Posted by Rick on March 13, 1999 at 22:32:28 {MWSZV6.08fSjY}:
In Reply to: *What I Can and Cannot Do posted by 5GJW on March 13, 1999 at 21:52:54:
The words "getting removed" in the introductory letter automatically sent by the system upon registration means to "get banned" from the site. Getting banned means your email address is placed into a filter, preventing you from registering under that address, meaning you cannot post at all. Sure you could keep setting up new email accounts but if you kept getting removed or banned, then you would have to go through the process of getting a new email address again and again.
Anyway I think your misunderstanding is in not understanding that "getting removed" doesn't mean "getting (your posting) removed." It means "getting removed (as a registrant of H2O)." Getting removed, then, means you can read posts but not actively post yourself (unless you use another email address to get around this, which we can't control, but it will discourage many from getting banned).
Notice the sentence in the email that qualifies "getting removed":
"Only severe and abusive conduct that many on the site decide is harmful to others will result in removal of post privileges."
When a moderator deletes your post(s), they don't remove your posting privileges. They don't have the technical ability to do so. I haven't programmed into their moderator consoles the "buttons" necessary to deactivate anyone's posting privileges. Only administrators such as myself can do this, and our unwillingness to take this action more often is regularly criticized. Removal of posting privileges (meaning you can't post even if you are within the FPP, because your password is deactivated) is a form of "disfellowshiping." It's actually worse, IMHO, because it places an electronic "muzzle" over your face. Even in the Kingdom Hall, anyone can walk in off the street and speak to the entire congregation (at the risk of getting thrown out and possibly arrested depending on whether they were invited to speak or not). H2O has the ability to, at least temporarily, muzzle abusers.
I figure that since an abuser might get a new email address and come back to post anyways, I won't go to battle with someone unless we exhaust all other avenues (such as trying to work with them to tone down their abuse, giving fair warnings, and repeatedly removing their posts).
Finally, the problem with your suggestion to remove a few "overzealous" moderators is that others believe they are doing their best under the circumstances. I want to give them the benefit of doubt. It's not like we have hundreds of active moderator volunteers, but further, I lack the time to properly monitor, evaluate and remove individual moderators. My only recourse is if you can show that you absolutely did not violate the FPP in a given post, give me the link to that post, and allow me to decide if that moderator needs to get a warning. Then repeated warnings result in removal of a moderator. I'd rather err on the side of being conservative than to indiscriminately start asking moderators to leave. I suggest trying to express your feelings to the moderator and work things out. They are volunteering their time without compensation and it's thankless work. (At least, I and some others thank them all!)
Rick