I am out with H now so I can't really respond much more, but I'd like to clarify that my post you asked "what the hell is that supposed to mean" wasn't a riddle. It was pretty self-explanatory. You make it very clear anytime anyone questions anything that you personally don't see the point. Other people DO see a point. You don't need to constantly chime in with how you don't see the point. We know.
So now we're telling people how to post.
How very SS of you...
You know PhotoKitty you seem to have a really vague idea of what "telling people how to post" actually means.
We all know Maggie doesn't see the point in complaining/venting/whining/ect. We know cause everytime we complain/vent/whine/ect she pops in to point out there is no point in doing so. Pointing out that we don't need her to do that every motherfucking time cause we know her stance is not telling someone how to post. It is commenting on their posting style. In this case a negative comment. But it is not telling someone how to/how not to post.
I think mods should try to not make it so fucking obvious who they do and do not like. Moderators should be impartial. If they can't do that, they should step down.
And yeah, I just called a mod on her shit so I'm sure I'll get warned for trolling cause some admit doesn't know what the fuck trolling actually is.
Nope, I understand it perfectly. I also understand my role as a mod.
No where in the mod agreement did it say moderators have to like everyone, act like we do or not engage in the same manner that other posters do.
I have the same right to post and form relationships, positive or not, with other community members as you do. I am not an employee of TK.
My personal opinions do not affect how I moderate. I enforce the TOS equally, regardless of how I feel about individuals.
I wish I was allowed to point out who actually receives a warning and who didn't. I promise you that there are exponentially more "I'll get warned for this" posts, than actual warnings issued. There is a whole lot of crying wolf and posturing for a wedding website.
For the record, your post didn't violate TOS, so you won't be receiving a warning for it.
I am out with H now so I can't really respond much more, but I'd like to clarify that my post you asked "what the hell is that supposed to mean" wasn't a riddle. It was pretty self-explanatory. You make it very clear anytime anyone questions anything that you personally don't see the point. Other people DO see a point. You don't need to constantly chime in with how you don't see the point. We know.
So now we're telling people how to post.
How very SS of you...
You know PhotoKitty you seem to have a really vague idea of what "telling people how to post" actually means.
We all know Maggie doesn't see the point in complaining/venting/whining/ect. We know cause everytime we complain/vent/whine/ect she pops in to point out there is no point in doing so. Pointing out that we don't need her to do that every motherfucking time cause we know her stance is not telling someone how to post. It is commenting on their posting style. In this case a negative comment. But it is not telling someone how to/how not to post.
I think mods should try to not make it so fucking obvious who they do and do not like. Moderators should be impartial. If they can't do that, they should step down.
And yeah, I just called a mod on her shit so I'm sure I'll get warned for trolling cause some admit doesn't know what the fuck trolling actually is.
Nope, I understand it perfectly. I also understand my role as a mod.
No where in the mod agreement did it say moderators have to like everyone, act like we do or not engage in the same manner that other posters do.
I have the same right to post and form relationships, positive or not, with other forums members as you do. I am not an employee of TK.
My personal opinions do not effect how I moderate. I enforce the TOS equally, regardless of how I feel about individuals.
I wish I was allowed to point out who actually receives a warning and who didn't. I promise you that there are exponentially more "I'll get warned for this" posts, than actual warnings issued. There is a whole lot of crying wolf and posturing for a wedding website.
For the record, your post didn't violate TOS, so you won't be receiving a warning for it.
Well maybe not by you. But mods aren't the only ones who issue warnings. And I've already gotten a pre-warning warning for disagreeing with someone the admins like more than me. So...we'll see.
Instead of feeding the drama, could the mods perhaps answer some of the questions and concerns that have been posted about the inconsistency that have been displayed? Or, at the very least, just acknowledge said questions and concerns?
Well they would but the XO Group Kool-Aid is just SO fucking delicious. And if we'd all just nicely take our seats and be quiet everything will be a-okay.
Given all of the questions, I'm curious: how should moderation work?
Moderators and admins are human so there is always a chance that things won't be 100% consistent at all times. It's the goal but no one is perfect and everyone perceives things differently. Even when mods think they're being consistent, it's clear that there will never be a decision that everyone can agree on.
