Ethics of Forum Post Control

[Anemone]

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time. Many, MANY forum communities, especially the larger ones, rely almost exclusively on people reporting posts. Now, this seems like an effective idea at first glance but....

1: Overworked Administartion staff. This happens one way or another, but with an army of people all reporting the same post, people reporting EVERY one of a persons post simply to hold a grudge, and people presumably creating false accounts to report every post they see... it really doesn't work. You end up with millions more posts being reported than are even read through.

2: Proxys and "one letter off" accounts. People are constantly using proxy programs to skip around bans and commit the same offences. No matter how many posts of a troll that are reported... they're going to be back in 6 seconds, causing no end of stress to people, especially the mods.

3: Relevancyy to the topic as opposed to relevancy to where the topic went. This system was created to prevent reading entire threads in the first place, but, at the same time. No threads topic remains stagnent, as new points are brought up. By using this system to look at individual posts, as opposed to the topic, it becomes a over-zealous cluster of unwarranted bans.

4: Privacy vs. Terms of Service. I've been on forums where PM's were monitored, adn forums where they were not. The option of people going around on forums that do allow PM reporting, and hacking others accounts simply to report ANY chats between people is constitutionally wrong. However, on the other side, ones that do not allow it, quickly become congested with bot accounts spamming, and PM based trolling.

Just some food for thought. The idea to write this came to me after a friend of mine had their accoutn hacked on another forum, and I got 3 day'd for a joking pm I had sent to them that had spawned from a long debate about video game teabagging.

[Weiss]

Not really sure I understand the point to this thread. I mean, I see the information, but what's your argument?

[Anemone]

I simply posted it as food for thought. Too much rule enforcement is just as bad as too little.

[Guest]

I simply posted it as food for thought. Too much rule enforcement is just as bad as too little.

Rather than comment directly, I'm going to relate a couple amusing little bits to you by way of response.

First a link to the Real Tale of Horatio at the Bridge and then a quote:

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.

The government said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person at £18,000 a year for the job.

Then the government said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions for £22,000, and one person to do time studies for an additional £22,000 per year.

Then the government said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly? So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies for £31,000 and one to write the reports for an additional £31,000 per year.

Then the government said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper for £35,000 annual salary, and a payroll officer for an additional £35,000, then hired two people.

Then the government said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer at £155,000 per year, Assistant Administrative Officer £125,000, and a Legal Secretary for an additional £100,000 per year.

Then the government said, "We have had this operating for one year with a budget cost of £574,000.00 and we are £18,000 over budget. We must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

[Anemone]

Heh, nice quote. it fits the situation quiiiite nicely.

[Weiss]

That is a rather amusing story - the one in quotes, that is - though I'm not sure how well it fits the situation. The only way I could conceive that it could relate to forum post control would be if you're speaking entirely of 'the intent to provide something being undermined by the means of providing it'.

The problem with moderating a forum is that no two people will see things 100% the same. While some will think one thing is fair, others will think it's either too lenient or too strict. The way to get around this is to have impartial staff manning the counters while attempting to please the greatest majority of the target audience. In other words, if we were shooting only for teenagers, we would have forums for teen fads, such as anime, videogames, etc., rather than general interest forums and threads. If an older person complained that they weren't enjoying their time here because the forum didn't have content they were fond of, we would explain that teenagers are the target audience, apologize for the inconvenience they've been caused, and perhaps recommend some other forums where older persons might be more comfortable.

The same idea is applied to laws and rules in the real world. It's impossible to please everyone, so you please the greatest majority within the confines of your ability. Because the greatest majority of people feel better about arriving safely at their destination rather than dying in a horrific car crash, we have moderated speed limits. Because the greatest majority of people don't want to be gunned down in a bar fight because they spilled an ounce of beer on an NRA member, we have gun control. Some people view these laws and rules as being too strict, but they're put in place for the sake and safety of the greatest majority.

Forums are hard to keep control of, because you're essentially opening the door for millions of people, if only they wish to step through. Granted, I've never seen a forum community reach that size, but the fact is that you have millions of potential members. In light of this, your points can be addressed in the following manner:

1. Administration are only as overworked as they allow themselves to be. A larger community obviously requires a larger staff, but there is usually no end to the number of people who wish to help the community stay afloat. The larger the population of the forums in question, the more true this becomes.

