Question about a recent decision

[HES]

Per the comments made here (https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=328077&postcount=26) I am asking this question.

To get us up to speed, a video was under discussion in this thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=27674). The OP stated that they were uncomfortable with the content and, I'm inferring, his perception of what this technology meant. Others asked him what in particular he found unsettling to where the OP asked them to watch the 54 minute video. 58 minutes after the initial post a member of the board, who is also a moderator stated that he had watched it and still was wondering why the OP was concerned.

Shortly there after another poster (#3) said that they didn't believe the moderator could have done this because not 18 minutes prior the OP had asked folks to watch the video. Of course this poster didn't take into account that the moderator might have started viewing the video with the initial post. Also it might be said that this posters respond to the mod was a bit rough. Then another mod and gives poster #3 a 3 day vacation for 'disrespect to a moderator'. The three day vacation being the result of an accumulation of points based on prior infractions (I run two other boards the same way).

So here are my questions. Are moderators, when they are not acting in an official capacity (I.e. participating in a thread like a normal poster) acting as a normal poster or are they still moderators and above criticism when they make a post in the manner cited above and free from questioning / criticism? I realize that when a moderator is acting in an official capacity their word is final. That is how it should be. However is it the policy of M4C to give an infraction to a poster when they are addressing a moderator, but they perceive that mod to be acting as a normal poster and not in an official capacity?

Now my personal feeling is that the statement made by poster #3 might be considered rough by some, but I has seen a lot worse said here in the past and haven't noticed infractions given out for those when the exchange has been poster to poster. I also acknowledge a lack of knowledge of past history regarding the poster that was banned.

[John_Wayne777]

Per the comments made here (https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=328077&postcount=26)
So here are my questions. Are moderators, when they are not acting in an official capacity (I.e. participating in a thread like a normal poster) acting as a normal poster or are they still moderators and above criticism when they make a post in the manner cited above and free from questioning / criticism?


Anyone is perfectly free to disagree with a moderator or staff member of M4C at any time...but as a rule we require that disagreement be done in a respectful manner just as we would require of anyone else. I can disagree with someone on an issue but I'm required to do so respectfully without making personal attacks or impugning their character. Others have to extend me the same courtesy whether I'm a moderator or not.

Disagreement without being disagreeable is the general goal. :)

If tomorrow I posted that say muzzle discipline is unimportant because in a real life critical incident you may be forced to sweep innocents with the muzzle of your weapon, the rest of the board would be well within their rights to take issue with me on that. My status as a moderator doesn't make my opinion unquestionable.



However is it the policy of M4C to give an infraction to a poster when they are addressing a moderator, but they perceive that mod to be acting as a normal poster and not in an official capacity?


As moderators we're always in an "official capacity" when posting on the board. There is a standard of conduct we must observe with every post we make whether we are dealing with an official board issue or just posting in response to some news item that gets mentioned in the general area. To use an analogy, when we're on the forum we're essentially "in uniform". We may not be arresting anybody or writing a ticket, but we're still "on the clock" and we're still governed by all the rules and policies that apply to moderators. While each moderator has a specific area of authority we are primarily responsible for policing, we all have a general responsibility to look after the whole board as we all can't be on the site 24/7.



Now my personal feeling is that the statement made by poster #3 might be considered rough by some, but I has seen a lot worse said here in the past and haven't noticed infractions given out for those when the exchange has been poster to poster.


Moderation done well is situational. Returning to my previously given example, if I made my post about muzzle discipline and somebody with 3 posts came along and started calling me everything but a nice little white boy, would he get hammered? More than likely. He could have a legitimate point about the core issue of my post, but if he can't express himself any better than that then he's toast. If, however, someone with a significant level of experience and a good reputation on the board gets a bit heated then it's less likely to result in formal action as we usually try to use gentler methods of keeping the peace before resorting to the internet equivalent of stick time when we know someone isn't a flaming jerk.

Sometimes debate can get a bit heated. The point where a moderator should step in and take formal action is a judgment call. We want to foster good discussion, but at the same time we don't want to let the place turn into romper room. Sometimes that can be a very tough call to make.


I also acknowledge a lack of knowledge of past history regarding the poster that was banned.

I believe you'll find that to be the real key here. Repeat offenders should not get (or expect) the same treatment that people who have exhibited exemplary behavior on the board receive. When there are issues with certain posters often the regular joe surfing the forum can't see the history of the problem poster because his/her posts have been edited/deleted or moved into forums that they can't see as a means of keeping the stupidity from spreading.

Suffice it to say this:

There is a policy in place that governs the issuance of infractions on the site and an automated system that boots someone after they've earned a certain number of points. Every infraction is flagged so that moderators and staffers can see what triggered the infraction and what level of infraction was handed out. These decisions are subject to review and discussion by staff and other moderators if appropriate.

If you ever have an issue with a particular moderator, try contacting him directly and talking it out. Generally doing this can eliminate confusion and give you perhaps a better understanding of why a particular course of action was chosen. You are also free to talk to any of the staffers here at M4C about the conduct or decisions of a moderator if you feel that there is a problem.