So what do you think the solution is?
Should there be no moderation of the site at all?
Should mods only be allowed to do things like ban vendors?
Of course moderation should happen.
But that moderation should be done in as unbiased and impartial a manner as possible. Which isn't what seems to be happening here. See my post above - when chibiyui goes and posts a bunch of fuck-you/no-fucks-given gifs, then gets warned and her gifs modded out, and then I go and post similar gifs of middle fingers and fuck-yous, and get no warning, I have to think that perhaps the mods like me just a little bit better - which means I can get away with just a wee bit more.
Her intent and mine were identical. I see no real difference between her gifs and mine. I would even go so far as to say I was inciting others to create similar posts, as I shared a HUGE list of fuck-you gifs at the end of my post. So why should an imbalanced moderation like that occur? The mods were all over that thread - shit was being removed by mods all over, and it was pinned down so that new comments didn't bump it (which, incidentally, the hoi polloi of TK didn't seem to know was a power available to anyone). I even gave it a couple days - no one went back and modded out my gifs. So all I can assume is that either the mods have a personal bias towards me, in a positive way, or towards chibiyui in a negative way.
If you cannot be a fair moderator, and cannot leave your personal biases at the door - positive AND negative - when you step into a moderator role, you should not be modding.
And - personally - I think the mod-specific forums should be open to viewing by the hoi polloi members, at the very least. If people want to talk shit about other people, they can do it in DMs. But an exclusive mod forum breeds the ability to discuss the rest of us that I find extremely distasteful.
There is some bat shit craziness going on here. And it is highly amusing. ***Removed for TOS violation***
Who said they hated this place sooooo much? Pretty much everyone in here has been trying to clarify what the actual fucking rules are so they can continue to post.
There is some bat shit craziness going on here. And it is highly amusing. ***Removed for TOS violation***.
Okay, this is exactly the kind of thing people are complaining about.
On one hand, you can pretend this isn't directed at anyone in particular because you didn't point anyone out. And therefore it's not reportable.
But I've been warned for insulting absolutely no one in particular, Addie has been warned for "insulting" and idea and not a person, and GIFs cannot be proven to be aimed directly at anyone in particular.
So it this worth reporting and a warning? I would say no, but for TK...... it could go either way. It can be inferred as an attack on anyone who is upset with the TOS, so there you go.
Because the TOS are vague and lead to a lot of second guessing.
There is some bat shit craziness going on here. And it is highly amusing. ***Removed for TOS violation***.
Okay, this is exactly the kind of thing people are complaining about.
On one hand, you can pretend this isn't directed at anyone in particular because you didn't point anyone out. And therefore it's not reportable.
But I've been warned for insulting absolutely no one in particular, Addie has been warned for "insulting" and idea and not a person, and GIFs cannot be proven to be aimed directly at anyone in particular.
So it this worth reporting and a warning? I would say no, but for TK...... it could go either way. It can be inferred as an attack on anyone who is upset with the TOS, so there you go.
Because the TOS are vague and lead to a lot of second guessing.
Well since all you seem to be doing is bitching about the rules and how those rules are not implemented to your standards then I don't really see how you can like being here.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
Well shit on a cracker and slap me silly! They responded! Kind of.
I did change my sig in light of recent events. Where's my warning?
I did get a warning for jokingly saying cracker earlier. Apparently that's a racial slur because reverse racism. I get that is an easy hard and fast rule to make, but I really hope that other posters have gotten similar warnings. If any white people were offended by my post, that's just real sad. But racial slurs or not, I'm sure Puerto Ricans just really loved reading a certain recent thread.
So
that's cool, but middle fingers are not. But fuck you is okay? But posting a
video of Louis CK is not okay. But saying your neighborhood is a bad place
because of all the Puerto Ricans is okay.
Clear
as mud.
As a
normal 21st century human I have to say racism, homophobia, transphobia and
sexism embarrasses and upsets me. Your moderators really need to worry about
these issues before worrying about what pictures people put up for their
signatures.
I
wonder what would happen if I put up a signature of KKK member giving the
middle finger? What would the decision be????? You guys would be so torn
whether to ban me or not.