2. IP bans.

3. A topic is created to discuss a particular subject. Inside that topic, contributions to the subject should be made as frequently as possible. If another subject stems from within that topic, a new thread can be made for that specific line of conversation. This is the very defining method of forums. It's usually not expected that a topic will stay 100% on course at all times, and I've never seen a ban issued because of a thread being slightly derailed, but to intentionally do this on numerous occasions shows a lack of sincerity for the topic in the first place. It's like jumping into a conversation about politics and asking if anyone likes puppies. People might respond about how much they love puppies, but the truth is that you never belonged in that conversation to begin with.

4. Often times, PMs are monitored for justifiable reasons. For instance, in communities that are host to younger children or teenagers, the mods and administrators may want to stop members from sharing personal information. The internet is a fantastic source for stalkers, molesters and other potential felons.

PMs can also be used to ascertain the guilt or innocence of a particular party if allegations are brought against them. For instance, if someone came to me now and said that so-and-so had been PMing them with lewd comments or pornographic images, I wouldn't have a clue if this was the truth or not, so I couldn't take action without making a grave, and potentially mistaken, assumption. On the other hand, if I could simply enter the moderation control panel and check the PMs that were being transmitted back and forth, I would know for certain if the accusation was true or false. Thus, I would be able to handle a situation of harassment and keep a member from feeling uncomfortable among the community.

Rules and laws can easily go too far, but it's important to understand the purpose behind each regulation before deciding whether or not it's overboard. What you perceive as acceptable may be completely unacceptable to others. It's easy to feel like we're being overburdened with restrictions, but if you were the target of a crime and the law wasn't there to protect you, it would be easy to complain about that, as well.

I'm only hoping this post was relevant to your original point. Since I couldn't really understand why you made the post, I just made an assumption of the intent and rolled with it.

[ACK!]

The problem with moderating a forum is that no two people will see things 100% the same. While some will think one thing is fair, others will think it's either too lenient or too strict. The way to get around this is to have impartial staff manning the counters while attempting to please the greatest majority of the target audience.

Word up.

Still trying to get a handle on things on my end in that regards, but I'm glad somebody has stated it. It's tougher than it sounds, but it is incredibly important, I'm finding.

[Guest]

Heh, nice quote. it fits the situation quiiiite nicely.

Figured you'd pick up on it.

[Anemone]

1. Administration are only as overworked as they allow themselves to be. A larger community obviously requires a larger staff, but there is usually no end to the number of people who wish to help the community stay afloat. The larger the population of the forums in question, the more true this becomes.

2. IP bans.

3. A topic is created to discuss a particular subject. Inside that topic, contributions to the subject should be made as frequently as possible. If another subject stems from within that topic, a new thread can be made for that specific line of conversation. This is the very defining method of forums. It's usually not expected that a topic will stay 100% on course at all times, and I've never seen a ban issued because of a thread being slightly derailed, but to intentionally do this on numerous occasions shows a lack of sincerity for the topic in the first place. It's like jumping into a conversation about politics and asking if anyone likes puppies. People might respond about how much they love puppies, but the truth is that you never belonged in that conversation to begin with.

4. Often times, PMs are monitored for justifiable reasons. For instance, in communities that are host to younger children or teenagers, the mods and administrators may want to stop members from sharing personal information. The internet is a fantastic source for stalkers, molesters and other potential felons.

PMs can also be used to ascertain the guilt or innocence of a particular party if allegations are brought against them. For instance, if someone came to me now and said that so-and-so had been PMing them with lewd comments or pornographic images, I wouldn't have a clue if this was the truth or not, so I couldn't take action without making a grave, and potentially mistaken, assumption. On the other hand, if I could simply enter the moderation control panel and check the PMs that were being transmitted back and forth, I would know for certain if the accusation was true or false. Thus, I would be able to handle a situation of harassment and keep a member from feeling uncomfortable among the community.

Rules and laws can easily go too far, but it's important to understand the purpose behind each regulation before deciding whether or not it's overboard. What you perceive as acceptable may be completely unacceptable to others. It's easy to feel like we're being overburdened with restrictions, but if you were the target of a crime and the law wasn't there to protect you, it would be easy to complain about that, as well.

