Solidarity Thread

[Peter45]

Hi everybody

last week I wrote this posting

At that time @QUAD DOMAINS had an Impact Score of ca -170, @Domain noob was at -15
I mentioned these two members because the unfairness which their accounts had been treated with was evident to everybody.

Today
Quad Domains: - 3
Domain Noob (notably without any activity since then): + 28

There are good people in this community, people who care and are ready to take action upon it.


Unfortunately downvoting leads to the poster's account being penalised as it lowers its Impact Score.
You have surely met cases in which accounts were unfairly penalised through a questionable use of the downvoting tool.
Seeing one's posting disagreed with with no apparent reason doesn't annoy as much as seeing one's account unfairly penalised/punished.

In my view the fact that said penalisation is conducted mostly anonymously is extremely toxic for this community.


This thread offers you the chance of flagging up - be it simply through a link or adding a screenshot or a brief explanation - postings which in your view caused their author to be unfairly penalised.
Interested readers will look into it and decide whether to take action or not.

Let's uplift and encourage where anonymous penalising demoralises and intimidates.
Let's counter the negativity spreading through anonymous penalising with positivity.

 

[Peter45]

#11

@Peak.Domains, 1 question, 3x penalisations

What does the reader learn from that -3 figure?

 

[Peak.Domains]

What does the reader learn from that -3 figure?

People probably thought that it wasn't the place to ask for a discount, no problem.

How am I hurt by having a little -3 next to my post?

If someone does find it useful, they can upvote, or they can read it for themselves

I remain unscatched by this downvotes. I will be okay. I am strong.

I'm glad you found a fun little hobby for yourself. It's truly remarkable, what you've put together in this thread.

 

[Peter45]

People probably thought

Thanks for making my point peaky
Probably

Everybody can speculate about what those downvotes mean, why they were given, what should the poster or the community learn from them etc., but I don't understand why people should communicate in riddles and let the community speculate.
Clearly you find some utility in it, I don't.



I don't know why you find this thread funny peaky. Many people find anon downvotes annoying, not funny, others feel hurt as the main function of anon downvotes is to signalise trolling. There is nothing funny in being labeled as a troll Peak.Domain, particularly if you are a newbie.
I thought Vips would be experienced enough to not need to get these basics explained.

I am strong

Well we all are proud of you peaky!
I'm glad - I'm really am - to know you remaining "unscatched" when 3 people signalise to the community that in their view you are a troll Peak.Domain

 

[Peak.Domains]

Keep up the good fight, you're spending your precious time on this planet on something very noble and important and your impact will be felt. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone felt this level of passion and commitment towards something.

This is my new favorite thread!

 

[Peter45]

I just rummaged around and saw that you are the strong and unscatched author of this posting

The constant crying over an anonymous thumbs down is unreal. Some people really need to grow up. If someone is so fragile that they can't handle an anonymous thumbs down, they shouldn't be on the internet. Someone didn't like your post, who cares? What does knowing their username do for you? The insecurity over a thumbs down is unreal.

How many more threads until we can wipe the tears and move on?

Translation to make sure everyone can understand: GOOGOO GAA GAA WAAAH WAHAAAHHHH THUMBS DOWN WAHHHH

Oh my god I got a thumbs down, MODS HELP! HELP ME MODS! A random person on the planet didn't like my post! HELPPP MEEEEE I NEED TO KNOW WHO THEY AREEEE

Bragging and making fun of those who feel annoyed - or even hurt - through anon penalisations.

There is this theory, that the same way one behaves online he behaves also in real life.
Congratulations "Peak.Domains", or whatever your real name is.
Apologies for having dragged you into this funny thread.

 

[Peak.Domains]

Don't apologize, your personal attacks don't phase me, and I love this thread <3

There's nothing you could do or say to me that will ever bother me more than I can upset you by clicking one button.

 

[KingBilly]

This thread started out sounding noble. And now it just sounds petty.

 

[Peter45]

Please don't post anymore in this thread kingbilly, neither you nor peakdomains, as it would be unfair given that I cannot reply neither to you nor to him, otherwise you insult me again and then the mods delete our postings again.





