What Should the Statute of Limitations Be on This?

[Funkyterrance]

It certainly looks like he reported you vindictively, that you made this thread vindictively in response, and Nietzsche replied vindictively in thread.

The mod response that you should both knock it off seems like the right solution.

I just thought I might make a couple of clarifying statements in regard to your post, symmetry.
I am legitimately interested in the opinion of the community regarding a statute of limitations on reporting. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I started this thread in an attempt to bait nietzsche because that is NOT the truth. I was, in my opinion, reported for reasons beyond the actual offense and I wanted to know what, if anything, I could do about it and what the opinion of the matter in general was. In fact I did not want the accuser to join the discussion at all, which is why I didn't include any identifying information regarding him or the mod in the title or OP. I don't think anyone responding knew who I was referring to and if I had anything to do with it, it would have remained that way indefinitely.
I want everyone who responded to the thread with their honest opinion to know that I do appreciate their comments as I always do when I start a topic, whether they agree with me or not. I desire to know what the general consensus of the community is so that I may know better in the future.

[Symmetry]

It certainly looks like he reported you vindictively, that you made this thread vindictively in response, and Nietzsche replied vindictively in thread.

The mod response that you should both knock it off seems like the right solution.

I just thought I might make a couple of clarifying statements in regard to your post, symmetry.
I am legitimately interested in the opinion of the community regarding a statute of limitations on reporting. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I started this thread in an attempt to bait nietzsche because that is NOT the truth. I was, in my opinion, reported for reasons beyond the actual offense and I wanted to know what, if anything, I could do about it and what the opinion of the matter in general was. In fact I did not want the accuser to join the discussion at all, which is why I didn't include any identifying information regarding him or the mod in the title or OP. I don't think anyone responding knew who I was referring to and if I had anything to do with it, it would have remained that way indefinitely.
I want everyone who responded to the thread with their honest opinion to know that I do appreciate their comments as I always do when I start a topic, whether they agree with me or not. I desire to know what the general consensus of the community is so that I may know better in the future.

Having been on the end of Nietzsche's antics on many occasions I naturally sympathise with your annoyance. It's not really a proper month if he doesn't start a thread that the mods have to lock.

I don't think this is the best way to engage with his brand of declasse flaming and baiting though.

[thegreekdog]

It does take a while for moderators to make a decision in some instances. I think this is a good thing, not a bad one.

If the delay in a report is due to deliberation on the mod's behalf I agree that it is absolutely a good thing. If the delay is due to an actual delay in reporting the offense it seems that the motive should be carefully scrutinized.

I don't disagree.

[AndyDufresne]

It does take a while for moderators to make a decision in some instances. I think this is a good thing, not a bad one.

If the delay in a report is due to deliberation on the mod's behalf I agree that it is absolutely a good thing. If the delay is due to an actual delay in reporting the offense it seems that the motive should be carefully scrutinized.

Reports are usually read by one or more Volunteers after they come in, but as TGD has mentioned, the delay is usually because a discussion occurs regarding the merits of the report. I think our Volunteers attend to issues in a pretty timely manner.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

I agree with you that a week seems like a long time. However, I've also been told on a few occasions that it can take more than a week before someone gets around to looking at a report. So perhaps it was reported fairly early, but the mods just hadn't gotten to it until later?

So if there is a doubt regarding the motive behind the report do you think it's ok to ask when the report was submitted or is this considered out of order?

In my own personal opinion (I am not a moderator), I don't think there's a problem with someone asking, but I also think it's irrelevant. If you did it, you did it.

[Funkyterrance]

I think our Volunteers attend to issues in a pretty timely manner.


--Andy

This has been my experience.

So if there is a doubt regarding the motive behind the report do you think it's ok to ask when the report was submitted or is this considered out of order?

In my own personal opinion (I am not a moderator), I don't think there's a problem with someone asking, but I also think it's irrelevant. If you did it, you did it.

But here's the rub, Woodruff: You are totally correct that if I did it, I did it, and I did do it, but my point is that the timing of the offense is relevant. We've had our differences in the past, woodruff, but those instances have come and gone and if I didn't report you for something then, what motive would I have for doing so now?

[rdsrds2120]

I think our Volunteers attend to issues in a pretty timely manner.


--Andy

This has been my experience.

So if there is a doubt regarding the motive behind the report do you think it's ok to ask when the report was submitted or is this considered out of order?