I'm only hoping this post was relevant to your original point. Since I couldn't really understand why you made the post, I just made an assumption of the intent and rolled with it.

1. True, but at the same time, it is impossible to tell who is best suited. One may seem to take things too far, but they only do so because they lack the power to fix it any other way, while, another may seem more suited, but has hidden vendettas, and the like. It is impossible to fully understand ones mtives for desiring to become staff.

2. Proxy's are programs that alter your IP address repeatedly, as to prevent an IP ban from working. The only way to block a proxy is to ban an entire area/service provider combo.

3. Although it is true that deraliling threads repeatedly IS a notably bad thing, it is also true that many times, the laws of forum conversation are similar to the language laws around the semi colon. It is very common for the entire tangent that a thread takes to only make sense within the confines of that thread and its previous discussion, and as such, it is kept there as to not confuse potential newcomers to the discussion via making a new thread. Continuing the tangent through PM is always a good method for a more closed discussion, but a more open tangent often requires the thread to stay open and derailed.

4. The basic idea of monitoring PM's is fundamentally flawed. It is the same thing as reading ones E-mail, which is, last I checked, a legal offense. Many, MANY pms go off topic, or into questionable area as agreed upon by both parties, and the reporting of a single PM is not a licence to read ALL PM's between the two parties. Yet, without being able to read all of a series of PM's it is impossible to tell friendly joking from trolling.

5. Yeah, its relevant.

[Ragter the junior greeter]

2. IP bans.

Just figured I should respond to this one.

IP Bans won't work well at all if the proxy that is being used, is being used on a forum that isn't too well-known or popular. For example, if you go to a forum for primarily old people, I doubt you're going to find a lot of proxy IPs banned there.

[Fate Flyer]

I don't understand that, Ragter. Perhaps I just am reading it wrong and not getting it. Do you mean an entire proxy service isn't likely to get banned on a smaller community?

I didn't even realize that some places granted the Administrators the power to read other people's PMs. Are you sure that's even possible?

[Igraine]

I really wasn't going to get into this one at all, but I did work as an admin for a couple years at a VERY large forum, that catered to all age ranges, and specifically dealt with the very controversial topics of both religion AND politics. (The word "volatile" doesn't even begin to cover it.)

I didn't even realize that some places granted the Administrators the power to read other people's PMs. Are you sure that's even possible?

Yes, it very much is, at certain boards. I know, because I had that power. No, I never used it, but I could have if I wanted to at any point, because of the access/admin level I had.

And this:

2. Proxy's are programs that alter your IP address repeatedly, as to prevent an IP ban from working. The only way to block a proxy is to ban an entire area/service provider combo.

The reason "old people forums," as Ragter so delicately put it, probably won't see a lot of proxy server use is because are often used to "anonymize" someone on the internet - and specifically used maliciously on occasion by "younger" people who are net savvy, for the purposes of trolling even after bans. And Anemone has the rights of it there, for the result of blocking one of these addresses.

[Weiss]

1. Anemone, you're arguing using defeatism. Of course it's impossible to know 100% of everything about a person when you hire them onto staff. That's the same as being unable to tell everything about a person you hire to work a job out in the real world. You're basically putting a small amount of faith into someone who seems willing to work in the position and, through monitoring their progress, you determine over time whether or not they're truly the right candidate to continue upholding the position.

2. If a troll is particularly troublesome, then their service area may need to be blocked for a limited period of time - a month or so - to let them forget about the forums and move on. Granted, it's a terrible cost for those caught in the crossfire, but if the troll was really so much of an issue that the moderators and administrators couldn't handle tearing down their repeated troll posts day after day, then a more severe action needs to be taken.

3. A thread should not be so derailed that it cannot be pushed back on course. It's one thing if you go off on a tangent and quickly return or link to the opening topic, but to consistently remain and go off topic shows a lack of sincerity for the actual topic at hand. If you're talking about politics and the discussion of foreign policy bridges into oil prices, that's not a huge derailment, since the subjects intermingle. On the other hand - and I'll use my analogy again - if you're talking about politics and someone makes a post asking who likes puppies, you have a problem.