Well since all you seem to be doing is bitching about the rules and how those rules are not implemented to your standards then I don't really see how you can like being here.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
Asking questions and asking for clarification is not bitching. Pointing out flaws doesn't mean you hate it here.
We all understand your point Maggie. You believe in not whining/venting/complaining/caring. You don't see the point of us asking questions and pointing out flaws. Because you don't roll that way. And whatever that's cool. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. You came here of your own volition. What did you think would be happening? Everyone would be going "Nope no questions everything is fine"? Just cause you wouldn't do something doesn't mean it's wrong if others do it.
Well since all you seem to be doing is bitching about the rules and how those rules are not implemented to your standards then I don't really see how you can like being here.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
Maggie, we're allowed to ask for clarity. We've been asking for years.
You could always take your own advice when it comes to this thread and any made by posters who are concerned. There's the metaphorical door, and on proboards you could make your own board where everyone you don't like would not be invited.
But you don't have to, because I am not the arbitrator of this website and neither are you.
Well since all you seem to be doing is bitching about the rules and how those rules are not implemented to your standards then I don't really see how you can like being here.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
I can disagree with the way a place handles a situation and still enjoy going there.
More to the point, vague rules and inconsistent enforcement will continue unless people speak up against it. This is true for anywhere, not just TK.
Well since all you seem to be doing is bitching about the rules and how those rules are not implemented to your standards then I don't really see how you can like being here.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
Maggie, we're allowed to ask for clarity. We've been asking for years.
You could always take your own advice when it comes to this thread and any made by posters who are concerned. There's the metaphorical door, and on proboards you could make your own board where everyone you don't like would not be invited.
But you don't have to, because I am not the arbitrator of this website and neither are you.
So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?
Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?
I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.
Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?
And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.
Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?
We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that.
According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:
"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.
However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.
Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.
Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.
@KnotRiley I do think the definition of trolling should be better defined. Because according to that definition, whenever we post puppy gifs or kitten gifs on a thread that has gone crazy, that could be considered trolling.
Puppy gifs, or kitten gifs, or maybe even, I don't know, polar bear gifs?
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
Well since all you seem to be doing is bitching about the rules and how those rules are not implemented to your standards then I don't really see how you can like being here.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
I can disagree with the way a place handles a situation and still enjoy going there.
More to the point, vague rules and inconsistent enforcement will continue unless people speak up against it. This is true for anywhere, not just TK.
Truth. My whole point is that consistency and transparency is lacking with regards to the TOS and its implementation in various situations. And a few mods seem to be taking that as a personal affront to their ability and power, which I don't think it is - so long as they're capable of moderating without bias.
Chibiyui posts a bunch of fuck-you gifs and they get modded out. I post fuck-you gifs, but I get away with it scot-free.
Jenna posts a statement that perpetuates an extremely damaging stereotype regarding minority populations, and nothing happens, at least so far as I'm privy to. FiancB calls something a "cracker tradition" and she gets warned.
Consistency. Warn everyone who posts fuck-you gifs, or warn no one. Warn everyone who says something racist - whether they actually use a slur or not - or don't warn anyone, whether or not they use a slur.
Or make that delineation CLEAR IN THE TOS. Because if it's totally okay to say, "my neighborhood has a bad reputation because Puerto Ricans live in my city and oh I guess the schools suck too" but it's not okay to say "cracker", then it needs to be clear.
That's all I'm asking - either consistency across issues we're modding, or understanding why one thing is okay but another, similar thing isn't.
Edited to remove the beginning of another thought.
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
I don't think I asked you to, not sure about others, but honestly? This is not helping.
I question why things are the way they are at work all the time - and they pay me to be there! I mean, if we didn't question the status quo or things we think might be unfair... umm... well, we'd still be a British colony, no? Just because people may question why things are done the way they are or want more clarity in the rules we're expected to follow doesn't mean they hate it here.
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
I don't think I asked you to, not sure about others, but honestly? This is not helping.
I said "we" as in the mods. Someone above posted that they wished mods would answer more questions and be more transparent. I also didn't tag you in the post so I'm not sure why you assumed I thought you asked? Nope.
Honestly, I don't care if you think it was helpful or not.
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
From the TOS:
Is this post inflammatory?
Posts that contain any hint of maliciousness or provocation of users to gain attention may be removed.
