Women's Corner: Third attempt at posting three threads regarding sexual assaults

1. Why was the first thread locked, and for how long?
2. Why hasn't the second thread even been moderated for days?
3. Why was the third thread shut down immediately while the second one stayed open, even though they’re basically the same thing?
4. Why are only direct insults—like calling someone a jerk or a loser—getting people banned, but not the insults directed at rape victims or women in general? I mean, there's all this stuff about "risk mitigation" for sexual assault and labeling women as "promiscuous" or mentally unstable. What happened to the rest of Rule 6 in the Women's Corner? If that doesn't count as harassment or flaming, then we might as well just use bots or scripts instead of mods. We don't really need actual humans with common sense if they're just going to hand out bans for direct insults and ignore everything else. If those comments aren't considered offensive or flaming, couldn't they have at least been moved to off-topic?
5. Why were the posts after the moderator's warning and the supposed closing just deleted instead of being left up with a ban applied?
6. Why was my entire previous thread on unknown wiped out because of one single question that got a user banned (by rustydrifter10), yet an identical thread on unknown was opened just before and then closed (by William Bennett53)?
7. Is there even a specific policy or guiding philosophy behind moderating these types of threads (which are meant for support) if one even exists?
a) Is constantly lecturing people about reducing the risk of sexual assault considered off-topic or flaming?
b) Is mourning the victims of false accusations considered off-topic or flaming?
c) Is diagnosing mental or intellectual issues actually allowed under the rules?
d) Is it okay to deny the Penal Code of the United States and just make up your own definitions of sexual assault?
I just want to know so I can avoid them in the future.
8. If the moderators of the Women's Corner don't plan on responding after being asked across four different threads over seven weeks, I guess I'd appreciate it if they just said so clearly.

Thanks.

I find myself searching for answers to these exact questions as well.

Is it permissible for me to enter a discussion regarding traffic accidents and suggest that someone essentially invited their own fate by driving at four in the morning—knowing full well that’s when the drunk drivers are usually heading home from the bars?

Or am I allowed to jump into a thread about lung cancer and argue that those who smoke simply brought it upon themselves?

unknown. It’s because I closed that thread on unknown the moment I realized it had nothing to do with the bank, and in my haste, I completely missed the fact that it contained prohibited content. We ended up deleting it in the meantime.

William Bennett53 said:unknown. I mean, I only closed that thread on the forum because I realized it wasn't about the moderator, and I totally missed that it had prohibited content in there. We ended up just deleting the whole thing anyway.

Thanks for getting back to me, but I wasn't really asking why it was deleted—and honestly, it wasn't even about the prohibited stuff. I wanted to know why everything else that *wasn't* against the rules got wiped out too. So, yeah, my question still stands. Along with all the others.

It’s simply because we make it a rule not to edit anyone else's posts. There are far too many sensitive individuals out there who would immediately jump to the conclusion that we were tampering with their words.
I am marking question 6 as resolved. 👍

William Bennett53 said:There are probably tons of sensitive people out there who would think we're changing things on them or whatever.
I’m calling question 6 answered. 👍

Yeah, I guess deleting everything and ignoring it all is way less offensive than just picking at little pieces. 🤔 And honestly, nothing is more insulting than labeling a newbie a total moron who can't even remember what they posted a few hours ago. 🤔

I can't wait to see the answers to the rest of these questions. Such "sensitive" topics.

P.S. Question number 9. Why isn't it the actual moderators or supermods of Women's Corner (Sabaa, Nero, Grace Moore11) or the specific mods involved in a topic (6: rustydrifter10) answering me? Instead, it's some random supermod from Politics—who, by any chance, comes from the exact same PDF as a mod who hasn't been moderated or even sanctioned for direct insults, diagnosing people, or flaming? Did I miss something in the rules of unknown? Can the supermod of unknown come explain the policy and the moderation failures over at Women's Corner?