4. You're misinterpreting what a PM is. It's called a private message only in the way that it's sent to and from a single user, meaning the message is private in comparison to normal posts made on the message boards. Forums are, in all ways, open communities that are capable of being monitored on many levels. A PM is nothing more than a forum post that a limited number of people can see. It is not constitutionally unlawful to monitor those posts anymore than it is unlawful to monitor public threads.

5. You say that, and yet you still don't explain how it's relevant. Thus, I have no grounds on which to agree that it's relevant at all. Please, do explain.

[Anemone]

1. Anemone, you're arguing using defeatism. Of course it's impossible to know 100% of everything about a person when you hire them onto staff. That's the same as being unable to tell everything about a person you hire to work a job out in the real world. You're basically putting a small amount of faith into someone who seems willing to work in the position and, through monitoring their progress, you determine over time whether or not they're truly the right candidate to continue upholding the position.

2. If a troll is particularly troublesome, then their service area may need to be blocked for a limited period of time - a month or so - to let them forget about the forums and move on. Granted, it's a terrible cost for those caught in the crossfire, but if the troll was really so much of an issue that the moderators and administrators couldn't handle tearing down their repeated troll posts day after day, then a more severe action needs to be taken.

3. A thread should not be so derailed that it cannot be pushed back on course. It's one thing if you go off on a tangent and quickly return or link to the opening topic, but to consistently remain and go off topic shows a lack of sincerity for the actual topic at hand. If you're talking about politics and the discussion of foreign policy bridges into oil prices, that's not a huge derailment, since the subjects intermingle. On the other hand - and I'll use my analogy again - if you're talking about politics and someone makes a post asking who likes puppies, you have a problem.

4. You're misinterpreting what a PM is. It's called a private message only in the way that it's sent to and from a single user, meaning the message is private in comparison to normal posts made on the message boards. Forums are, in all ways, open communities that are capable of being monitored on many levels. A PM is nothing more than a forum post that a limited number of people can see. It is not constitutionally unlawful to monitor those posts anymore than it is unlawful to monitor public threads.

5. You say that, and yet you still don't explain how it's relevant. Thus, I have no grounds on which to agree that it's relevant at all. Please, do explain.

1. Yes, it is defeatism, but it is the truth. The logic of one's inner world means little in the next, and its impossible to fully understand it. I am simply trying to show a point, not win.

2. Agreed

3. Spam, derailment, and the semi-colon theory are three different things. Spam doesn't derail the thread, it is 9/10 simply ignored. Derailment is a bigger problem, and a fitting tangent (oil prices tagged to politics, accidents with toy making attached to toys). Nontheless, when any of these are taken out of the context of the other posts around it, is seems to be spam.

4. There is no difference between PM and E-mail. One can easily be substituted for the other. The respect for privacy is jsut as important as protection from cyber-bullying via PM.

5. the arguing you are doing agaisnt me is relevant to the thread topic. Ethics in a title typically means "a desire for this to be debated"

[Kiru Naka]

I'm gonna post my little bit here about PMs because I've had personal experiences and a really great admin.

Mods, Admins, anyone other than the recipient, should Not be allowed to see PMs. Plain and simple. I'm not trying to be close minded here, but everyone has a right to their privacy, and nobody should be able to intrude on said privacy unless it's -truly- called for. I don't care if you programmed the board from scratch, the use of the ability to intrude on other people's privacy is One) nosy, and Two) Narcissistic. Say what you want but it's a power trip nonetheless. Even if it's to solve issues, like in Anemone's case, it's still wrong. That admin, because of one report, got to see her private life (whether they actually did is still a question) without anything being held back. I don't know about you, but some really personal stuff floats around in my PMs.

There is only one exception to this: If it's blatantly stated in the TOS, that your PMs aren't private, for everyone to read... only then, it's right...

Here's what I did to report a troll on another board: I screenshotted the repeated and offending messages, and sent them to the admin myself. There was no report button, and she got every message in the conversation. It took alittle bit of work, and yes it's true admins have enough to do as it is, but it's better than having my privacy invaded upon.

[Weiss]

Wait, wait. In regards to #5, I thought you were saying that Heyseuss' quoted story was relevant, which was why I asked for clarification as to why it was relevant, since I still don't understand why that story was so appropriate to the situation. Sorry if I misunderstood that part...