"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.
--
Would you or would you not agree that the mods -- and only the mods -- going into a thread just to post pictures of polar bears without any context or introduction is inflammatory, off-topic, and meant to disrupt the normal discussion?
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
From the TOS:
Is this post inflammatory?
Posts that contain any hint of maliciousness or provocation of users to gain attention may be removed.
"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.
--
Would you or would you not agree that the mods -- and only the mods -- going into a thread just to post pictures of polar bears without any context or introduction is inflammatory, off-topic, and meant to disrupt the normal discussion?
According to TK definition as quoted, yes. It could be considered trolling. Just as posting puppy gifs, kitten gifs, bat signals, etc. could be trolling. The same could be said of some members who also post on the TH posting hydrogen peroxide pictures in threads, they were never given a warning over that either. That is why I stated in my original response that it needs to be reworded. When the TOS changed in January, many members asked if that definition meant that puppy and kitten and cute animal gifs on certain threads would no longer be allowed. The KG (either KnotPorscha or KnotRiley) assured everyone that was still allowed.
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
From the TOS:
Is this post inflammatory?
Posts that contain any hint of maliciousness or provocation of users to gain attention may be removed.
"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.
--
Would you or would you not agree that the mods -- and only the mods -- going into a thread just to post pictures of polar bears without any context or introduction is inflammatory, off-topic, and meant to disrupt the normal discussion?
According to TK definition as quoted, yes. It could be considered trolling. Just as posting puppy gifs, kitten gifs, bat signals, etc. could be trolling. The same could be said of some members who also post on the TH posting hydrogen peroxide pictures in threads, they were never given a warning over that either. That is why I stated in my original response that it needs to be reworded. When the TOS changed in January, many members asked if that definition meant that puppy and kitten and cute animal gifs on certain threads would no longer be allowed. The KG (either KnotPorscha or KnotRiley) assured everyone that was still allowed.
Okay. The problem is that most of the regs understand the kittens and puppies thing whereas it's only the mods doing the polar bears and you are the guys in charge. So when the guys in charge start posting like that without context for the rest of us and at the same time everything else is going down, it starts to feel like an inside joke at the expense of the regs. Not the best way to moderate a forum, IMHO
I understand you don't have to answer questions about the weekend bannings, so it would therefore be helpful if either of the KGs could return to this thread to address the concerns some of us have regarding what happened.
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
From the TOS:
Is this post inflammatory?
Posts that contain any hint of maliciousness or provocation of users to gain attention may be removed.
"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.
--
Would you or would you not agree that the mods -- and only the mods -- going into a thread just to post pictures of polar bears without any context or introduction is inflammatory, off-topic, and meant to disrupt the normal discussion?
According to TK definition as quoted, yes. It could be considered trolling. Just as posting puppy gifs, kitten gifs, bat signals, etc. could be trolling. The same could be said of some members who also post on the TH posting hydrogen peroxide pictures in threads, they were never given a warning over that either. That is why I stated in my original response that it needs to be reworded. When the TOS changed in January, many members asked if that definition meant that puppy and kitten and cute animal gifs on certain threads would no longer be allowed. The KG (either KnotPorscha or KnotRiley) assured everyone that was still allowed.
Okay. The problem is that most of the regs understand the kittens and puppies thing whereas it's only the mods doing the polar bears and you are the guys in charge. So when the guys in charge start posting like that without context for the rest of us and at the same time everything else is going down, it starts to feel like an inside joke at the expense of the regs. Not the best way to moderate a forum, IMHO
I understand you don't have to answer questions about the weekend bannings, so it would therefore be helpful if either of the KGs could return to this thread to address the concerns some of us have regarding what happened.
Fair point, but again look at my TH reference. Newbs don't understand the puppy and kitten gifs so is it unfair to them for us to post them.
I doubt the KGs answer anymore tonight since they are usually off work at 5 EST, but they may!
I don't think I asked you to, not sure about others, but honestly? This is not helping.
I said "we" as in the mods. Someone above posted that they wished mods would answer more questions and be more transparent. I also didn't tag you in the post so I'm not sure why you assumed I thought you asked? Nope.
Honestly, I don't care if you think it was helpful or not.
Okkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaay, no need to get such an attitude. You wanted to mod, the admins are leaving you in the dirt to catch their flack (which is what should really make you upset), and you're going to act this way?
I honestly think you're getting way more heated about this than you should be. Maybe you should walk away and cool off for a bit. Not insulting, it really sounds like you're getting super-upset about this. We often tell newbies that being in a discussion forum mean anyone can respond, remember?
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
From the TOS:
Is this post inflammatory?
Posts that contain any hint of maliciousness or provocation of users to gain attention may be removed.
"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.
--
Would you or would you not agree that the mods -- and only the mods -- going into a thread just to post pictures of polar bears without any context or introduction is inflammatory, off-topic, and meant to disrupt the normal discussion?
According to TK definition as quoted, yes. It could be considered trolling. Just as posting puppy gifs, kitten gifs, bat signals, etc. could be trolling. The same could be said of some members who also post on the TH posting hydrogen peroxide pictures in threads, they were never given a warning over that either. That is why I stated in my original response that it needs to be reworded. When the TOS changed in January, many members asked if that definition meant that puppy and kitten and cute animal gifs on certain threads would no longer be allowed. The KG (either KnotPorscha or KnotRiley) assured everyone that was still allowed.
Okay. The problem is that most of the regs understand the kittens and puppies thing whereas it's only the mods doing the polar bears and you are the guys in charge. So when the guys in charge start posting like that without context for the rest of us and at the same time everything else is going down, it starts to feel like an inside joke at the expense of the regs. Not the best way to moderate a forum, IMHO
I understand you don't have to answer questions about the weekend bannings, so it would therefore be helpful if either of the KGs could return to this thread to address the concerns some of us have regarding what happened.
Fair point, but again look at my TH reference. Newbs don't understand the puppy and kitten gifs so is it unfair to them for us to post them.
I doubt the KGs answer anymore tonight since they are usually off work at 5 EST, but they may!
But to me, it's not a question of newbs vs. regulars. It's about the power dynamic. Mods have all the power -- you can warn us, ban us, etc., for doing that. Is a Mod going to warn or ban another mod if they keep posting gifs or pics? What happens when a reg flags a mod's post?
Re: Updated TOS Rumors
But that moderation should be done in as unbiased and impartial a manner as possible. Which isn't what seems to be happening here. See my post above - when chibiyui goes and posts a bunch of fuck-you/no-fucks-given gifs, then gets warned and her gifs modded out, and then I go and post similar gifs of middle fingers and fuck-yous, and get no warning, I have to think that perhaps the mods like me just a little bit better - which means I can get away with just a wee bit more.
Her intent and mine were identical. I see no real difference between her gifs and mine. I would even go so far as to say I was inciting others to create similar posts, as I shared a HUGE list of fuck-you gifs at the end of my post. So why should an imbalanced moderation like that occur? The mods were all over that thread - shit was being removed by mods all over, and it was pinned down so that new comments didn't bump it (which, incidentally, the hoi polloi of TK didn't seem to know was a power available to anyone). I even gave it a couple days - no one went back and modded out my gifs. So all I can assume is that either the mods have a personal bias towards me, in a positive way, or towards chibiyui in a negative way.
If you cannot be a fair moderator, and cannot leave your personal biases at the door - positive AND negative - when you step into a moderator role, you should not be modding.
And - personally - I think the mod-specific forums should be open to viewing by the hoi polloi members, at the very least. If people want to talk shit about other people, they can do it in DMs. But an exclusive mod forum breeds the ability to discuss the rest of us that I find extremely distasteful.
Okay, this is exactly the kind of thing people are complaining about.
On one hand, you can pretend this isn't directed at anyone in particular because you didn't point anyone out. And therefore it's not reportable.
But I've been warned for insulting absolutely no one in particular, Addie has been warned for "insulting" and idea and not a person, and GIFs cannot be proven to be aimed directly at anyone in particular.
So it this worth reporting and a warning? I would say no, but for TK...... it could go either way. It can be inferred as an attack on anyone who is upset with the TOS, so there you go.
Because the TOS are vague and lead to a lot of second guessing.
But hey, if you do like being here...you have a weird way of showing it, but okay.
