When it comes to Ringplus forum moderation, time has not brought about change. This quote, posted more than two years ago, is just as applicable today as it was then:
"The problem seems to rest with this sentence from the FAQ - "In order to maintain our community, moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time." "Any reason" seems to have become anything that is critical of R+ whether true or not, whether meant in a helpful vein or not, whether civilized or not." - Bruce_J (circa 2/2015) (bold added for emphasis) https://discourse.ringplus.net/t/censorship/3410/5
IMO:
This clause is the unspoken go to justification for the many actions Mods take against members . They''ll declare the forum guidelines have been violated and attach a link to them, but as a general practice, they won't specify which rule was broken. It's caused some VMs and EC members to be drunk with unchecked authority. Unbeknownst to most members, VMs have established their own set of "internal" rules and guidelines. These too, are discretionary and inconsistently applied.
After being subjected to a publicly issued "official warning" and subsequent "ban" in conjunction with witnessing the crazed manner in which JTSR71 was treated, convinced me the whole site was being run by . . . . (I'll let you fill in the blank).
To illustrate this point, I'll recount events BEFORE, DURING and AFTER my own banning.
BEFORE
The thread titled "The new RingPlus Smart Dialer" was moving along smoothly when a member commented:
"It puzzles me why anyone cares about the progress of the dialers. They are going to make our use of R+ harder by having to connect to the Internet every day to download content." http://bit.ly/2lvjGOS
In response, a Mod posted (accompanied by two Mod upvotes):
"From the comments I've been reading of many in the last 10 months or so on this forum, I believe the solution to your puzzle is that there exist some regular forum commenters who appear to me to wish that R+ would fail. I've observed such commenters pick on countless issues to highlight, apparently, for the sake of bringing every little issue to the forefront. The delivery of the dialer is just one such issue. The strategy of such commenters appear to be centered around barraging the forum with any issue with R+ about which they can rattle on, regardless of relative significance." http://bit.ly/2lxA4OX
The subsequent comments made by myself and the Mod on this topic were as follows:
Me - "The solution to this is simple. No issue(s) = no rattle." http://bit.ly/2maBPOL
Mod - "I believe this is unrealistic." http://bit.ly/2lvf8b7
Me - "You're entitled to your belief. Sure would be nice to test it out though, right?" http://bit.ly/2lvmGuq
Mod - [b]"Legally_Speaking: You're entitled to your belief.
All, please refrain from these type of comments that violate forum guidelines. It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying "You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief."
@Legally_Speaking : This comment constitutes an official warning, & further violations of forum guidelines may
result in further consequences.
All: Further comments in this discussion about this very comment will be violations of the forum guidelines, & will result in further consequences.
Comments and / or disagreements with any mod action can be expressed in a discussion focused on such action. Additionally, such mod action can be appealed to the ethical committee."
[/b]
This "official warning" was publicly issued on 1/13/17. As stated previously, having never been apprised (via PM or otherwise) of this admonishment, I was totally unaware of its existence until the next day after stumbling across JTSR71's thread ( unexplainably scrubbed by Hoan). I want to know what is an "official warning." Whenever I revisit the Mod's stated justification for the warning - "It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying 'You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief'," - I still find myself scratching my head. This prompted me to PM KentE in search of a coherent explanation. This is his response. Take from it what you will.:
[b]"You should have received a PM of the official warning, and I'll ask the issuing mod to send that to you. Please note that the reasons for the action of the mod may differ than my thoughts below.
From reviewing the changelog record of all deleted posts, it seems that there was a large "sweep-up" in that thread of off-topic and 'relatively minor' infractions of the forum guidelines. (but see comment below). To be specific, many comments deleted (not just yours) were viewed as being intentionally off-topic, disruptive to the thread, argumentative for the sole sake of arguing, non-constructive, disrespectful to other members, etc. As was noted by other members via the community flag system, almost every comment in that thread fora couple of days could have been judged as violating the forum guidelines, or a reply to a comment that was in violation of the forum guidelines..
re: "relatively minor". A first, or rare, occurrence of a 'relatively minor' guideline infraction is usually just deleted or edited, and it's over with. A pattern of such behavior, however, is judged differently than a "first, or rare, occurrence". It would seem that the mod considered a 'pattern' of posting behavior in that thread in making the call.
(I'll note at this point that it's likely that most, if not all, moderators might feel they perceive an "intentionally disruptive" pattern when viewing a record of your comments.)
The warning was noted in the thread as a matter of expediency, and so that multiple members with similar posts would also see the warning. The decision to post such a warning in-thread is left to the discretion of an
individual mod. Although viewing the deleted comments 'in situ' (in the exact order they originally appeared in the thread, chronologically with comments that were not deleted) is complicated and labor intensive, it seems that the mod issuing the warning viewed your contributions in that thread as being the primary cause of the thread being derailed.
As to the impact of an "official warning". The moderators have developed a system for possible repercussions of multiple violations of the forum posting guidelines. There is no immediate impact from an "official warning", but it is permanently logged in the moderator records. (It's also reviewed by other mods when it's logged, and if any mod disagrees with the "official warning", the log recording would change from "official warning" to "friendly reminder", which has no permanent impact, other than increasing the likelihood a a similar infraction receiving an "official warning" rather than another "friendly reminder".
