-9

UNREASONABLE BANS:

I was banned for a week for placing this bounty:

enter image description here

on this question: Why do attack ads focus so much on Joe Biden's mental state but not Donald Trump's?

The "reasons" given were that the bounty supposedly was off-topic and/or circumvented a comment lock.

Let's examine these in order:

  • The alleged use of the teleprompter I was referring to was from this ad by Trump that came out around the time the question was posted, but was not mentioned in it. That seems very relevant to the question. Certainly not off-topic.
  • The lock was on comments, because supposedly there were too many. But there was no lock on bounties. And there can only be one bounty at a time, so the reason for locking comments hardly applies to bounties. And bounties are temporary and cost reputation. A lock on comments simply is not a lock on bounties.

Prior to this ban, the mod stated that I was allowed to place bounties if they were on-topic, but he still banned me when I did so.


COMMENT DELETIONS:

I also noticed that a lot of my comments simply disappear without a trace. For example, there was a "question" about Trump not attending some WW1 ceremony supposedly because he was worried about his hair getting wet in the rain. I commented that he spent one hour standing in the rain the very next day. In response, someone requested a video of Trump standing in the rain prior to the event, and I found one and posted it too. These comments were simply deleted, even though they were obviously relevant.

There were many similar instances of mods deleting relevant comments, but I can't even recall them all.


SUMMARY:

This is rampant moderator abuse of his privileges (Which is what made me want to stop using the site and give away my reputation, BTW)

If this site made me feel as unwelcome as it did, I can only imagine how it makes Trump supporters and conservatives feel (I'm irreligious, support universal health care, progressive taxation, etc. etc. but I'm just not a fan of DNC's latest agenda)

| |
  • The answers to this question explain specifically why your bounties were deleted. I should say, this probably shouldn't be closed as a duplicate since it's not an exact one, but I think the below question probably the best explanation you'll get directly from the mods – divibisan Sep 25 at 21:51
  • Officially, if you think a mod has done something wrong you can contact the Community Managers directly using the Contact Form. Speaking as a mod on another site, though, you'll need a pretty solid case for them to take action. Talking it over with the mod first via Meta is the better method by far. – Machavity Sep 26 at 19:14
  • 2
    Downvoters: this is a good question, even if we suppose the cause of the question is in error. Even if we don't have and have never had moderator abuse, that's no reason to suppose we never will have it, and if we don't have it now, then surely the question should be much easier to answer now than at some later time of "rampant moderator abuse". – agc Sep 27 at 18:18
  • 4
    @agc You're probably right, but on Meta, downvotes also signify disagreement. So, while the answers are definitely useful, I don't think there's anything wrong with disagreeing with this posters rant about rampant persecution. – divibisan Sep 28 at 17:15
20

This was your third bounty on the question.

The first one was a blatant attempt at bypassing the comment lock on the question. I removed it, and send you a private message explaining the purpose of the bounty message feature.

You responded to the message by posting a new bounty with a completely off topic message, a rant about the site. That's what got you your time off. You posted the third bounty - the only one you seem to remember about - as I was writing the suspension message.

In retrospect, I should have first suspended your account and then removed your second bounty, I shouldn't have given you the chance to post a third one.


As for comments:

On Stack Exchange sites comments are ephemeral, and can disappear at any time for whatever reason. Don't get overly attached to them.

| |
7

There is a main meta Q&A that addresses your question here:

What recourse do I have if I believe a moderator has abused their privileges?

In summary, you can address the issue on Meta (as you have here), you can raise a custom flag to have another moderator take a look, you can ask for advice in chat (I don't really recommend this one, but it might work well on some SE sites), or if these options do not work for your situation you can use the "Contact" link at the bottom of the page that sends a message to the StackExchange employees.