I don't really feel like reading all the non-answers, but I got through some. Sorry if this has (hasn't) been addressed.
@KnotRiley and @KnotHolly What about all the racist comments/threads? That certainly contributes to a negative environment.
There are numerous veiled comments about how minorities stink up wealthy neighborhoods, and several threads like this one
http://forums.theknot.com/discussion/1058328/i-have-a-wpp#latest
So that's cool, but middle fingers are not. But fuck you is okay? But posting a video of Louis CK is not okay. But saying your neighborhood is a bad place because of all the Puerto Ricans is okay.
Clear as mud.
As a normal 21st century human I have to say racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism embarrasses and upsets me. Your moderators really need to worry about these issues before worrying about what pictures people put up for their signatures.
I wonder what would happen if I put up a signature of KKK member giving the middle finger? What would the decision be????? You guys would be so torn whether to ban me or not.
You could always take your own advice when it comes to this thread and any made by posters who are concerned. There's the metaphorical door, and on proboards you could make your own board where everyone you don't like would not be invited.
But you don't have to, because I am not the arbitrator of this website and neither are you.
I have a few points I wanted to make. I want to try to make this as clear as possible but forgive me if it get ramble-y.
1. Some mods discussed posting a polar gif in certain situations. Basically, in some "eye-roll" worthy threads or replies or in the same instances puppy gifs and kitten gifs would be posted. Again, these posts were in response to situations, not any specific individual as some people like to believe.
2. Like others have stated, mods are human. We are members. Most of us have been part of this community for a while now and have developed personal opinions and relationships with other posters, as have many regs here. When we were asked to be mods, we were told that we could still participate as usual but also had a board we each moderated to watch for TOS violations. Each and every person we warn or ban is seen and reviewed by the KGs so that our personal biases don't get in the way.
3. In case you don't remember, Chit Chat was taken over by the KGs to be modded because the heavy activity and influx of warnings is a lot for someone who is not getting paid and volunteering their time (btw, we were told we needed to logged on at least 3 hours per week, that's all).
4. Ashley's banning was handled solely by KnotHolly and KnotRiley since that was their board they were modding. Since it was their board, we are not required to answer any TOS questions (especially since we didn't handle the warnings and bannings last weekend).
Truth. My whole point is that consistency and transparency is lacking with regards to the TOS and its implementation in various situations. And a few mods seem to be taking that as a personal affront to their ability and power, which I don't think it is - so long as they're capable of moderating without bias.
Chibiyui posts a bunch of fuck-you gifs and they get modded out. I post fuck-you gifs, but I get away with it scot-free.
Jenna posts a statement that perpetuates an extremely damaging stereotype regarding minority populations, and nothing happens, at least so far as I'm privy to. FiancB calls something a "cracker tradition" and she gets warned.
Consistency. Warn everyone who posts fuck-you gifs, or warn no one. Warn everyone who says something racist - whether they actually use a slur or not - or don't warn anyone, whether or not they use a slur.
Or make that delineation CLEAR IN THE TOS. Because if it's totally okay to say, "my neighborhood has a bad reputation because Puerto Ricans live in my city and oh I guess the schools suck too" but it's not okay to say "cracker", then it needs to be clear.
That's all I'm asking - either consistency across issues we're modding, or understanding why one thing is okay but another, similar thing isn't.
Edited to remove the beginning of another thought.
I said "we" as in the mods. Someone above posted that they wished mods would answer more questions and be more transparent. I also didn't tag you in the post so I'm not sure why you assumed I thought you asked? Nope.
Honestly, I don't care if you think it was helpful or not.
Fair point, but again look at my TH reference. Newbs don't understand the puppy and kitten gifs so is it unfair to them for us to post them.
I doubt the KGs answer anymore tonight since they are usually off work at 5 EST, but they may!
Okkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaay, no need to get such an attitude. You wanted to mod, the admins are leaving you in the dirt to catch their flack (which is what should really make you upset), and you're going to act this way?
I honestly think you're getting way more heated about this than you should be. Maybe you should walk away and cool off for a bit. Not insulting, it really sounds like you're getting super-upset about this. We often tell newbies that being in a discussion forum mean anyone can respond, remember?