Topic: Thread owners (Read 465 times)

Yeah my mistake. I'm not in the habit of censoring or excluding users in my threads. I have seen the local rules get added the odd time in an edit.

 

This makes sense as sort of guideline for the thread, or to create a specific train of thought on a subject.

I can see the benefit of the feature for self mod threads. Are you thinking of limiting it to specific boards? I could see some people possibly getting out of hand creating campaigns to ostracize people. Would the topics be hidden from those excluded or would they still be able to read the topic?
Either way for the benefits of it I probably wouldn't bother. I assume a good portion of blocked users might just use alts anyways.


I almost posted that in the thread yesterday but reconsidered. Had a laugh when i read your post.

That's why I don't think 'local rules' should apply in Meta and why I don't personally enforce them. People shouldn't be able to moderate their posts how they like in here. If they want a direct response from staff they can just PM them about it. Most threads these days are just done in public for attention seeking or trolling and it's getting tedious.

Most of the trollspam from cryptohunter happens in Meta, which doesn't allow self- moderated topics. I had to lock this topic when it completely derailed from the user who ignored my local rules. Which reminds me, since the troll is now spamming with his alt-accounts, I'll see if I can unlock it again.

Ok, so if I got this correctly, local rule "user A is not allowed to post" shouldn't be enforced but it can be? 

---

Any example? Or just another rant?
I am sorry to tell you but according to your local rules you are not allowed to comment in that thread:

Now go and report yourself to most senior admin member.

Please do. Most people probably self-mod threads to only keep a handful of certain people out in the first place and you have to keep deleting those that do anyway. This would solve their issues rather than staff having to get involved.

Why speculate on off topic nonsense whilst blinding us with your sig spamming? your dreams of owning a bitcoin are clouding your already limited newbie judgement.

Sorry folks, but I notice a lot of off topic noise (from sig spammers) and some dreams of silencing the truth, that will be shattered publicly time and time again.
The truth will not be silenced. Most people use local rules to prevent the truth being heard. I use local rules to ensure the truth is not covered in a veneer of scam enabling dirt from observable scammers and their friends.

Moderators who openly support proven scammers and liars positions on DT can not be trusted. Their bias has already been openly observed to flood over into their previous posts. Relying on their judgement for which local rules the will enforce is not something I would care for. However, any clear double standards or bias from them will be called out on the rep section and broadly debated in meta at length. If local rules are clear then there is no reason to uphold them for one member and not uphold them for another member.

If we are now saying local rules do not mean anything in meta that that is fine. However, it must be so for all members. I notice the very CLEAR local rules in my own thread are being flagrantly broken.

Fair and equal treatment for all members will be the goal.

Local rules are enforced entirely at the discretion of the relevant moderators. It's intended to be for stuff like "you must post a picture", "you must make a price prediction", "do not go on tangents about services other than ", etc. Not really "these people are banned: ...". (Though I have been thinking about adding a function to ban specific users from your selfmod threads.)

The OP of a thread can create "local rules" when they create a thread. A local rule must be simple enough so that a moderator responding to a report can quickly tell if a rule was broken or not. The local rules are enforced only if the moderator wishes to, and there are certain types of local rules that will not be enforced, such as "no calling me a scammer" "no saying I am wrong" etc.

I think he is referring to SaltySpitoon's replies in this thread.


He must be a true CH's fan to remember all these details

CryptoHunter's posts were probably deleted not because of the local rules on the thread, but because he was off-topic and his rumbling posts were annoying (like marlboroza said above).

Excuse me, but where is that stated? I see only this:
She was probably ranting and spamming her off topic replies.

WRONG.  SS a mod for 6 years clearly stated that breaking local rules will mean your posts get deleted.

Tman an authority on this forum I believe also stated that local rules if broken will result in your posts being deleted. He successfully used local rules to remove cryptohunters posts which he had banned in the local rules. LoyceV the robovac AI here also started the local rules gold rush.

Steamtyme does not understand there is no self moderated "option" available in meta. It seems unlikely someone would forget to make it self moderated while typing out local rules  well, there are some here in meta who clearly could get that confused.

It doesn't sound like OP thinks,  may I remind you that t-o-a-a posted this:
My guess is t-o-a-a will report that post as off topic, but I don't see how anyone can restrict whole forum except 3-4 people to post in thread. I mean, how you can restrict anyone to post in thread which isn't self moderated?

Everyone can create thread and write in local rules "users with a and o in nickname are not allowed to post", it is basically the same thing what happened here. So t-o-a-a is either lying or moderator removed some posts because they broke this rule.

I just want to make sure this rule is "legit".

When in doubt I would look to more recent statements made by theymos. I honestly have completely disregarded it when I see the "local rule" though they are usually pointed to someone else. I say post away, let the Mods decide. This is a public forum and I don't see theymos encouraging these "rules", when there is an option available.

To bad for them if they forgot to make it self-modded, they can take their ball and go home.

Probably OP thinks they will report  replies made by other members they don't expect to reply the thread and hope that mods will delete the post, but i think it's a very foolish thing to do because it makes no sense creating a topic in meta then calling on only the most senior members to reply.
It's very stupid.

Yes, but theymos also said:

This:

It's something I've seen around the forum. OP can't create a Self-moderated thread in the Meta board, so I understand why he chose to add a "Local rule" but again...

I am little confused with this local rule, which is lately part of many threads (user X is not allowed to post):


I understand if someone open self moderated thread they can remove any post for whatever reason they want, but this isn't self moderated thread and user said some posts are deleted (I am not sure if t-o-a-a speaks about that thread or different one):


Is OP owner of thread to have such rule? Are moderators going to remove posts from users who break this local rule?