*when is it appropriate to post to questions and suggestions, and when is it appropriate to PM a mod/admin. instead?
Questions and Suggestions was intended to be a forum for the how-to's of the board features and to make suggestions for features forums, etc. Issues with policies and behavior, mod and admin actions are supposed to be addressed with the mod and admin by PM or Email. We have permitted some discussion here of that nature from time to time but it is not the intent of the forum and is against board policy.
If your issue is related to a specific forum or a thread or post in that forum, or moderation action taken you should contact the moderator first. If that does not resolve the matter you contact an administrator. *ISP email.
What are the consequences for the numerous members already registered who did not use an ISP based account to register? Or who registered under an ISP but no longer have that ISP and access through a different ISP? Is the concern for people having multiple accounts, or for being able to track someone who does something illegal, or what? I think that needs to be spelled out too. I like the idea of deleting users who have never posted or who haven't posted in several years. That would help to free up some new user names if nothing else.
This policy was placed due to free accounts bouncing emails back in excess. The spam filters of some free email accounts often do not permit automated emails. We have never banned registration with a non-ISP email. We have simply asked that you use one to register your account to receive email notifications through it with less issue. We can remove the "this must be applied for with an ISP-based email address" and make it clearer that non-ISP email accounts that bounce notifications back may result in loss of that feature for the member. No consequences planned other than that explained. No one will be banned for not having an ISP email.
*I would love to see praising of spanking banned in the UA, board wide, not just at GD.
Again, this is a place where discussion about crying it out, encouraging formula feeding by choice of the mother, blindly vaccinating and proud of it, circumcision for aesthetic reasons, religious discrimination and hurting children on purpose are not supported. Here's the Statement of Purpose. Also, the user agreement requests that we all "uphold the integrity of the community" which has chosen to not include advocating for spanking children.
I would like to see a sitewide ban of promotion of spanking/corporal punishment, CIO, RIC added to the UA. Also an eschewing of any type of discrimination, per the discussions of race, class (should include homosexism, sexism, disability, etc)
We are implementing something along those lines into the new UA. *If all posts become the property of MDC, then the writer's forum would stop, wouldn't it? No one would post what they are working on if they lose rights to it.
We'll clarify this in the UA. *I understand why you want to limit people saying nasty things about MDC elsewhere. I really do. You want to protect and nurture MDC. And I stay out of MDC bashing on other websites because the mission of MDC is so important. But there is no way you can possibly be sure you are banning the same person! There is no way to prove that someone using an MDC username at another site is actually that same person. I've had two user names on the web that were used by other people at other sites!
If you read the revised UA above there is nothing in there about such participation of members elsewhere. However, we do reserve the right to look into complaints we receive that we can verify as a cross board issue and take action if necessary. It is true that we cannot prove usernames. But some things can and should be addressed if they affect MDC in a negative manner. We will act to preserve the integrity of MDC when we can without unfair accusation. *I feel Mothering should welcome anyone who is respectful of its mission of being a fiece advocate for the rights of children whether or not they are/plan to be parents, including child care providers, teachers etc.
We do. We have no policy againt this.
there are some topics that are obviously verboten here (advocating circumcision or debating abortion for example) and others that are explicitly forbidden some places (spanking in GD) but it's not spelled out that it's not allowed anywhere on MDC. Would it be possible to have these topics in the UA?
We'll try to clarify things a bit but don't want it too balck and white. Things are never that simple unless we place an all out ban on specific topics. When people are banned/suspended, could "banned" or "suspended" be placed under their name? I think this would help on several levels. It would eliminate the feeling that people have just poof! disappeared and would also probably take some pressure off admins and mods because the infamous "What every happened to ***" could be avoided.
Actually the threads will still come up to comment on the banning. We prefer to protect the privacy of members. Some don't want it know that they have been suspended or banned others don't mind at all. So it seems better to protect those who prefer to not have that under their usernames and allow those who want others to know to tell them themselves.
I definitely think "upholding the integrity of the community" could be expanded on. Maybe link to the web statement of purpose?
Maybe. But it's such a big thing anyway I doubt anything we say would cover all possibles.