In my own personal opinion (I am not a moderator), I don't think there's a problem with someone asking, but I also think it's irrelevant. If you did it, you did it.

But here's the rub, Woodruff: You are totally correct that if I did it, I did it, and I did do it, but my point is that the timing of the offense is relevant. We've had our differences in the past, woodruff, but those instances have come and gone and if I didn't report you for something then, what motive would I have for doing so now?

I understand your point, but there's also something else to remember -- when moderators send out those "unofficial" PMs (not an official warning or disciplinary measure), even if the time of the offense has seemed to expired, it's good that we have a definitive date on record that something was done. If you and nietzsche had both moved on, then good! The PM was just a day late and a dollar short. However, some brief interactions in this thread don't seem to suggest it, and I would like to reiterate the sentiments of the PM.

BMO

[Funkyterrance]

I understand your point, but there's also something else to remember -- when moderators send out those "unofficial" PMs (not an official warning or disciplinary measure), even if the time of the offense has seemed to expired, it's good that we have a definitive date on record that something was done. If you and nietzsche had both moved on, then good! The PM was just a day late and a dollar short. However, some brief interactions in this thread don't seem to suggest it, and I would like to reiterate the sentiments of the PM.

BMO

Duly noted, rds, and the interactions were, as you pointed out, more or less brief. I would, however, like to continue with the discussion because I feel the subject is relevant aside from the specifics of my case.

[rdsrds2120]

I understand your point, but there's also something else to remember -- when moderators send out those "unofficial" PMs (not an official warning or disciplinary measure), even if the time of the offense has seemed to expired, it's good that we have a definitive date on record that something was done. If you and nietzsche had both moved on, then good! The PM was just a day late and a dollar short. However, some brief interactions in this thread don't seem to suggest it, and I would like to reiterate the sentiments of the PM.

BMO

Duly noted, rds, and the interactions were, as you pointed out, more or less brief. I would, however, like to continue with the discussion because I feel the subject is relevant aside from the specifics of my case.

Usually, the problem with timing that we have is not that the report gets reported late, but that it's dealt with a little later. Over 95% of the time, I'd say, posts are reported within 72 hours of their posting. The time delay lies with the falling into place on what happens to that report and the parties involved, usually. This is also affected by how many reports we have to work with, fluctuations in team activity (for example, college midterms are coming upon some of us), and of course, evaluating user history. Most reports are dealt with pretty quickly, and a week isn't a long time for it, I think.

BMO

[Funkyterrance]

Most reports are dealt with pretty quickly, and a week isn't a long time for it, I think.

BMO

Perhaps it would be beneficial if when someone was reported they were allowed to know when the actual report was submitted. This would make for less arousal of suspicions when a report seems to be a rather delayed reaction. As it stands one is only left to one's own deductive reasoning considering the circumstances surrounding the report.

[thegreekdog]

The other thing I saw a lot, which sort of makes sense, is that sometimes an arguably reportable offense occurs and the offendee doesn't report it, but then the offender does more things so the offendee brings up the original offense with the others.

[Funkyterrance]

The other thing I saw a lot, which sort of makes sense, is that sometimes an arguably reportable offense occurs and the offendee doesn't report it, but then the offender does more things so the offendee brings up the original offense with the others.

So you are referring to the act of "building a case" I have heard mentioned? This scenario is a bit unsettling in my opinion since it not only encourages counter "building" from the offendee, but it seems an opportunity to paint a distorted picture. I should hope that decisions are not made in light of "who wants it most" but rather in light of the validity of the evidence.

[Woodruff]

The other thing I saw a lot, which sort of makes sense, is that sometimes an arguably reportable offense occurs and the offendee doesn't report it, but then the offender does more things so the offendee brings up the original offense with the others.

So you are referring to the act of "building a case" I have heard mentioned? This scenario is a bit unsettling in my opinion since it not only encourages counter "building" from the offendee, but it seems an opportunity to paint a distorted picture. I should hope that decisions are not made in light of "who wants it most" but rather in light of the validity of the evidence.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If "you did it", but it was (let's say) two weeks ago...and then "you did it again", but it was (let's say) two weeks later...and then "you did it again". If the "case builder" in this scenario goes back and gets those first two acts as part of his case, I think that's perfectly legitimate. After all, it was overlooked until you made a nuisance of yourself by showing a propensity to continue doing it.

