Infraction on animal and pets

planetX

I've received an infraction on the thread titled 'volunteering to walk dogs' for this one line contribution. The OP had questioned why the names of rescues were being edited out of posts. I posted-

'Yet it's allowed to post links to breeders selling puppies, and companies selling dogfood'

which I don't agree is a breach of the peace. I was pointing out a discrepancy in the rules. The next post was from a mod explaining why this was the case. At the same time a second mod, adrenalinjunkie posted that I should report these posts with links, and when i didn't do so he issued me with an infraction. I've contacted him and he still claims my post above was a breach of the peace.
Can the c-mods take a look at that thread as the matter was already dealt with in a polite way by another mod, there was no need for the level of animosity from the second.

randylonghorn

PlanetX,

I have asked for some feedback from the API mods on this one, I will revert to you after that.

randylonghorn

planetX wrote: »

I've received an infraction on the thread titled 'volunteering to walk dogs' for this one line contribution. The OP had questioned why the names of rescues were being edited out of posts. I posted-

'Yet it's allowed to post links to breeders selling puppies, and companies selling dogfood'

which I don't agree is a breach of the peace. I was pointing out a discrepancy in the rules. The next post was from a mod explaining why this was the case. At the same time a second mod, adrenalinjunkie posted that I should report these posts with links, and when i didn't do so he issued me with an infraction. I've contacted him and he still claims my post above was a breach of the peace.
Can the c-mods take a look at that thread as the matter was already dealt with in a polite way by another mod, there was no need for the level of animosity from the second.

Ok, I don't think it's especially relevant, but let's get rid of the "discrepancy in the rules" bit first.

The API mods have clarified the following:

- Links to selling puppies are not allowed at all and are removed on sight. What is allowed to be posted is the full breeders list from the IKC or such reputable organisations.

- Companies selling dogfood are not allowed either - recommendation / discussion of certain types of dog food is allowed.

On the other hand, rescue organisations got a great deal of leeway and support on the API forum until they (or some of them at least) made the situation impossible ... we had rescue organisations bitching about other rescues, rescues threatening to sue over posts by users and other rescues, and local mods, the C-Mods, and eventually the admins and even the community manager having to deal with the fallout.

That simply couldn't continue, and hence the necessity to introduce somewhat draconian measures, and impose a rule that there was to be no further recommendations, links to, or discussion of the activities of individual rescues on the forum. I'm not sure that anyone is actually madly happy at having to take that step, but it really had got to the point that there was no choice.

However, while I felt it was worth taking the time to clarify and re-iterate that point, it's not actually relevant to the issue you have raised, as it was not the content of what you posted but the manner in which you posted which resulted in the infraction.

It has *always* been a Boards principle that you do not argue moderator decisions / directions on thread, as it drags threads off-topic and disrupts forums.

This is not a relatively new rule or one specific to any one forum like the "no rescues" one: it is a sitewide one and has been in place since long before you registered on Boards.

From the Boards FAQs / general guidelines (see the link at the top of this page):

It is against the rules to argue with a moderator action in such a way that it drags a discussion off-topic from its original goal (short: never argue with a mod in-thread - it almost always leads to a ban).

Well, it didn't lead to a ban this time; it lead to a red card being issued, a far milder sanction.

As such, I don't see any reason to justify overturning the decision of the local mod in this case.

Trojan

Cmod has ruled and has admin agreement, no further discussion necessary - case closed.