CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Moderation Complaint - Chuck (Close politician - Boycott Continental films)

Moderation Complaint - Chuck (Close politician - Boycott Continental films)

Started by Sean Cook2 · · 👁 5 views · 12 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Sean Cook2goldengull3Daniel Ward87Charles Fox10Ryan Vaughn7dustyranger64
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#1 ·
Well, after six years of lurking on this forum, I’m finally stepping up to file a formal complaint regarding moderator conduct.

I flagged the following post:

It isn't because I'm angry or personally offended—I'm actually not—I was just enjoying the banter and found the whole trajectory quite amusing. Rather, it's because I believe a rule was broken.

Since the post hadn't been sanctioned yet, I sent a private message to Charles Fox10 asking if he intended to take action.

His response was that he had reviewed the thread and decided it "didn't warrant a ban"—claiming we stayed "within the lines"—while also suggesting we weren't discussing the actual topic but were instead attacking one another. That isn't quite accurate; the conversation drifted toward stereotypes because my interlocutor was quoting my own post, and discussing stereotypes is a massive, essential part of the discussion surrounding cartoons and Žanić's book "how to speak american donkey."

In my reply, I reminded him that he once hit me with a red card for saying "🤣 You're ridiculous! Are kids from California suddenly speaking with a Southern accent?"—to which he replied that the penalty was deserved.

So now, I'd like to ask the supermoderator: is being "stupid and malicious" permitted on this forum? Because I'd love the opportunity to say that to someone myself.

I am also curious why a post containing the phrase "it's worse than hell" wasn't sanctioned, despite my flagging it. Charles Fox10 claims that it all depends on the context.

Just a matter of principle, really—I'd like to know where I stand for future reference.

Thanks for the help!
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#2 ·
In the meantime, Charles Fox10 wiped the entire thread clean—but the question still stands: should that post have actually been flagged or not?
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#3 ·
While I wait for a response, I’d like to add one more thing.

The supermoderators can check my history—I’ve only received five warnings in six years, two of which came from Charles Fox10.

When faced with the insult mentioned, I simply responded: "It isn't wise to speak like that on this forum. 😁" I asked for an apology before we continued, which he refused—a move that only served to prove my point.

Setting that specific incident aside, I remember when this kind of language used to be the norm here. I’ve never been one to stoop to insults, so I was actually glad to see the community finally adopt a standard similar to my own.

Of course, that doesn't apply to the "men's corner" subforum, where Charles Fox10 also moderates. I’ll leave the guys to their infantile chauvinism there, but I don't believe it belongs in any other section.
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#4 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:In the interim, Charles Fox10 wiped the entire conversation clean, yet the fundamental question remains: should that post have been penalized or not?

It should have. We aren't talking about the subject matter here; we're talking about how one treats their interlocutor.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#5 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:While I wait for a response, I figured I'd throw one more thing into the mix.

The supermod can check my track record from the last six years—I've only picked up five warnings total, and two of those were from Charles Fox10.

I just shot back at that insult with: "It's probably not a smart move to talk like that on this forum." 😁She asked for an apology before we could even get back to the debate, but he just shut her down. Honestly, that just proved my point perfectly.

Setting that specific case aside, I remember back when people actually talked like this on this forum all the time. I’ve never been one to sink to someone else's level when they start throwing insults, so it was actually pretty refreshing to see that people here hold themselves to the same standard I do.

Sure, except for that total trash subforum called Men's Corner, which Charles Fox10 moderates too. I'm just gonna leave it to those guys to go ahead and indulge in their usual childish boy's club antics.I mean, I don't think he really belongs on the other subforums.

Don't be shocked if you end up getting flagged for "juvenile boyish chauvinism." 😉

Daniel Ward87
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#6 ·
@ goldengull3, thanks—but what’s your take on my other point?

Daniel Ward87 said:Don't act surprised when you get flagged for "infantile male chauvinism."😉

Daniel Ward87

I'm not sure why you think that would surprise me—and I honestly wonder who exactly is handing out these flags and what their reasoning even is.

Under the men's corner section, it reads: "For fans of beer, remote controls, verbal chauvinism, and other typical guy talk..." By definition, "infantile" implies something childish or immature.

Claiming someone deserves a penalty for being "ridiculous"—which is a generous way of saying "stupid and malicious"—is pure sexism. Try swapping the genders in those examples and then reconsider Charles Fox10's (or perhaps your own?) criteria for sanctioning such remarks.

Charles Fox10's moderation is questionable—partly because he joins the debates and seems to only step in when insults are aimed at Pauletić or his allies. Given that he failed to flag a comment like "this is worse than hell" despite reports and its offensive nature toward others, I'd say he should be removed from moderating this thread.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#7 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:@ goldengull3, thanks, but what's your take on my other point?

I'm not sure why you think that would catch me off guard, and I honestly wonder who would even issue a ban here and how they'd justify it.

Under the men's corner description, it says: "For beer lovers, remote controls, verbal chauvinism, and other guy talk..." Calling that "infantile" is just a fancy way of saying it's childish.

Saying someone deserves a ban for being called "ridiculous"—when really it was just "stupid and malicious"—is pure sexism. Try swapping the genders in those examples and then take another look at Charles Fox10's (or your own) rules for policing that kind of talk.

