So, what happened to Thomas Jefferson?

[flyingcheesehead]

As I think of Frank and Slappy agreeing on something I hear this song in my head and see them running hand in hand through fields of wild flowers...

Man, Scott, I haven't heard that since this:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=WIDELANA

 

[SkyHog]

Jay,

I want to assure you that we do review every bad post report we get, and make a judgment based solely on the content of the post, and this next part is important, based on the time of the report. If we review a thread, and find that it's borderline or less, and no action is taken, then we stop reading the thread. So, if a thread deteriorates after we looked at it, we may not be aware at all of the deterioration. So if you reported a thread, nothing happens for a few days, and it gets worse - well - report it again. (But please don't go hog wild, k? Cause we each get emails about bad post reports and I dont need my cell phone paging me every 5 minutes cause someone said "Palin's an idiot" or "Obama's a Muslim" in HT)

I agree that for the most part, there's no political bias in the MC's decisions, but what I do find interesting is that I've reported posts that were pretty hairly, and in fact, offensive to me (and it takes an awful lot to offend me...even more to make me blush), and there was no action taken.

So I guess the moral of the story is: If you're going to report a bad post, make sure you're one of the people that is not considered a "troublemaker" first.

 

[poadeleted20]

Some people are under the impression that because they think a post violates the PoA rules, it must be a violation. However, every Bad Post report is reviewed by the entire MC, and unless a majority agrees that it is a violation, no action is taken. Therefore, two of the five (or three of the six, when we had that many) MC members could agree with the reporter that it's unacceptable, and the post would remain. The fact no action was taken indicates only that several members of the MC felt it was not a violation, and does not meen they have any personal animus against the reporter. In fact, some MC members may have agreed with him/her, just not a majority. All it means is that the consensus of standards of the MC members differs from the reporter's.

When the MC finds a reported post is not out of bounds, if time permits, we try to tell the reporter why we felt that way. We don't always have the time to do that, as it requires an additional drafting, consensus, and vote before being sent. When we start getting paid to do this, perhaps we can make more time for those sorts of responses.

 

[Greebo]

Context of a post also matters. Someone may use a word in a playful manner, and we'll ignore it, while another may use it in a hostile manner, requiring a different response.

And Nick also has a point - the more trouble the MC has with a specific person, whether as a disruptor publicly, or as someone who causes the MC to spend a lot of time on tasks we don't like w/o actually being publicly disruptive, the less tolerant and forgiving we tend to become towards that person. That's rather unavoidable - we are human as well and get tired of people who chafe at us - especially when they seem to do so deliberately.