Dorian Gray, I don't know if you're trying to help the Politics mod or the Women's Corner mods, but you're really missing the mark here. 👍

Look, this isn't the Women's Corner; we don't tolerate trolling here. If you actually think you can keep up this kind of nonsense, both this thread and your time spent in a blue uniform will be incredibly brief.

William Bennett53, a moderator for the unknown section and the appropriate individual to address regarding any moderation inquiries for this subforum.

This situation is even more dire than it was during the era of 🙂

William Bennett53, does playing dumb and trolling another member just to be difficult actually count as breaking the rules here?

William Bennett53 said:Look, this isn't the Women's Corner. We punish trolling here, and if you think you can just keep up with this nonsense, both this thread and your stay here will be cut very short.

William Bennett53, a moderator for this subforum and the right person to answer any questions about how moderation works here

So why does the rulebook say you're a supermoderator for Politics, not the Women's Corner? And why does it also say that appeals and final decisions are handled by supermoderators?

I really don't mind following clear rules, but maybe you could point out which rule I’m breaking right now, or which one mentions the moderator for this section.

• "Appeals are handled by the designated moderator, though their assistant moderators or other administration members who are familiar with the case may also get involved."
• "The final decision on an appeal is made by a supermoderator who reviews all claims from both sides. If they are directly involved, they might even decide before the moderator responds. Administrators will weigh in if they feel it's necessary."
• "List of supermoderators:
  William Bennett53 - Politics.
  Sabaa - Women's Corner."
• "Appeals submitted in an offensive or vulgar manner won't be considered"

I honestly don't see any designated moderators, assistant moderators, supermoderators, or admins stepping up regarding those three threads about the gray area of sexual assault. All I see is my thread being ignored, and I don't see anything offensive or vulgar about it.

So, yeah, maybe I'm just being slow, but since you're the moderator here, could you please explain the right way to ask these things? I just want to know what kind of questions are allowed and what gets someone banned in the sexual assault threads over in the Women's Corner.

I missed your post over on the main board, but I've gone ahead and fixed everything now. Regarding your questions about why certain threads were locked or left unmoderated, you've already received an explanation via private message—there's really no need to go over the same thing twice. As for anything else, the moderators and the staff from Women's Corner will get back to you when they have a moment; they don't necessarily have to jump on it immediately.

@Grace Sullivan42/">@@Grace Sullivan42, I was actually addressing your sixth question. That particular point concerned the moderation of the unknown, and as it happens, I am a moderator for that section. The confusion seems to have stemmed from the fact that I merely closed the thread in the unknown rather than deleting it or issuing you a strike for leaking moderator communications. As I previously noted, that was an oversight on my part. Once you reposted the topic in the unknown, rustydrifter10 noticed it and removed the thread; when she saw a duplicate still active in the unknown, she cleared that one out as well. You later inquired why the entire discussion was wiped instead of just the problematic comment, and I believe I explained that we don't edit posts because it creates too many technical headaches for us. My involvement is strictly limited to your inquiry regarding the unknown moderation; I have nothing to do with the Women's Corner. For any questions regarding the Women's Corner, you'll need to wait for someone from that team or perhaps Adminica. I haven't involved myself in that side of things, nor do I intend to.

rustydrifter10 said:I missed your post on the forum earlier, but I've fixed it now. Regarding why those threads were locked and weren't moderated, I already answered you via DM, and we aren't going to go over the same thing twice. As for everything else, the mods and the Women's Corner staff will get back to you when they can—they don't have to respond instantly.

So, basically, it's checkmate. You pull a quote from a private message, and I’m stuck because if I comment or even try to deny it, I'll get a strike (and then a ban) just for bringing up private messages.

I guess I can't even comment on how long this "instantly" is supposed to take, because then I'd be breaking rules about things I'm not allowed to discuss either.

Thanks, I get it now—both your answer to me and where the priorities lie regarding rape victim threads. 👋

It’s perfectly fine to discuss the contents of private messages if they involve moderation discussions... just those specific exchanges. It’s no different from posting a notification about a ban, which is also a private message that often includes context from moderators—nobody gets penalized for that. After all, that's how user inquiries get resolved. However, if an explanation has already been provided in your DMs, you won't receive the same answer twice here. We generally don't repeat ourselves in public threads either...