[Anemone]

Wait, wait. In regards to #5, I thought you were saying that Heyseuss' quoted story was relevant, which was why I asked for clarification as to why it was relevant, since I still don't understand why that story was so appropriate to the situation. Sorry if I misunderstood that part...

Its a round-about way of saying that, in the effort to make something work better, the maount of progress that can be made oft takes precidence over the goal.

For the quote... It started simply as an effort to protect property, and in the effort to get the best, msot efficient property protection, somewhere along the line, the goal was forgotten in favor of "progress".

[Fate Flyer]

Wow, Igraine, that's interesting. I was not aware of that at all. D:

I, too, don't agree that Admins should read other people's PMs. I can't think of a circumstance in which it would be necessary. If a person is sending out threatening PMs to someone, then that someone they are sending them to, for instance, would just be able to quote that person and pass it on to an Admin. I don't like the idea of people reading personal mail. That's a huge infringement, I believe, on your own rightful privacy. I've never been one to like anything along these lines (though that likely has something to do with the fact that I never had privacy from my own mom, who would go through everything of mine in my room, reading my diaries and stories as a kid, looking at my art or things that I printed off the internet, reading my notes I got from friends in school, etc. So yeah, not into any of that.)

[Weiss]

I understood the meaning of the quoted story, Anemone. What I don't understand is how that's so relevant to the topic. The topic is forum moderation going overboard, but that doesn't seem to have any correlation to a story about how we often forget our goals by getting wrapped up in making the method of achieving those goals more efficient. Hence why I said I could only understand the relation if it was speaking strictly of situations where the intent to provide something is undermined by the method of providing it.

On the topic of PM scanning, I'd like to again point out that the internet is a wonderful playground for those with less than amiable intentions. If you have a child who's taking part in an online forum for, say, the newest toy fad, like Yu-Gi-Oh! or some such; would you want them telling their new friend their name, phone number and address so "they can play a game together sometime"?

I have been an admin and a moderator on forums where PMs were observed. I don't know if this standard holds true for all forums where this is practiced, but it's always been a "see no evil" type deal unless you find something that violates the law. You may not realize this, but forums can be held accountable for any criminal activity that results from communication between members of that board, whether it be PMs or in the public forums. Providing pornography to minors, unlawful distribution of data, sexual harassment, soliciting minors - all of these are criminal acts.

I've always been a rather straight-forward individual, so I look at it this way: if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to oppose PM scanning. I realize not everyone can subscribe to this view, because a lot of people feel 'violated' whether they have anything to hide or not; but, if two people want to communicate without being observed, I see no reason why they can't simply exchange e-mails and do their unethical business there, where it won't negatively impact the forum.

[Anemone]

I understood the meaning of the quoted story, Anemone. What I don't understand is how that's so relevant to the topic. The topic is forum moderation going overboard, but that doesn't seem to have any correlation to a story about how we often forget our goals by getting wrapped up in making the method of achieving those goals more efficient. Hence why I said I could only understand the relation if it was speaking strictly of situations where the intent to provide something is undermined by the method of providing it.

On the topic of PM scanning, I'd like to again point out that the internet is a wonderful playground for those with less than amiable intentions. If you have a child who's taking part in an online forum for, say, the newest toy fad, like Yu-Gi-Oh! or some such; would you want them telling their new friend their name, phone number and address so "they can play a game together sometime"?

I have been an admin and a moderator on forums where PMs were observed. I don't know if this standard holds true for all forums where this is practiced, but it's always been a "see no evil" type deal unless you find something that violates the law. You may not realize this, but forums can be held accountable for any criminal activity that results from communication between members of that board, whether it be PMs or in the public forums. Providing pornography to minors, unlawful distribution of data, sexual harassment, soliciting minors - all of these are criminal acts.

I've always been a rather straight-forward individual, so I look at it this way: if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to oppose PM scanning. I realize not everyone can subscribe to this view, because a lot of people feel 'violated' whether they have anything to hide or not; but, if two people want to communicate without being observed, I see no reason why they can't simply exchange e-mails and do their unethical business there, where it won't negatively impact the forum.

Ah, but the typical of PM monitoring, especially on larger forums is report based, almost exclusively, on report by member, not only making detecting the criminals nearly impossible, and at the same time, making it easy for those who are hacked to have their friends banned for what was innocent chatter at the time, but is seen by someone with no knowledge of the past interactions as insulting.

