That's actually a good point but I believe we could track "good" reporters automatically, at some point.Anonymous reporting is absolutely stupid. A highly successful reporter should get their reports handled faster and you should gamble that they will give accurate reports more readily if pressed for time. A poorly accurate reporter, especially if high volume and rate needs to have a violation that you should add to CoC called report spam that can disallow them to report for a period of time until they learn. If they keep at it, a site ban should be in order no joke.
What I'd like to see is something where you have to select a reason for the report and then write a comment on why you believe the post should be moderated.Same thing with votes. WHen a vote is reported state why the vote should be removed.I'd also be open to limiting 5-10 reports per day
Regarding the PMs, truth be told, I am also not a fan of disclosing them, but bsh1 pointed out some situations where it could possibly make sense and I believe we decided to bring this up on the forum and discuss it and that's what this topic is about. But then you've also provided some good points so it's going to be a hard decision. The best idea I've got is to maybe provide access only in some very serious cases (death threats and whatnot) and limit the access somehow so that the mods wouldn't be able to access it on a whim. But then, I can't come up with decent logic for this request PMs feature...so it's going to take some time and thinking.
So @drafterman pointed out that we may no longer need the reports to be open ( as in, not anonymous ) and I am thinking if we should indeed roll it back. What do you think? I wonder if I am missing something here?
I don't recall Napoleon the pig ever inviting feedback like this or tolerating harsh criticism. Besides, I think you mean "like 1984." There aren't a lot of privacy issues going on in Animal Farm. Just a lot of weirdly Soviet livestock...Mike, can you not see what bsh1 is doing? This is becoming like Animal Farm.
Like i said earlier, we have no idea what you guys do in the background. Mike can very well give you guys access momentarily and we'll never know. I think this situation should always be up to Mike to handle since it is beyond moderation and can hold legal consequences. He should do everything he can to keep things like that off his site. How he does it we really can't ever know. But getting an okay from this community to allow you guys to enter PMs is asking a little much. Just leave this sort of thing up to Mike. How he handles it is up to him. There shouldn't be any need of a permanent okay from us for you guys to have access. This is a rare occurrence that Mike should handle... and yes, if you guys do get access... it should only be through Mike. I don't think there should be any permanent extra ability to enter PMs.
There never was an argument for non-anonymity. It was a fluke.I agree that takes a lot of oomph out of the argue for non-anonymity.
Unlike Drafter, who would simply have Mike rule by fiat, the democratic process here of seeking feedback is probably the best.
The comparisons of me to some kind of dictator are also a bit ludicrous insofar as I have put this up to public discussion (and promised to abide by the result of that discussion) and am subject to scrutiny.
I wasn't referring to you in that post, but I hardly think, if I were trying to manipulate things behind the scenes, I would drag discussions like this out into the sunlight.I didn't compare you to a dictator, I compared you to a sniveling adviser who used his proximity to leadership to poison the well of with bad ideas.
There never was an argument for non-anonymity
I think it is important to get the community's approval before mods have access to any user's PMs. The idea that Mike could unilaterally give us approval in certain cases necessarily circumvents the democratic agency of the community. That agency is important to respect, however, particularly when the privacy rights of members is at stake.
I wasn't referring to you in that post, but I hardly think, if I were trying to manipulate things behind the scenes, I would drag discussions like this out into the sunlight.
Even if you didn't see it or agree with it, there was.
I am not disputing that. That it came about via accident does not mean there wasn't an argument for retain it, and thus for it.Dude, Mike admitted that it was an accident.
I don't recall Napoleon the pig ever inviting feedback like this or tolerating harsh criticism.
Besides, I think you mean "like 1984."
There aren't a lot of privacy issues going on in Animal Farm. Just a lot of weirdly Soviet livestock...
I love how ethang and drafterman preach so harshly against bsh1 and ignore the complete, utter, immovable oligarchic capacity to spy, use and abuse all private information of users able to be obtained via accessing this site (including page you came from and left the site to) haha you have blinkers on if you think "Mike" is the good guy and bsh1 is the evil one whispering in his ear.I do not give a damn what you say, there is nothing we can do to defeat Mike. You have submitted now pay the price, stop pretending there's an option 2 where you fight bsh1 and feel less like you're under absolute, immovable oligarchy.