#2

@Jannes getting 2x penalised for commenting on this news

Sedo has released its weekly report of domain sales, topped by Bitcoinetf.org. The domain was sold for $49,999 dollars.

 

[Peter45]

@Paul
@Alfa Mod Team
@Bravo Mod Team
@Echo Mod Team
@Foxtrot Mod Team

Good morning everybody,
I have a question

This thread started out sounding noble. And now it just sounds petty.

To that, this was my reply yesterday:

This thread looks silly only to those who don’t understand its point. It comes a time when all arguments and explanations have been used and the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to make a list of examples of how stupid that tool is.

The other side replied a.o. with an insult („basically you are a troll“).
One of you stepped in and deleted both postings.
My posting was deleted for being „antagonizing“.
Fair enough and no big deal.

But given that every posting replying to criticism can - by definition - be considered as „antagonizing“, I find myself now in the weird situation where if people write something negative on the thread I’m the OP of, I cannot reply because if they later come back e.g. with an insult my reply-posting - together with their insult-posting - gets deleted.

Is there a way for me to be able to reply to future criticism without risking to get deleted again should the other side then react crossing the line?

 

[Peter45]

A second question

a couple of weeks ago @kor addressed a mod with this line

Are you dumb or you just trying to be a shitty troll?!

His account was temporarily banned.


Kingbilly addressed a user (aka me) yesterday in this thread with this line

basically you are a troll

No ban, just deletion of the posting.


I’m not calling for punishment - far from that -, just trying to understand.
It looks like there is an unwritten rule in place, insults to mods get treated harder than insults to some users.
In general - this is my question - does the Account Level of "insulter" and "insulted" play a role in how insults get treated?

Not judging. Every forum I met has such a - unwritten - rule anyway, and I could even see some rationale in it.
Just trying to understand how it works here.

Thanks for your time

@Paul
@Alfa Mod Team
@Bravo Mod Team
@Echo Mod Team
@Foxtrot Mod Team

 

[Echo Mod Team]

A second question

a couple of weeks ago @kor addressed a mod with this line

His account was temporarily banned.


Kingbilly addressed a user (aka me) yesterday in this thread with this line

No ban, just deletion of the posting.


I’m not calling for punishment - far from that -, just trying to understand.
It looks like there is an unwritten rule in place, insults to mods get treated harder than insults to some users.
In general - this is my question - does the Account Level of "insulter" and "insulted" play a role in how insults get treated?

Not judging. Every forum I met has such a - unwritten - rule anyway, and I could even see some rationale in it.
Just trying to understand how it works here.

Thanks for your time

@Paul
@Alfa Mod Team
@Bravo Mod Team
@Echo Mod Team
@Foxtrot Mod Team

Hello,

I'm not familiar with both the cases, as another moderator team or staff member may have handled the report(s). However, it's important to remember that moderators generally handle all cases the same. Our policy is to issue a rule reminder on a general first time offense, if a member violates the same general rule a second time, it results into an official warning. If a 3rd violation occurs, the members account is then restricted.

However, it also depends on the seriousness of an offense. Name calling and fraud are on two completely different seriousness scales and are treated very differently, where a first-time fraudster is restricted immediately, and the name caller get a first-time reminder if they have never done it before.

In addition to the above, moderators also weigh a members account history. If they are habitual offenders that consistently violate rules, their warning or restrictions may be extended longer than the default times.

Without knowing all the details of both members and incidents, It sounds like one member may have violated the same rule multiple times or a habitual offender, which lead to their restriction and that the other member may have been a first- or second-time offender, which would result in a restriction if it happens again.

The above policy is very standard. At the end of the day, a moderator teams job is to enforce the rules equally, without playing any favorites, regardless of a members status.

While on the surface, it may look like one of the members received more punishment than the other, but what you are not seeing is the historical conduct and rule violations that member may have received previously to lead to a stricter resolution measure.

We hope that information helps.

 

[Peter45]

Hello,

I'm not familiar with both the cases, as another moderator team or staff member may have handled the report(s). However, it's important to remember that moderators generally handle all cases the same. Our policy is to issue a rule reminder on a general first time offense, if a member violates the same general rule a second time, it results into an official warning. If a 3rd violation occurs, the members account is then restricted.
...
We hope that information helps.