[Weiss]

Ah, but the typical of PM monitoring, especially on larger forums is report based, almost exclusively, on report by member, not only making detecting the criminals nearly impossible, and at the same time, making it easy for those who are hacked to have their friends banned for what was innocent chatter at the time, but is seen by someone with no knowledge of the past interactions as insulting.

...Huh?

I'm going to try and chip away at that and draw out some logic. Basically, you're saying that someone moderating the PMs may misjudge the situation and believe that a situation is worse than it truly is, thus making a bad call and banning someone inappropriately? You're acting like a moderator or administrator is going to immediately skip to, "Hey, I think I'll ban this guy forever!"

There are clear lines separating illegal actions and legal actions. Sending pornography through PMs is pretty cut and dry. Soliciting minors is pretty cut and dry. Crimes that are documented and clearly displayed for the 'prying eyes' of the moderation staff are pretty cut and dry. Small infractions like inappropriate language don't usually jump straight to the ban phase. Furthermore, while PMs usually aren't looked at in depth unless someone reports a specific user, the administrators and moderators can go back to any previous PMs to find references for whether or not the situation is deserving of punishment, and how severe the punishment should be. Seriously, it's a rather efficient system.

Administrators are usually chosen - or hold their position over a long period of time - by merit of their ability to perform their duties appropriately. They aren't children, nor are they oblivious to the world around them. On any worthwhile forums with a respectable staff, I doubt you'll find an administrator who would immediately ban a member for a single offense of inappropriate language or minor conduct infractions, especially through PMs. Those are small issues and barely deserve a warning. On the other hand, flagrant illegal actions need to be taken care of on a different level, with much harsher punishments dealt out.

[Igraine]

All I can really say at this point, is thank G-d that Fate is the one in charge here, and she's already said that PM screening is a big "NO GO" for the admins and mods here.

Yes, debate the ethics of this, that and the other thing all you like, for as long as you've got breath in your body and flesh on your typing fingers. But at least I can honestly say I've actually admin'd a board at least five times this size, plus worked in law enforcement and worked cyber crime, stalking and child porn cases. I have nothing to hide in the least, but if I thought admin's were going through my PMs to "check me out," or PM "scanning," I'd leave this board so fast it'd make your head spin.

And maybe that doesn't seem like such a great loss - that's fine too.

Oh, and "flagrant illegal actions" don't need to be "taken care of on a different level," they need to be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Period.

Sorry Fate, but this is a bit much for me here - just going to have my say and click off the "stop watching this topic" thingy, because my blood pressure's about to hit the roof.

[Guest]

All I can really say at this point, is thank G-d that Fate is the one in charge here, and she's already said that PM screening is a big "NO GO" for the admins and mods here.

Yes, debate the ethics of this, that and the other thing all you like, for as long as you've got breath in your body and flesh on your typing fingers. But at least I can honestly say I've actually admin'd a board at least five times this size, plus worked in law enforcement and worked cyber crime, stalking and child porn cases. I have nothing to hide in the least, but if I thought admin's were going through my PMs to "check me out," or PM "scanning," I'd leave this board so fast it'd make your head spin.

And maybe that doesn't seem like such a great loss - that's fine too.

Oh, and "flagrant illegal actions" don't need to be "taken care of on a different level," they need to be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Period.

Sorry Fate, but this is a bit much for me here - just going to have my say and click off the "stop watching this topic" thingy, because my blood pressure's about to hit the roof.

Cosign.

[Weiss]

Oh, and "flagrant illegal actions" don't need to be "taken care of on a different level," they need to be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Period.

I'm pretty sure that would get filed under the category of being "taken care of on a different level" than the usual punishment for a rule infraction. Unless you place forum suspension and legal action on the same level, that is.

Anyway, I'm just stating my side of the argument and justifying it with my opinions and observations. No need to get quite so riled up about such an arbitrary topic.

[Anemone]

The thing is, a MAJOR part of moderation isn't illegal activities, its troll removal. And, in-jokes, and the like, to the un-knowing, can definately appear to be what they're not.

Illegal activities are cut and dry, trolling, and the more commonplace, are not.

[Sponsored content]