SportsFan68 wrote: And now, he brings up a stack of stuff about how he is protecting our workplace environment, which I believe if that were put to a poll, it would quickly get consensus that this is our personal responsibility, a much-cherished notion around here.
<sigh>
He mentioned this as a theoretical example of an extreme case that might justify moderation, in line with the second choice of the poll, "Maybe, depends on the content". Now, yes, we each take personal responsibility if we read the Bored at work, but we do so knowing that this is not one of
those sites that should trigger alarms with the web filters.
Now, suppose, strictly theoretically, someone was to unexpectedly post something that was not only inappropriate and offensive but illegal, something for which the mere "possession" in a web cache could bring serious consequences. How is it each of our personal responsibilities to prevent that downloading, if we have no reasonable expectation of encountering such content here? Why would it be wrong for a moderator to delete that, preemptively, instead?
Yes, this is an unlikely, extreme example and doesn't have much bearing on the current incident. But you're bringing it up in your objections.
SportsFan68 wrote: No one's day, week, month, or year would have been wrecked if Bob### hadn't acted. I would rather have something which normally would be spoilerized go unspoilerized than have someone I don't trust using his power to make changes.
Obviously, there's still disagreement on this incident. But why is one side being trivialized while the other side is being promoted as an absolute, the equivalent of a Bored constitutional right?
Bob changed the header of a post and surrounded the text of that post--without deleting or changing any of that text--with a spoiler box. No one's day, week, month, or year was wrecked by Bob's action.
Can we have some perspective on both sides of this debate, please?