It did

The time you dedicated to answering my question is much appreciated.
The rationale makes sense.
Thanks Echo

 

[Paul]

His account was temporarily banned.

He wasn’t banned for anything he said publicly. I’ve already posted the quotes elsewhere.

Edit: Here’s where I posted quotes that he sent to staff: https://www.namepros.com/reports/122593/ He has a history of saying similar things to other members.

 

[Peter45]

He wasn’t banned for anything he said publicly. I’ve already posted the quotes elsewhere.

Thank you Paul
I didn't know that, as I can only judge based on what I can see from this side.

If I may: as far as I know kor, I don't think he is a bad person. There are a/holes in this forum, he isn't one of them. He's just ... a straight shooter!
And btw, when he isn't shooting in your direction he can write quite informative postings about domaining.


I was suprised to learn from Echo that even within the mods council anonymity can stretch itself to the point that none of you knows who handled a case.

I'd just like to let the anonymous mod who handled my case with kingbilly* know that by: A criticises B, B replies to A, A insults B; if a mod at this point intervenes treating A and B the same way (deleting both A's and B's postings), that's stupid.
It's stupid because the only options left for B then is to either not reply anymore to criticism or, in case he does, to pray not to get insulted because... getting insulted would mean getting deleted!

Informing me that my reply-posting had been deleted for "antagonising" and in order to "clean up the thread", far from looking like a justification, to me that just sounded as adding kidding to injury, so to speak.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time for that clarification


* how nice if he had enough guts to raise his hand...

 

[Echo Mod Team]

I was suprised to learn from Echo that even within the mods council anonymity can stretch itself to the point that none of you knows who handled a case.

All moderator actions are logged, so that any moderator team knows exactly what is going on with each member and how the moderator team resolved it.

It's these same logs that are used to determine if a member is a habitual offender or not. With each reminder, warning, infraction, restriction, report resolution, etc. having a time stamp and moderator stamp on them so that any moderator can pick up where the last one left off by reviewing the notes.

(Believe it or not, many members over the years have tried to contact a different moderator team that was not handling a case to try and get around a restriction, which is why a moderator team will generally refer you to the team that handled your case (Or you can request to know which team handled it) so you can contact them directly or reply in their existing communication with you. In your case, It looks like @Alfa Mod Team removed the comment(s) after finding that they violated the rules. You may reach out to that moderator team if you have further questions that we have not already addressed in this thread for you)

Here's the statement of ours that you appear to be referring to:

I'm not familiar with both the cases, as another moderator team or staff member may have handled the report(s).

The above simply means that we did not do Indepth research of both accounts involved in the actions you inquired about and that our reply was mostly based on NamePros policy and experience as a moderator on this team with almost 2 decades of handing community disputes, rule violations, and policy enforcement.

A second review, looking at both accounts notes, time-stamps, moderator actions, etc.. shows that the following was accurate in our assumption prior to taking the time to review both accounts in more depth:

Without knowing all the details of both members and incidents, It sounds like one member may have violated the same rule multiple times or a habitual offender, which lead to their restriction and that the other member may have been a first- or second-time offender, which would result in a restriction if it happens again.

The above policy is very standard. At the end of the day, a moderator teams job is to enforce the rules equally, without playing any favorites, regardless of a members status.

While on the surface, it may look like one of the members received more punishment than the other, but what you are not seeing is the historical conduct and rule violations that member may have received previously to lead to a stricter resolution measure.

We hope that information helps.

We hope that helps clarify.

 

[Peter45]

We hope that helps clarify.

It does (again!)
Once again, thanks Echo, I'm sure I'm not the only one appreciating your efforts for transparency (and to all my followers leave the man a Like!)

It looks like @Alfa Mod Team removed the comment(s) after finding that they violated the rules.

Ok, so you raised the hand in his place.
I'm sure he is loving you right now


I still have no idea which rules I violated, as I simply replied to Peak.Domains and KingBilly's criticism.
If my reply was "antagonising" then every reply to criticism is antagonising - and should trigger your intervention.
I wish Alfa could re-instate the postings he deleted, so everybody could see what are we talking about - and judge by themselves whether I violated any rules or not.

