No.
My suggestions sums it up well. "Personal attacks, while hard to define, are usually identifiable on sight. If they aren't, it will be the responsibility of the reporter to convey the attack. The mods will use their discretion here on if further punishment might be needed, but the offending attack may always be removed on request, without censoring the intent of the post."
If it's an attack, then mods take care of it. However, if the mods can't identify it as an attack (they're missing information that makes it a personal attack), then it's the responsibility of the reporter to supply the information of why it's a personal attack to the mods.
My suggestions sums it up well. "Personal attacks, while hard to define, are usually identifiable on sight. If they aren't, it will be the responsibility of the reporter to convey the attack. The mods will use their discretion here on if further punishment might be needed, but the offending attack may always be removed on request, without censoring the intent of the post."
If it's an attack, then mods take care of it. However, if the mods can't identify it as an attack (they're missing information that makes it a personal attack), then it's the responsibility of the reporter to supply the information of why it's a personal attack to the mods.
The moment that a target reports an attack, the first course of action will naturally be for the staff to investigate the issue and read through the thread -- so "showing the attack" is a given that will happen anyhow.
And the phrasing ("That is to say, in the absence of absolute evidence of harmful intent, no action will be taken") still makes it look like the mods won't take any action at all unless the target definitively proves that there has in fact been an attack.
(What does "absolute evidence of harmful intent" mean? What sort of "evidence" does it take to produce any action? The problem of "Dude, that guy takes things too seriously. I was just messin'" looking like it might be the answer to any complaint still exists.)
Effectively, this is positioned toward /preventing/ complaint submissions from being made or received.
How do you absolutely prove harmful intent? The examples you cite would involve some sort of demonstration that the accused actually knows real world information about you. Unless there is some sort of record of the public exposure of this information on TFF (i.e. Rant Thread: My Mother Just Died -> "Happy Mother's Day"), this isn't possible. And why is this process supposed to be so glaringly unsupportive of possible victims in the first place? Why can't somebody just take offense at something and request moderation without bothering with all this? In the end, the moderators will be the ones sorting out whether the request is reasonable or not, per context provided.
tl;dr The contents of this extra clause really just rephrases a standard due process procedure in a way that makes it sound painful to a victim. Leave it to the moderators to figure out whether a case brought to them is reasonable.
- Approve 1
- Show all