest disaster... is UNjust.
For the record, just because someone is promoted to "moderator"-status does NOT give them the right to LORD-over others & call them Abusive... names , simply because they can get away... with so doing. Swampy has told us before "US MODERATORS STICK TOGETHER" - iow there are "NO consequences for Abusive-moderator behavior" ??
Instead, such a moderator should be strongly Admonished to Self-moderate their own behavior.
Failure to so do, only encourages a moderator's Emotional abuse to continue... as evidently today once again. And - in c/Christianity/logs... that QUOTE is Nowhere's to be found. much like DS actions = trying to cover up actions already. Doubly shameful.
PS: re "We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby = what does that mean, & how is it even Addressing the issue ??
People are not just leaving the forum over other members, but also over the Moderators. - Dear Jesus please come take us HOME Quick...
You're mostly right, Rainbows. The ban note was a mild personal attack and the mod team is deciding what to do about it. And Andy returned voluntarily after a conflict, and yet we decided to give him another cool-off period because it appears that conflict jumped back to the surface and a block was the first thing we attempted, in accord with the block policy that we had previously just posted in the Improvements thread. (Remember when you asked us for better ban enforcement?)
There are consequences for abusive mod behavior, but they require more patience, process, and consultation because they are a more sensitive charge. We have privately disciplined ourselves in at least two cases where we were charged with imperfections. Usually that doesn't get published, but this relates to a public event, so it needs a public response.
I don't know what you mean by the quote not being found, we do not change or cover up the public logs after they are published and the quote is still visible at your link. The quote cuts off before the end, so "baby" was actually "babysitter". This is in reference to our recognition that sometimes an outburst is an expression of fight or flight (adrenalin or testosterone) and 3 days is a recommended cooling-off period on biological grounds. The intent is that the user recognize this too.
The best solution, Rainbows, is to wait patiently on the mod board for its resolution, and to speak positively where there is any virtue or praiseworthiness. Thank you for your bringing these points to light.
You are not acting as an elder. You are acting as an authority. Let's start off correctly.
I have my witnesses, by the way, would you like to compare upvotes?
The mod board decided to delete your post because it was presented as a disruptive personal attack.
Shine any light you want on me, I will stand before it, without shame. You, not so much.