A reason why now I'm still interested in this case is that thanks to your explanations I learn now that in the file with my nickname on it, there is now a stain, so to speak.
"Peter has already received a penalty for antagonising".
I don't like it because that note could become relevant in the future when deciding whether Peter a first- or a second-time offender.

So I ask that my now deleted posting be re-instated in this thread and made public again, so - if needed - I can defend myself in the future.
As my posting contained neither swear words nor insults, I don't see no reasons preventing it.

But since you have already - generously - invested enough time here, and since it's him who messed it up, I'd like to see @Alfa Mod Team taking it from here.

 

[Future Sensors]

@Peter45 I suggest you talk with the mods in private about any issues you have with the removal of your posting.

 

[Echo Mod Team]

I still have no idea which rules I violated, as I simply replied to Peak.Domains and KingBilly's criticism.
If my reply was "antagonising" then every reply to criticism is antagonising - and should trigger your intervention.
I wish Alfa could re-instate the postings he deleted, so everybody could see what are we talking about - and judge by themselves whether I violated any rules or not.

Hello again,

After reviewing the posts, we can see that the first post was removed for the following in bold:

It comes to a point when all arguments and explanations have been used, so that the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to list examples of how stupid that tool is

While you did use the word "tool" instead of a persons name, it appeared that you were referring to the member you were replying too. The statement and it's context does appear to have an antagonistic/condescending tone, which is more than likely why that comment was removed.

Your second comment that was removed was done so because you quoted a comment from another member that was antagonizing. Since the comment you quoted was removed, your comment was also removed along with it.

Additionally, we just finished reviewing your account and found no reminders, notes, warnings, or restrictions. That's great news, it means that the moderator team that removed your posts did so without issuing anything to your account in hopes that the post removal notification itself, would help correct your postings that were deemed antagonistic and condescending.

Keep in mind, while you may not have received anything official on your account in this incident, through the moderator team being lenient or due to an oversight, this moderator team will now be leaving a note on your account directing any future moderators to your posts and our responses in this thread, so they know that you are now familiar with the rules regarding antagonistic and condescending posts.

In closing, we can also see that the only reason @Alfa Mod Team got involved and reviewed this thread was after you, yourself, reported it.

For internal use ONLY: https://www.namepros.com/reports/123149/

Keep in mind, once a moderator gets involved, they review all the obvious posts by members engaged in the potential rule violation reported (Occasionally, some get missed and should be reported individually for review), which can result in multiple members being reprimanded. Again, each member may have a different history of habitual violations or a clean record, which means, each ones resolution will look a little different on the surface based on said history.

We hope the additional information helps.

 

[Peter45]

Thanks again Echo


Let me get this straight

Me:
"It comes to a point when all arguments and explanations have been used, so that the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to list examples of how stupid that tool is"

You:

After reviewing the posts, we can see that the first post was removed for the following in bold: While you did use the word "tool" instead of a persons name, it appeared that you were referring to the member you were replying too.

So if - while discussing about anon DV - I reply to a member who disagrees with me telling him "anon DV is a stupid tool" it appears that I'm telling him that he is stupid.

Fair enough

What if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is very useful"
Does it appear that I'm telling him that he's very useful?

And if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is useless", does it appear that I'm telling him that he's useless?

And if I reply to him telling him "I don't care about anon DV anymore", does it appear that I'm telling him that I don't care about him anymore?

And if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is a toxic tool", what does appear?
That I'm telling him that he is toxic?
Or that I'm telling him that he's a tool?


It looks like an attempt to insert words into my mouth in order to justify a moderator's decision.

 

[Peter45]

The problem with context, condescending tone, antagonistic tone... is that they are very nebulous, subjective concepts.
A mod can delete everything he dislikes using such concepts as an excuse.

You could even say that my previous posting itself is written in a condescending/antagonistic tone!
In which case I could make a list of 4.000+ replies in this forum which had a condescending/antagonistic tone.