rustydrifter10 said:I actually reached out to the Pet Forum moderators to chat about your ban. Personally, I felt like a hundred-point penalty for what you did was way over the top, so I wanted to dig a little deeper to see if I was missing some crucial context behind the decision.
They explained to me that they keep the adoption threads strictly organized because keeping things streamlined is vital for finding homes for the animals—which is the whole point of those threads—and it helps clear out any unnecessary off-topic chatter.
The posts were removed because the mods felt they didn't belong there and might actually make it harder for someone to adopt a cat. After that, a warning was issued. Now, ignoring or arguing with a moderator's warning is a direct rule violation that carries a 30-point penalty, but in your case, they just deleted the post. Then, you went ahead and reposted that deleted content, which counts as another violation under the "persistence" category. That’s when you ended up getting hit with that 100-point strike.
Since I care quite a bit about how we communicate here, I don't think the massive strike should have been for the initial post itself, especially since I could clearly see you had good intentions in what you wrote. It seems to me that in situations like this, there should be room for lighter penalties instead of treating everyone the same as the trolls who post just to provoke people.
Usually, the standard practice is to let the moderator explain their reasoning first. Since I'm not on that specific forum all the time, but I knew you definitely deserved some kind of reprimand, I didn't want to push back against your ban until I heard back from the mod. Unfortunately, we weren't online at the same time, so by the time we finally hashed out the details of your strike, your ban was already about to expire.
I still maintain that a hundred points was overkill, even if you did deserve some sort of consequence.
First off, thanks for actually stepping up to comment and finally confirming that the moderator was out of line here. I was honestly starting to get the impression that everyone just blindly backs up whatever their fellow mods decide, which would be incredibly unfair and would pretty much defeat the entire purpose of this subforum. So, thanks for that—even if I did have to bend over backwards a bit to finally squeeze that confirmation out of you (if you can even call it that). 😁I hope that isn't the case—or at least, I hope it stops being a thing from here on out.
I was told that during the adoption process, they hold reviews to make sure everything is looking good. I guess it’s just in the interest of helping everyone settle in, which is basically the whole point. Plus, it helps clear out all that unnecessary off-topic clutter in the process..
See, that’s exactly where the issue lies. If my post was actually off-topic—which I don't personally agree with, but whatever—then why wasn't it deleted along with the rest of the off-topic clutter in this thread?
How is it that posts that are clearly, beyond any doubt, off-topic haven't been deleted yet? Is it just because they were written by forum members that the moderator—who apparently "knows" them, unlike me—decided to highlight? 😕 I honestly don't see any other reason for this. Do you actually see one? (Since you mentioned you saw the posts, I'm curious.) I mean, isn't moderating based on that kind of logic pretty unacceptable? It seems like it could be harmful, too—not just for the community members and the PDF, but ultimately for the animals they're trying to help.
Since you mentioned you’ve gone through the thread and are up to speed on the recent posts, I wanted to ask your opinion: do you think those posts where people are trying to comfort the former owner—specifically about getting Lotte back (the cat they're currently trying to rehome in this same thread)—are actually on-topic?
I don't have any issue with "spoiling" them, as my ex-owner used to accuse me of doing. My actual problem is with what potential new owners take away from those posts. I guess they just end up concluding that there's something fundamentally wrong with the cat.
So, does that actually count as being on topic? I guess we'll see.
And it’s also in the interest of integration. I guess we're talking about Lotte's cats again—specifically those posts where people are telling their former owner how things are going.
It's not like she did anything wrong. Honestly, maybe she should just go find herself a different cat.,
And then, get this—they just refuse to write it down. (and explain)
I guess I'm just wondering why they ended up returning Lotte to the shelter after only a month. She was supposedly being rehomed, but now she's back in the system. Any idea what happened? 😕
Are you noticing nonsense? These posts stay on topic and actually help with rehoming Lotte, but my post where I’m just defending her—that doesn't count? 😕
Even with those posts, that cheeky moderator didn't bother deleting my entire thread—she just wiped my specific post instead.
In which I am trying, in a perfectly well-meaning, polite, and well-argued manner, to demonstrate that maybe the cat isn't actually the problem...The one trying to find a new foster home, and the person who started this thread.So, she just deleted my post and then went ahead and nuked my account? A total ban? And on top of that, she actually tried to justify it by claiming my post might somehow mess up the adoption process for a specific cat?! I guess that's one way to handle things. A post where I’m essentially "defending" this cat being rehomed is considered off-topic and harmful to her adoption chances 🤦, but posts telling the former owner she did nothing wrong and suggesting she just get a different cat—all while conveniently hiding why Lotte was returned in the first place—are those posts actually helping find Lotte a new home?To me, that's just completely illogical. Don't you think?