Charles Fox10's moderation is questionable because he joins the fray and only steps in when people insult Pauletić or his buddies. Since he didn't, for instance, flag a post that said something as foul as "worse than a dog's ass" despite reports and the fact that many found it offensive—and since he treats similar comments the same way—I think he should be removed from moderating this thread.

Let's call him the moderator of this subforum, for example.

The reasoning is pretty straightforward—you're implying Charles Fox10 is infantile (aka immature) and also a verbal chauvinist. If you're looking to hand out bans for the posts mentioned above, then you've basically earned one yourself, if nothing else, for the sexism. As far as I can tell, the men's corner description mentions verbal chauvinism, not male chauvinism. That means you'll see all sorts of posts there, but it doesn't mean the people writing them are chauvinists.

Look, I'm not trying to second-guess Charles Fox10's moderation. Just putting it out there.

Daniel Ward87
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#8 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:The moderator of this sub-forum, for instance.

The logic is pretty straightforward—you’re implying that Charles Fox10 is being infantile (read: immature) and, to top it off, a male chauvinist. If you’re looking for a ban based on those posts, then you’ve earned one yourself—if nothing else, for the sexism. From what I can see, the MK description specifies verbal chauvinism, not male chauvinism. That means you'll find all sorts of posts there, but it doesn't mean everyone posting them is a chauvinist.

I’m not trying to police Charles Fox10's moderation, let's be clear. I'm just offering a warning.

Daniel Ward87

Male chauvinism is inherently infantile—is there any kind that isn't? It's an immanent trait, which is why I said the guys have the privilege of practicing infantile male chauvinism on MK; it should be their oasis, where those "guy moments" aren't tolerated elsewhere—let alone defended by a moderator.
And if it isn't male chauvinism, what kind of verbal chauvinism is being practiced there?

What he wrote can only be categorized as sexism. Whether he personally is a chauvinist or whether everyone posting there is, hasn't been stated—but if you enjoy it, feel free to penalize me for the implications you're drawing.

The point is, you haven't actually said whether that insult deserved a sanction or if Charles Fox10's explanation was acceptable.

Best,

Sean Cook2
Charles Fox10 Charles Fox10 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2009
#9 ·
I wasn't online enough to catch your last PM before you went ahead and filed an appeal. Look, I have no issue with the process, but I haven't deleted a single conversation; your screenshots are from that very first thread about the gentleman in question.

A political moderator responded to your report, and I simply shared my perspective via PM after you reached out to me regarding the post.

The actual moderation of those two posts isn't what I was addressing; I just wanted to clarify my thoughts privately to avoid any misunderstanding.

I'm not quite sure why you dragged the men's corner into this, but it doesn't matter.

Edit: I just noticed your latest post while typing this. If anything I wrote made you feel insulted, please accept my public apology.
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#10 ·
Charles Fox10 said:I haven't been online continuously, so I missed your last PM—and somehow you managed to file an appeal before I could even reply. Look, I have no issue with the process itself, but I haven't deleted a single conversation—your posts are all still right there on that very first thread about the gentleman resident.

One of the politics moderators responded to your report—and I already shared my take via PM when you first reached out about it.

So, the moderation of those two posts is the issue at hand—which I didn't actually touch—rather than my own opinion, which I sent to you via PM just to avoid any misunderstandings.

I'm not entirely sure why you brought the men's corner into this—it feels a bit out of left field—but I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Edit: I just caught your latest post—it popped up right as I was typing this. If anything I wrote came across as offensive, please accept my sincere apologies.

I have no issue with the conversation being deleted—it happens—but I am curious if the author faced any sanctions.

I gathered from the PM you sent that you didn't actually delete those posts—not that it changes much regarding how you handled my message.

Your decision not to remove those posts is effectively a moderator's ruling—you reviewed them, decided nothing was out of line, and concluded they stayed within the rules.

And that, naturally, raises the question—where exactly do we draw those lines?

Thanks for the apology.
Ryan Vaughn7 Ryan Vaughn7 Active Member
154 messages
joined Jul 2009
#11 ·
I went ahead and deleted those posts you guys are talking about. They weren't really worth much more than that anyway.
dustyranger64 dustyranger64 Active Member
76 messages
joined Jan 2008
#12 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:Male chauvinism is basically just childish behavior by nature.

No ban this time, Pomon, but seriously—stop using "natural" as an adjective for everything.
A lot of things can be framed as "natural" depending on how you look at it. It's a total slippery slope, and I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you.

Anyway, let's get back to the actual topic.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#13 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:I don't mind that the thread was deleted, but I am curious if the author actually faced any consequences.

Based on what you sent from the PM, I see you didn't delete the posts yourself, but that doesn't change how you handled my message.

Your decision to "leave the posts alone" is still a moderator call; you looked them over and decided they weren't breaking any rules.

That just brings us back to the question of where those lines are drawn.

Thanks for the apology.

The author isn't being sanctioned, nor will they be, since the post was removed in the meantime. And no, you aren't getting sanctioned either for letting things get a bit personal.

Let's just move on.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads