status-done Is this restriction appropriate? (Mary Muse)

[bmugford]

This is regarding discussion in the following thread -

https://www.namepros.com/threads/see-you-around.1188196/

Regarding VIP member @Mary Muse who currently has an 85%-100% restricted level that started with this exchange.

Wtf are you even talking about -- it's honestly so hard to follow you...

Youtube? What does Youtube have to do with his avatar?

Edit: Now you just issued a warning to me for what I've said about you not having logic.

WOW. What a joke. Talk about "adult" like actions.

Mod team Bravo I guess took offense to that, in a post which received 4 dislikes and 1 like -

You were issued a warning because of your behavior. Do you say, “wtf are you even talking about” to your coworkers and boss in an office environment? If so, then you are the perfect example of a member who will either learn to behave professionally or be removed from NamePros.

In case you missed it, NamePros has expectations for respect; we expect you to be respectful to every member. It can be described as:

​

Do you see us speaking to anyone that way?

Be respectful or leave. It’s that simple.

Edited: Post clarified. We were not calling moderators your boss. We were saying you should treat everyone on NamePros as professionally as you would treat your boss.

I personally did not see anything all that offensive. I think this is a massive overreaction by NamePros.

Is a 85%-100% restriction really appropriate here for a valuable, contributing member.
Someone who has an almost 2 to 1 like to post ratio.

I hope you will reconsider this and reinstate his account and his VIP status.

Thanks,
Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

I personally did not see anything all that offensive.

Agreed; it's not all that offensive.

However, when members receive a warning and their first reaction is to quickly continue the same behavior that just resulted in receiving a warning, that's a good sign that the member is only going to escalate it from there.

With thousands of moderator hours in experience, we have a good feel for when members are going to continue violating the rules and need to be restricted. If we don't restrict them, they will often continue getting warnings until their accounts are automatically closed due to exceeding the threshold.

In many ways, restrictions save members from themselves: gives them a chance to calm down and think about it rationally rather than emotionally.

Learn more:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7748958/

 

[bmugford]

Agreed; it's not all that offensive.

However, when members receive a warning and their first reaction is to quickly continue the same behavior that just resulted in them receiving a warning, that's a good sign that the member is only going to escalate it from there.

With thousands of moderator hours in experience, we have a good feel for when members are going to continue violating the rules and need to be restricted. If we don't restrict them, they will often continue getting warnings until their accounts are automatically closed due to exceeding the threshold.

In many ways, restrictions save members from themselves: gives them a chance to calm down and think about it rationally instead of emotionally.

Learn more:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7748958/

Thanks for the response, but I am not sure how good your feel is honestly. It seems like there are far more members that are upset with the moderators actions than happy with them lately.

I mean so what, the guy made some snarky comments you didn't like. It seems way over the top to restrict his account that much.

Many people use terms similar to WTF. I use "BS" frequently to emphasize a point.

For reference purposes, the guy that was involved in (2) cases involving threats is only 15%-30% restricted. Does that make sense?

Brad

Moderator edit: link added to secondary topic.

 

[karmaco]

Since you are mentioning another thread here are what @Mary Muse posted. He was escalating his insults. How many times did he say something rude before he was restricted? Looks like 4 or 5 times. I like @Mary Muse but you post when your angry is not a good idea.




Post 1——

No one wants to be on a forum where you become subject to infractions for trivial shit like this.


Grow up. If it offends you, move along (or ignore)

Post 2—

removes member's avatar because you don't want that type of "unprofessionalism" on the forum*


*proceeds to post the scene from which the avatar comes from*


Honestly every response @Mod Team Bravo seems to be a power trip -- nothing about this makes sense.


Get some sense of free speech / media or lose your member base. Simple

Post 3–

You've been following along...


There's zero logic to mod actions, and the more @Mod Team Bravo "explains" themselves, the dumber it gets.

Post 4–

Wtf are you even talking about -- it's honestly so hard to follow you...


Youtube? What does Youtube have to do with his avatar?


Edit: Now you just issued a warning to me for what I've said about you not having logic.


WOW. What a joke. Talk about "adult" like actions

Post 5—

You're not my boss. You're on a power-trip. I say "wtf are you even talking about" to someone behind a "Mod shield" that acts like a psycho and has zero logic.


Where is @Eric Lyon


Remove me since you decide to flag every comment I make because I don't agree with you.


This out-of-control moderator is harassing me with multiple warnings.

 

[Mary Muse]

Thanks for taking the time to recap my posts that led to my banning.

My functions are severely limited now -- for example, I can't even quote your post to reply. Just gotta hope you follow along.

Also, when I am able to post, it's all gotta be approved by mods, so who knows what will actually get posted & not silenced.

Waking up in a new day, now I'm 100% confident that my 85-100% restriction is complete and utter bullshit.

Since when can you completely silence someone that's expressing the exact same sentiment that the vast majority of other members are?

I mean we allow threads that literally say NamePros' moderation SUCKS. But I get singled out in a thread by a trigger happy mod.

Everywhere I turn now I see complaints about moderation (specifically Mod Team Bravo)

Oppressive.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

I mean we allow threads that literally say NamePros' moderation SUCKS

The member was informed that it was inappropriate, and he did not continue to do it.

You, on the other hand, continued and continue. You're still expressing yourself unprofessionally, even after being restricted.

That's the difference.

Since when can you completely silence someone that's expressing the exact same sentiment that the vast majority of other members are?

Your restriction has nothing to do with your opinion or sentiments. It has to do with how you convey them, which is unprofessional.

Here's another example:

complete and utter bullshit

Are you able to come up with a professional way to phrase that?

We can think of many ways.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Let's also acknowledge that this is not new behavior from @Mary Muse.

There are 25 official rule reminders and warnings on Mary's account, which do not include subtle rule reminders sent as website notifications.

There is a pattern that is taken into consideration.

 

[Mary Muse]

Who's 'we' in this newly-established, power hungry PC camp?

Seems to me @Mod Team Bravo is the Commander in Chief of this ingenious brigade.

Let's make it like Sunday school!

No, I won't find a way to make it more "professional" and appease your ridiculous, arbitrary standards.

Please keep throwing jabs, under guise of some mediator.

 

[Echo Mod Team]

Who's 'we'

The following provides more information to your question:

There are now multiple team accounts for moderators based on their access level: some moderators have more access and permissions than others, so each team account will represent a different access level. All of the moderators using a specific team account will have the same access and permissions as each other.

Source/Learn more: https://www.namepros.com/threads/why-are-there-mod-team-accounts.1156861/

We hope that helps clarify a bit more.

 

[Arfy]

Just read this thread. When compared with other members who are still allowed on namepros with only 15-30% restriction even after vulgar and racist comments multiple times and a huge community uproar and calls for banning... @Mary Muse 100% restriction seems very disproportionate.

Why is the racist piece of garbage who started this thread allowed to stay on namepros?? -> https://www.namepros.com/threads/sharjil.1173644/

 

[Samer]

@Mary Muse was the most active global chat seller on casual weekends.

Nobody promoted sell more; he is was life of the chat Friday Saturday Sun

 

[bmugford]

Just read this thread. When compared with other members who are still allowed on namepros with only 15-30% restriction even after vulgar and racist comments multiple times and a huge community uproar and calls for banning... @Mary Muse 100% restriction seems very disproportionate.

Why is the racist piece of garbage who started this thread allowed to stay on namepros?? -> https://www.namepros.com/threads/sharjil.1173644/

Just to make it clear to NamePros mods...

My "like" on this comment means I agree with the majority of the content.
It does not mean that I agree with every single word of it.

I think I might need to start adding that disclaimer to every single "like" from now on.

Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

I think I might need to start adding that disclaimer to every single "like" from now on.

If you're going to reply with a disclaimer, why not specify which parts you find dis/agreeable?

 

[bmugford]

If you're going to reply with a disclaimer, why not specify which parts you find dis/agreeable?

No thanks. That seems like far too much of a resource burden to me.

It is entirely unreasonable for mods to be the "like police" and take the position that a "like" is a full endorsement of every single word in a post.

Brad

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

It is entirely unreasonable for mods to be the "like police" and take the position that a "like" is an endorsement of every single word in a post.

Your interpretation of what we've written is mistaken.

Here's what we wrote:

Brad, you agreed with the post that contains this opinion:

In response to the timing of strikes... the fact that the aforementioned user was even around to earn additional strikes, period, is a problem. Not the amount of time in between each strike.

Why are your expectations different for @.X.?

It seems like a double standard.

It does not say you agreed with that quote. It states a fact about that quote: you selected "Agree" on the post that contains that quote.

Its purpose was to give you an opportunity to specify whether you agreed with that part of the post.

When you ignored that opportunity, we asked you explicitly:

Do you agree with this quote or not?

In response to the timing of strikes... the fact that the aforementioned user was even around to earn additional strikes, period, is a problem. Not the amount of time in between each strike.

Then you wrote more than 100 words in your reply to our post and still did not answer the question with a simple yes or no.

Since it was clear you misunderstood, we described that we've experienced that situation:

In the past, we've Liked content where members wrote a lengthy response, similar to the response by @Peak.Domains, arguing that if you Like a post, then it should be the whole thing and not only a part of it that you like.

If that's still unclear, then here's our response from January 2020:

In our opinion, a "Thanks" or "Like" does not necessarily mean that the person thanking or liking the post agrees with, is thankful for, or likes the entire post; it could just be part of the post.

We are thankful that he said, "We are happy to support NamePros with sponsorship." The "Thanks" feature is a nice, quick way to express that.

You've labeled us as something we are not.

Here's a tip:

• It's more productive to seek clarity than cast stones.

We hope that helps.


Edit: This discussion continues at https://www.namepros.com/threads/1188200/page-2#post-7752084