Some advice directly for you is that in the format taken by this meta post, you're unlikely to get any recourse. You are clearly upset, which is fine, but this reads much more like a rant rather than a constructive attempt to either understand or change policy. You're bringing up political issues that don't necessarily have much to do with what happened and don't seem to have made any effort to understand site or SE policies. For example, you are complaining about deletion of comments that were not used to do the things that comments are supposed to be for and despite comments being overall ephemeral and subject to deletion at any time. SE is built on questions and answers, if you want to comment on things that are not clarifying questions or suggesting to improve answers, you probably want a different website.

| |
  • 1
    Explaining an error is germane, but using 14 instances of the second person pronoun "you" while doing so seems needlessly alienating. – agc Sep 28 at 17:46
  • 3
    @agc I'm speaking specifically to OP and their particular circumstance, letting them know the avenues they can access and why their current approach probably won't get them what they want. – Bryan Krause Sep 28 at 17:50
  • Using the third person would make this a better answer. – agc Sep 28 at 18:00
  • 2
    @agx I disagree, I think the third person would make it belittling. If OP asked a general question, yes, third person would be better, but here they've included extensive details of a specific situation. – Bryan Krause Sep 28 at 18:04
  • Don't agree about the 3rd person being more belittling, but rather than comment further, I've put up an alternate version for comparision.. – agc Sep 28 at 18:43
-6

Experiment -- this is Bryan Krause's answer, edited with fewer "you"s.


There is a main meta Q&A that addresses grievances about moderators here:

What recourse do I have if I believe a moderator has abused their privileges?

In summary, to address a grievance about a moderator:

  • address the issue on Meta
  • raise a custom flag to have another moderator take a look
  • ask for advice in chat (not recommended on Politics.SE, but it might work well on some SE sites)
  • if these options do not work, use the "Contact" link at the bottom of the page that sends a message to the StackExchange employees.

Advice:

The meta question format is unlikely to be helpful with a contentious moderator grievance. It is fine to be upset, but a question that reads like a rant is not as useful as a constructive attempt to either understand or change policy. The political issues in the question don't necessarily have much to do with what happened. Please make an effort to understand this site and SE policies. For example, comments on SE are considered ephemeral and are subject to deletion at any time. Particularly deletion of comments that were not used to do the things that comments are supposed to be for. SE is built on questions and answers, comments that don't clarify questions or offer no suggestions to improve answers belong on a different website.

| |
  • 4
    -1: Duplicate or near-duplicate answers are not useful. If you really want to have this discussion, ask a new question about the use of second/third person. – Kevin Sep 28 at 20:45
  • 2
    The problem with this version is that as written I totally disagree with the second part. A meta question is a great way to address a moderator grievance, but there are serious problems with the specific approach used here. Most of the rest of the content also has nothing to do with the original question about a grievance, it only addresses the rest of the content of this specific instance. – Bryan Krause Sep 28 at 20:49
  • @BryanKrause, You "totally" disagree with your own advice, when expressed in the third person. I'm curious if, in this form, you found it more belittling as you'd previously forecast... – agc Sep 28 at 22:22
  • 4
    No, you entirely changed it by removing all the context and changing it to "The meta question format is unlikely to be helpful" because this is not the advice I gave. – Bryan Krause Sep 29 at 0:10
  • @BryanKrause, "The meta question format is unlikely to be helpful with a contentious moderator grievance." vs. "...in this format, you're unlikely to get any recourse.": Please clarify what your usage of "this format" was meant to signify. – agc Sep 29 at 3:02
  • 1
    @agc The format of the meta question asked by the OP, which is a rant rather than attempt for clarification or change in policy. This is an introductory sentence for the rest of the paragraph, in which all the following sentences explain some of the issues with the approach. – Bryan Krause Sep 29 at 3:22
  • @BryanKrause, Well I'd like to fix it, so this answer is only be a grammatical illustration. You say "The (rant) format of the meta question asked by the OP" and "contentious moderator grievance" aren't equivalent. Perhaps the latter could be considered ambiguous in the same way as "baby snatchers". Would "contentious allegations of moderator misconduct" be any better? – agc Sep 29 at 3:53
  • 3
    @agc This discussion has already taken far more of my time than it's worth. I don't think raising issues on Meta is a problem. I think ranting on Meta is a problem, I think arguing without making an effort to understand current policy is a problem. I don't think raising a contentious issue on Meta is a problem simply because it's contentious. I enumerate in my answer the specific problems with the specific question here. – Bryan Krause Sep 29 at 20:08
  • @BryanKrause, The 2nd sentence of that paragraph: "It is fine to be upset, but a question that reads like a rant is not as useful as a constructive attempt to either understand or change policy. " seems like a fair capsule of your last comment. – agc Sep 30 at 2:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .