Website Suspension Scenario

[Fried Kitten]

Suppose that there is a website named LoveNovels.com.
People can post views on the website about books that they have read.

The website states in its policy that vulgarity is prohibited.

One of the website’s administrators (JOSEPH) repeatedly posts vulgar
comments on the website such as ‘f__k you’, ‘eat s__t’ (in full).

One of the users of the website informs another administrator (MAGGIE)
who has joined in a forum discussion that, JOSEPH posted vulgar
comments in other forum discussions (and they are viewable).

MAGGIE suspends (for two weeks) the user who reported JOSEPH’s
vulgarity because MAGGIE notes that, according to website policy,
the user should have informed the administrator through a designated
portal on the website about JOSEPH rather than informing MAGGIE
in a forum discussion.

Did MAGGIE act properly?
If not, to what would you attribute MAGGIE’s action?


(No real names of people or website have been used here.)

 

[BlueTex]

Suppose that there is a website named LoveNovels.com.
People can post views on the website about books that they have read.

The website states in its policy that vulgarity is prohibited.

One of the website’s administrators (JOSEPH) repeatedly posts vulgar
comments on the website such as ‘f__k you’, ‘eat s__t’ (in full).

One of the users of the website informs another administrator (MAGGIE)
who has joined in a forum discussion that, JOSEPH posted vulgar
comments in other forum discussions (and they are viewable).

MAGGIE suspends (for two weeks) the user who reported JOSEPH’s
vulgarity because MAGGIE notes that, according to website policy,
the user should have informed the administrator through a designated
portal on the website about JOSEPH rather than informing MAGGIE
in a forum discussion.

Did MAGGIE act properly?
If not, to what would you attribute MAGGIE’s action?


(No real names of people or website have been used here.)

It is private property and the owners of that property can suspend/ban whoever the hell they want for whatever reason they want...

 

[MaryP]

Suppose that there is a website named LoveNovels.com.
People can post views on the website about books that they have read.

The website states in its policy that vulgarity is prohibited.

One of the website’s administrators (JOSEPH) repeatedly posts vulgar
comments on the website such as ‘f__k you’, ‘eat s__t’ (in full).

One of the users of the website informs another administrator (MAGGIE)
who has joined in a forum discussion that, JOSEPH posted vulgar
comments in other forum discussions (and they are viewable).

MAGGIE suspends (for two weeks) the user who reported JOSEPH’s
vulgarity because MAGGIE notes that, according to website policy,
the user should have informed the administrator through a designated
portal on the website about JOSEPH rather than informing MAGGIE
in a forum discussion.

Did MAGGIE act properly?
If not, to what would you attribute MAGGIE’s action?


(No real names of people or website have been used here.)

Didn't you pose this question a few days ago but about an HR scenario? What happened? Didn't like the answers?

 

[itstony]

I would stop going to the website. Is this for real?

 

[Phys251]

This thread will end well.

 

[Juggernaut74]

Perhaps you got lost in the vastness of the internet.

This site is called debatePOLITICS. Not post every Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy brain fart you have.

 

[Crovax]

Suppose that there is a website named LoveNovels.com.
People can post views on the website about books that they have read.

The website states in its policy that vulgarity is prohibited.

One of the website’s administrators (JOSEPH) repeatedly posts vulgar
comments on the website such as ‘f__k you’, ‘eat s__t’ (in full).

One of the users of the website informs another administrator (MAGGIE)
who has joined in a forum discussion that, JOSEPH posted vulgar
comments in other forum discussions (and they are viewable).

MAGGIE suspends (for two weeks) the user who reported JOSEPH’s
vulgarity because MAGGIE notes that, according to website policy,
the user should have informed the administrator through a designated
portal on the website about JOSEPH rather than informing MAGGIE
in a forum discussion.

Did MAGGIE act properly?
If not, to what would you attribute MAGGIE’s action?


(No real names of people or website have been used here.)

I remember this from your other thread

Theoretical Scenario about HR Division

A woman complains to HR about sexual harassment through the firm's intranet instead of submitting the complaint to HR by email. Company policy is that complaints of sexual harassment must be made directly to HR by email. HR suspends this woman from her job for one week because she did not use...

debatepolitics.com

 

[less right]

I know that website. It's hosted by a Fox News celeb.

At least the moderating matches.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

This thread will end well.

😄 Silly optimist.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Perhaps you got lost in the vastness of the internet.

This site is called debatePOLITICS. Not post every Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy brain fart you have.

🤣👍👍

 

[Individual]

Wouldn't this thread be more suited to the "Off-Topic Discussion" forum?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Suppose that there is a website named LoveNovels.com.
People can post views on the website about books that they have read.

The website states in its policy that vulgarity is prohibited.

One of the website’s administrators (JOSEPH) repeatedly posts vulgar
comments on the website such as ‘f__k you’, ‘eat s__t’ (in full).

One of the users of the website informs another administrator (MAGGIE)
who has joined in a forum discussion that, JOSEPH posted vulgar
comments in other forum discussions (and they are viewable).

MAGGIE suspends (for two weeks) the user who reported JOSEPH’s
vulgarity because MAGGIE notes that, according to website policy,
the user should have informed the administrator through a designated
portal on the website about JOSEPH rather than informing MAGGIE
in a forum discussion.

Did MAGGIE act properly?
If not, to what would you attribute MAGGIE’s action?


(No real names of people or website have been used here.)

Discussion boards are radical dictatorships. Anything anyone says or does can be labeled as wrong if one of the mods/admin/whatever stupid titles they give themselves decides it is. And you have absolutely no say in any part of it.

My suggestion is don't bend the knee to the little ****ers. If they don't like you they'll find an excuse to suspend or ban you no matter what.

Also, if you're new, they'll often find a trivial violation to call you to the carpet on to assert their supposed dominance. This is just meaningless twaddle. Don't let it bother you.