The posts were deleted because the moderator decided they didn't belong there and might make it harder to find the cat a home.
But it wasn't judged that the posts which *actually* make it harder to find the cat a home are the ones left by the moderator herself, specifically
the posts making it obvious that the former owner returned the exact same cat after only a month, while everyone on the thread is busy comforting the former owner and telling her, again, that she isn't to blame (so the cat must be?) and that she should just pick out a different cat?! Won't those specific posts and others like them hurt Lotte? Won't any potential adopter see those posts and conclude something is wrong with Lotte, causing them to leave the thread to look for some other "normal" cat?! And those posts are still right there.
And can someone tell me (since the moderator ignored these questions, and I really think it pertains to the quality of moderation on this forum), is it actually okay to withhold the reason why the former owner returned the cat? It seems like the very first question any potential adopter would ask when they see a thread about a returned cat, especially when they see posts saying
she should just get a different cat since she isn't at fault for having to return this one?? Do you see what I'm trying to point out here, or why this feels so absurd to me?
Sorry for the long rant, but I honestly don't know how else to phrase this to highlight how nonsensical this logic is and how poorly this thread has been moderated.
I get attacked immediately after asking the most logical and expected question possible—
why was the cat returned and what was the actual issue if the former owner is truly blameless—only to have the moderator delete my post, give me a warning, and ban me?
You mentioned you're familiar with the topic, so tell me: does it look to you like this thread is being moderated properly, fairly, and in a way that actually helps this cat?? Because that's what's bothering me most. What kind of adopter is going to take this cat? Doesn't this drastically lower her chances of finding a new home?! How can this kind of moderation be acceptable if the goal is supposed to be helping animals get adopted?! You can say I'm being dramatic, but please let me be extra sensitive about this, given that I have a cat myself (I'm sure I'll be accused of talking about my own pet again 😁), whom I found small, miserable, and sick. Her well-being means everything to me, and that experience living with my own cat has made me incredibly protective of cats and their fates... So, yeah, maybe I am being dramatic.
Lately, I've been spending more time on the Pets forum and planned to keep trying to help other cats, but this whole situation with Lotte's thread has been exhausting... That's why I don't want to just let it go (if I had just received some random warning elsewhere, I probably wouldn't be writing about this for weeks), but I want the moderation on this forum to be reviewed. I want answers to these questions and for it to be determined if the moderation policy used on Lotte's thread is actually acceptable. If it isn't, it needs to be reported to the people in charge so we can improve the quality of the forum and, ultimately, better serve these animals.
That’s really my main concern, mostly because I feel a bit foolish—or maybe just intimidated—by the idea. I guess what I mean is that moderation over there should probably stay strictly professional. Given all the existing friendships and connections within the community, it feels like the only thing worth policing should be whether people are actually looking out for animal welfare. At the end of the day, we're talking about lives and well-being, so that's really where the focus ought to be.
Living beings....not about cars or interior design (and I really don't mean to offend those subforums). 😁So, I guess you really have to watch out for that kind of stuff over there.
With the other PDFs, I honestly didn't care much about whether a moderator would take sides just because someone is their friend or not. But here? Given everything that’s gone down, it actually stung quite a bit. It wasn't just about me, either—even if I did manage to survive a three-day ban. 🙂 😁It’s not just about being annoying; it’s that this kind of policy—the exact same stuff we saw in Lottin's thread—actually hurts the animals. It honestly just lowers their chances of finding a new home.
Maybe there should be some kind of explanation on their profiles when someone adopts an animal only to end up returning them later? It feels like we should probably know why they were brought back. I guess potential new foster parents joining this thread can just judge the situation for themselves.
Who's to blame?And does anyone actually care, or are they just going to breeze in here and skim through everything I’ve already laid out?
If we’re really going to insist that the reason the cat was returned is strictly confidential, then wouldn't it make sense to just scrub the posts where people clearly mention she was sent back? Especially those comments telling the former owner to "just go get a different cat." As it stands, this thread doesn't feel like it's actually about Lotta anymore. It feels more like a commentary on the former owner, which makes it seem like all the talk about her is on-topic while anything regarding Lotte's own temperament is somehow off-topic. I guess it also ends up making it look like there's something wrong with the cat itself.
If we’re claiming the reason the cat was returned is a secret, then shouldn't all those posts telling the former owner to just go get a different cat be scrubbed from the thread? Those comments don't really have anything to do with Lotta, and honestly, they might just end up hurting her. I guess it doesn't make much sense to leave them up.
That's exactly the question. Sent a message to the moderator.
I guess someone should probably just delete posts like that too.So, I got a warning, and then I got banned. Just my luck, I guess. 😕