1. The first thread has been permanently closed—it basically devolved into people throwing diagnoses at the author and bickering with one another, which wasn't the point at all. The goal was to share experiences and talk about those "gray areas," but instead, it turned into a discussion about rape and other forms of sexual violence that don't actually fall into that gray zone. In the meantime, we’ve opened a second thread—we decided to rename it so it can serve as a space to discuss sexual violence more broadly, covering the whole topic properly.

2. We couldn't get to it immediately, but as soon as Sabaa and I arrived, we went through the thread together and cleared everything out according to the Women's Corner rules.

3. That third thread was just pure provocation. Even if it wasn't, there was really no reason to start a new one when a similar topic already exists. We made it clear in that other thread that any closure would only be temporary while we moderated it—which we did that very same day. You actually started this new thread right after the previous one was closed.

4. That’s exactly what the first thread became—closing it was the only logical move, otherwise, almost every single post would have ended up being deleted or flagged.

5. Look, that's my call as a moderator. Those posts were written at the exact same moment I was typing out the warning. In cases like this, I always delete them if there are just one or two posts that slip in right after a warning—you can tell they were posted simultaneously. Unless, of course, they're specifically commenting on the moderation itself.

7. I don't really follow the question. What is the purpose of any thread, anyway? 🤷

Grace Sullivan42 said:1a) Is repeatedly lecturing about reducing the risk of rape considered off-topic or flaming?
b) Is mourning the victims of false accusations off-topic or flaming?
c) Is diagnosing mental health or intelligence issues against the rules?
d) Is it allowed to deny the Penal Code of the United States and create your own definitions of rape?

a) Yes, and we flagged those posts accordingly.
b) I'm not sure I follow—what are you getting at here?
c) No, it isn't; we flagged those too.
d) Could you please provide some examples of posts like that?

Grace Sullivan42 said:1. Why was the first thread shut down, and for how long?

It got closed because it turned into an attempt to psychoanalyze the author. And it’s gone for good.

2. Why hasn't the second thread been moderated for days?

Because there wasn't a moderator available.

3. Why was the third thread shut down immediately while the second one stayed open, even though they're basically the same thing?

Simply because they are the same type. One provocative thread was enough to cover that whole topic.

4. Why are only direct insults (calling someone a jerk or an idiot) getting banned, but not the insults directed at rape victims or women in general—like those "advice" posts that minimize sexual assault risk or characterize victims as having mental issues or being promiscuous? What happened to the rest of Rule 6 in the United States Code? If that's the case, we might as well just use bots or scripts instead of actual mods who just hand out bans for direct insults; we don't need living people with common sense. If this isn't seen as insulting or flaming, couldn't it at least be moved to off-topic?

I’d actually love to see an example of what you mean here, because what can I say to such a vague accusation? Of course, there might be things we didn't ban, or things we didn't realize were insulting victims. Or are you trying to imply that we secretly encourage insulting victims and that's why we don't ban those posts?🤷

5. Why were the posts after the moderator's warning and supposed conclusion just deleted instead of left up and then banned?

Because that was the moderator's decision.

6. Why was my entire previous thread on Pžk deleted because of one single banned question (by Nica), while an identical thread on Washington, D.C. was only recently closed (by Dorian Gray)?

-

7. Is there actually any policy or guiding philosophy behind moderating these kinds of threads (which are meant to be supportive), or does one even exist?
a) Does repeatedly lecturing people on how to reduce rape risks count as off-topic or flamebait?
b) Is mourning the victims of false accusations off-topic or flaming?
c) Is diagnosing someone's mental capacity or intelligence actually within the rules here?
d) Can people just ignore the United States Code and try to write their own definitions of rape?
I'm just trying to figure out what to steer clear of for next time.

Seriously though, give me some examples—like, what does ignoring the United States Code actually look like in practice?