(My "you" is not meant as "you, Funkyterrance", for the record.)

[Funkyterrance]

The other thing I saw a lot, which sort of makes sense, is that sometimes an arguably reportable offense occurs and the offendee doesn't report it, but then the offender does more things so the offendee brings up the original offense with the others.

So you are referring to the act of "building a case" I have heard mentioned? This scenario is a bit unsettling in my opinion since it not only encourages counter "building" from the offendee, but it seems an opportunity to paint a distorted picture. I should hope that decisions are not made in light of "who wants it most" but rather in light of the validity of the evidence.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If "you did it", but it was (let's say) two weeks ago...and then "you did it again", but it was (let's say) two weeks later...and then "you did it again". If the "case builder" in this scenario goes back and gets those first two acts as part of his case, I think that's perfectly legitimate. After all, it was overlooked until you made a nuisance of yourself by showing a propensity to continue doing it.

(My "you" is not meant as "you, Funkyterrance", for the record.)

Lol, I didn't assume anything don't worry. The only problem I have with what you said has to do with duration and intensity. Both of these factors should really be considered in consulting someones "case" since technically speaking, droves of people could be targeted at any time for simply maintaining the status quo.

[thegreekdog]

The other thing I saw a lot, which sort of makes sense, is that sometimes an arguably reportable offense occurs and the offendee doesn't report it, but then the offender does more things so the offendee brings up the original offense with the others.

So you are referring to the act of "building a case" I have heard mentioned? This scenario is a bit unsettling in my opinion since it not only encourages counter "building" from the offendee, but it seems an opportunity to paint a distorted picture. I should hope that decisions are not made in light of "who wants it most" but rather in light of the validity of the evidence.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If "you did it", but it was (let's say) two weeks ago...and then "you did it again", but it was (let's say) two weeks later...and then "you did it again". If the "case builder" in this scenario goes back and gets those first two acts as part of his case, I think that's perfectly legitimate. After all, it was overlooked until you made a nuisance of yourself by showing a propensity to continue doing it.

(My "you" is not meant as "you, Funkyterrance", for the record.)

Lol, I didn't assume anything don't worry. The only problem I have with what you said has to do with duration and intensity. Both of these factors should really be considered in consulting someones "case" since technically speaking, droves of people could be targeted at any time for simply maintaining the status quo.

Duration and intensity are taken into account in the decision-making process by the moderators I think.

[Funkyterrance]

Duration and intensity are taken into account in the decision-making process by the moderators I think.

Yes, but I'm getting the impression they aren't necessarily being taken into account by woodruff, according to his post. Perhaps this then applies to many others?

[2dimes]

Have you considered, swimming, cycling or taking some sort of a course?

[Funkyterrance]

Have you considered, swimming, cycling or taking some sort of a course?

I do swim and cycle but my schedule doesn't allow for any courses atm.

[2dimes]

Have you considered, swimming, cycling or taking some sort of a course?

I do swim and cycle but my schedule doesn't allow for any courses atm.

Take a sharpie and cross out this thread everywhere it shows up in the schedule.

[AndyDufresne]

Have you considered, swimming, cycling or taking some sort of a course?

I do swim and cycle but my schedule doesn't allow for any courses atm.

Take a sharpie and cross out this thread everywhere it shows up in the schedule.

2dimes is always terrific at finding time-saving measures.


--Andy

[Funkyterrance]

Have you considered, swimming, cycling or taking some sort of a course?

I do swim and cycle but my schedule doesn't allow for any courses atm.

Take a sharpie and cross out this thread everywhere it shows up in the schedule.

[Woodruff]

Duration and intensity are taken into account in the decision-making process by the moderators I think.

Yes, but I'm getting the impression they aren't necessarily being taken into account by woodruff, according to his post. Perhaps this then applies to many others?

thegreekdog has actually been a moderator, while I have not.

(Fortunately for ALL of you dumb bastards.)

[Funkyterrance]

Duration and intensity are taken into account in the decision-making process by the moderators I think.

Yes, but I'm getting the impression they aren't necessarily being taken into account by woodruff, according to his post. Perhaps this then applies to many others?

thegreekdog has actually been a moderator, while I have not.

(Fortunately for ALL of you dumb bastards.)

What are you trying to do Woody, give me nightmares?