The "official warning" may be used eventually when considering whether a forum ban is appropriate..
There are now 4 possible bans:
A "timeout" ban is temporary, lasting 24-48 hours: typically used when a member loses control for understandable reasons. (usually, a stressful situation.)
Any ban done without confirmation from a second mod is automatically considered a "timeout" ban until/unless determined otherwise by confirming votes of other moderators.
A First-Stage ban is temporary, and lasts 5 days, and requires a consensus of the mod team..
A Second-stage ban is temporary, and lasts 10-14 days, and requires a consensus of the mod team
A 3rd-stage ban is permanent: requires consensus of the mod team (by convention, a unanimous vote), and triggers an automatic review by the Ethical Committee.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, ban "stages" may be skipped, or may be combined into a single ban. (For example, a first- and second-stage ban may be issued concurrently, and severe infractions may
result in an immediate permanent ban.)
Longer-term, an "official warning" may have an impact. Official warnings are logged so that a pattern of behavior can be viewed. Mods use a "3-strike" rule as a default method. 3 "official warnings" = 1 bannable offense.
Some of the logic here: repeating needs for "official warnings" indicates that a member has no intention of modifying their posting behavior to remain within the forum guidelines.
Some members repeatedly "push the envelope" in forum behavior, never quite crossing the line in a single post that would justify a ban if considered in isolation-- considered as part of a pattern of behavior, that view changes.
Although I hope that this is never something you need to worry about, I should perhaps also mention that moderators are interested in preserving the privilege of posting in the forum as widely as possible-- but moderators are perhaps more interested in preserving the needs of the community for a productive and pleasant forum experience. It's possible, though rare, that moderators could do an extensive review of posting history of a member, and come to the conclusion that the community is clearly "better off" without
the disruptive presence of a particular individual.
It's far less rare that this 'test' might be used as a contributing factor in determining whether an official warning, or a ban, is appropriate.."[/b] (emphasis added)
This response is the basis for my assertion that VMs have their own set of rules that only they are privy to. None of this is included in the guidelines for members to see. Nevertheless, after the above PM, I await communication from the issuing Mod. Instead, I get another PM from KentE stating the following:
[b]"I've spoken to moderator jamielih, who feels that the official warning in-thread is sufficient to constitute notice of an official warning.
There's nothing in our internal rules the makes this view 'incorrect'.
However, since it's counter to my personal position, I have reviewed the thread including deleted comments, and concur with the decision. :
In thread https://social.ringplus.net/discussion/8791/the-new-ringplus-smart-dialer/p4
you have received an official warning for violations of the forum guidelines. https://social.ringplus.net/discussion/comment/131980/#Comment_131980
"_________________________________________ Legally_Speaking:
You're entitled to your belief.
All, please refrain from these type of comments that violate forum guidelines. It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying "You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief."
@Legally_Speaking: This comment constitutes an official warning, & further violations of forum guidelines may result in further consequences.
.......such mod action can be appealed to the ethical committee."
The reasons for the official warning are spelled out in my previous reply to you, and encompass intentionally derailing a topic, including a pattern of argumentative behavior deemed to be primarily for the purpose of being argumentative, disruptive and unconstructive.
Follow the link below to check it out: https://social.ringplus.net/messages/2858#27490
Have a great day!"[/b](emphasis added)
Intentionally derailing? The derailment began with a Mod's post. Pattern of behavior??? Where is this mentioned as a rule? The originally stated justification for the warning was, ". . . these type of comments that violate forum guidelines. It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying "You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief." That justification was later changed to overall "pattern of posting behavior." I find it quite questionable how one person can post "u are entilled to ur opinion...even though it is wrong," (RP__R0CKS) and receive no admonishment. Yet, I post "You're entitled to your belief. Sure would be nice to test it out though, right?" and the first sentence alone is extracted and used to justify an "official warning." Interesting.
Regarding Mods notifying members of the nature and existence of adverse actions taken against them, there is clearly a disconnect among the Mods. KentE indicates notice should've been issued. Chelle has stated:
[b]"Members almost never get permanently banned, the first time. They're typically warned, there are some PMs that get exchanged between the offender and a mod and, only if the member continues to violate forum guidelines-- despite being warned-- are they temporarily banned for a short cooling off period. Usually the cooling off period is sufficient for someone to collect their thoughts and gain some additional perspective, since they're out of the "heat of battle." They're automatically reinstated within 1-5 days (depending on the circumstances) and, in most cases, they pay closer attention to forum posting rules and everyone moves on with their lives.
Permanent bans are usually a result of someone purposely behaving badly and, literally, trying to get banned. It's never done lightly and always involves senior management. While a permanently banned person can certainly appeal to the ethical committee they should know that all documentation and screenshots are saved and, by the time a permanent ban has been instituted, the evidence is pretty compelling and the chances of reversal are small.
Since permanent bans almost always come after warnings and cooling off bans it's rare for a person to be surprised, when it finally happens."[/b] http://bit.ly/2kAQw1v Then we have Jamielih who flat out refuses to PM notification because there's no rule compelling him/her to do so and s/he doesn't want to. Which brings us back to ". . . moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time." Unfettered, Unquestionable Authority.
I'll leave you to digest that and follow-up later with the circumstances leading to the BAN.