Maybe add something to the mutiple identity clause about PMing an admin if an anonymous handle is needed for safety reasons?
Perhaps. Discussion rule 1 really is not universally enforced, perhaps because it is so open to interpretation. I don't know how this would be cleared up (can I call a doc who tells me breastmilk is poison an idiot? Can I call his ideas idiotic? Can I call my husband an idiot? Myself?)
To say it is not universally enforced is to assume the mod is aware of it. Let's not make assumptions.
Calling names is just that. Calling an idea a name is different. We explain as it occurs and repeat offenses get an alert.
While I totally get the intent of discussion rule no. 2 (don't post pornish stuff) it seems to get a little overzealously interpreted at times (no innuendo, ever). It gets a little silly on a message board of adults.
We do not have a "no innuendo ever" rule. In fact, we have discussed this matter as similar to that of profanity. We ask that it not be used. We tolerate it when it is mild, not directly offensive, and occasional. But if it becomes too much we ask for it to stop, whether that be with a specific member or a thread or forum.
So ... technically, are we not supposed to edit our own posts with the intention of deleting everything in the post? I'm not real clear on that - I see ppl doing this sort of thing all the time.
Editing a post is fine. Mass editing your posts to remove the content entirely is not. Such editing damages discussions. This will be clarified in the UA.
The banning someone w/o good cause is ludicris. I know that I've disagree'd with a mod's decision and I've openly asked a question about mod behavior because it was an important thing for me to know. I don't like to think that I could get banned for those honest questions but it's even worse that I could be banned for NO reason whatsoever. I think that, as much as I love this place, I'd ban myself if that becomes part of the UA and I think that others will agree. Old members will leave and new members will never bother applying.
This really is not something that would be used against a member in good standing. It is more a statement of Mothering's right to remove any post or member they do not wish to host, without giving a reason and without having to justify the removal. This is not to say that it is done or will be done. But the right exists and is reserved. Sure, they may just come back under another username. But the rights stands and will be used when deemed appropriate.I really like the recourse/kitchen table part.
I would love to see some more information on how the members of the table work though - is it always the top posters? Is that current top posters or those with the highest post count? Will this be on a rotated basis? (I just wouldn't want to always have the same people doing this work all the time.)
We will clarify it all soon but not in this thread.
It looks like the policies for dealing with "hot threads" are changing. Instead of removing threads for review, threads will get closed with the possibility of being re-opened, and if a thread is permenantly locked it will stay on the board for 24 hours before it's removed. I think this is better than the current method of "Why was that thread removed? What did I miss?"
We are reworking the thread issue policies as there are some incongruencies in what was written and what we feel the best approach is. Basically we will be following what is in place and moderators will be reminded that they must place a note in the forum about removed threads - reason for removal and possibility/impossibility of its return. Who gets to decide what's a "disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner"?
The mods and admin - in consultation when necessary. In most cases the modds do discuss it amongst themselves and admins input before a decision is made. It can be a difficult thing to decide on and sometimes mods or admin may disagree with your thinking. You will have the Kitchen Table for recourse in such cases.Do not post to discuss the statements or behavior of a member or members on the board,
This might just be an issue of loose wording, but generally there is a lot of discussion of statements at Mothering. In a place like vaccination where members make statements, which might not be accurate, discussion is unavoidable.
So perhaps you could clarify what you mean, because as it stands, the way I read that statement negates the purpose of coming here.
Yes, loose wording I think. We will remove the "excessively" part. We will not host threads that take issue with mod or admin action/decision. Again, the appropriate venue for such things is private communication with the mod/admin. If that does not resolve the matter you may opt to take it to the Kitchen Table.Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.
I think this might need broadening. As an example, if for instance, someone inferred on the board that a public person within the USA is a paedophile sympathiser with no evidence other then the poster's imagination, that is unacceptable IMO. I realise that part of that is probably my inherent dislike of gossip but people should consider that that someone might see something they had put up, and take them to court over it... as you mention at the bottom.
It seems broad enough and it really is a matter of us having the responsibility to oversee and stop such inappropriateness. It's when we get into having to have a rule to cover every single little thing possibly not wanted that it gets tough. Because then we box ourseves into a square of rules. Better, I think, that we have a "basics" and apply that in "shades."Please be cautious in posting information of a personal nature or anything that might create legal concerns for you or Mothering.
I feel this needs to be repeated at the top in large red letters , with a reminder that this is a public board and anything said here could, can and has been in the past, used against members legally. Every effort should be made to make people understand that this isn't a place where anyone can bare their soul.
The statement is clear and sufficient and we don't feel it warrants red lettering.
...while the board is privately owned, isn't it publicly accessible?
Yes. *In rule #6, will it be OK to invite MDC members to other sites if it's NOT for adversarial reasons? LIke if you know of a forum or chat with good breastfeeding help, or crafting ideas, or what-have-you, or just a place with people you get along with, could you tell someone here about it?
That would be fine. It would be better if individual posts that violated the UA were edited/deleted instead of deleting the whole thread. Sometimes there's a lot of good discussion that gets lost because 1 or 2 people started namecalling or whatever and get the whole thread pulled.
The moderators handle such things on a case by case basis and sometimes the work involved in removing posts to make the thread acceptable for return is just too much. It is rarely a case of one or two people namecalling in a thread that gets the whole thread pulled. If that does happen you can appeal to an admin.
I think if someone posts something "borderline" the mods should advise the person on how to rephrase the same sentiment in an acceptable way, instead of just warning or deleting. Be a little more gd, if you will.
I am confused by number 10.
This rule was put in place to restrict mass deletion of all posts. We will not, as a rule, mass delete posts for a member and we will take action to prevent a member from manually mass deleting her/his posts. There may be exceptions to the rule though so members are asked to place a request for posts removal if an issue arises. Additionally, is there a clear discription somewhere, that I have missed of what a moderator's rights and responsibilities are? It would be nice for members to know just how far their duties extend, so that we can better defend ourselves when refuting an accusation or demand
Not currently in explicitly stated terms. The enforcement policy explains things somewhat. But we can produce something more specific if it will somehow help. Not sure how that
I don't care for the words: Parents or Parents To Be in the opening. Many, many people have found MM and MDC because they are active in children's lives and want to know more about forming attachments, etc. I would prefer to see it be stated a bit more boardly, something about family or advocates. Something. Some of us are parents to be... but it take a while due to complications with TTCing, etc. I find it to be a bit insensitive.
Good point. We'll try to better word that.
I think what can and cannot be discussed here needs to be spelled out more clearly. From the user agreement as written, I can tell that sex and criticism of the UA and moderation will not be tolerated, but some of us also know there are other discussions that will not be tolerated, like those surrounding abortion or gay rights issues, and the different parenting related things can be tricky too. Others who join may not know that, and it leads to arguing and hard feelings. It would just be easier all around if MDC's pro- and anti- beliefs were spelled out quite clearly and potential new users had to agree before their membership was processed.
We'll consider this. Thanks.
Discussions of a sexual nature should be within the realm of topics inherent to Mothering discussions such as sex after delivery, sex and the family bed, etc.
maybe i'm the lone voice on this one but i fail to see how you can separate sexuality in general from being a mother. i think it would be cool to see these kinds of discussions, which can certainly take place without profanity or sexual expliciteness.
We do not separate it from being a mother. We just do not host any and all discussions. We draw lines based on our purpose on the web and what we feel we can host. We invite members to seek out other venues of discussion for these topics. I think it would be really nice and feel a lot safer for many of us here if there could be a part in the "What we are about" section (I think that's what it's called) that could say we are a community where we welcome and cherish people of all colors, ethnicities, and sexual orientation. That doesn't sound like what I'm trying to get out...I'm sure someone can come up with something better to where it's clear that MDC is a place where all people are accepted and welcomed and valued equally. It should be a clear message so that people who are homophobic or racist will know that that is one of Mothering's values before they consider signing up. I have always been under the impression it is one of Peggy's values. I think it would make some of us feel a bit safer as well.
We'll consider this. Thanks. I wonder if there should be something about what a "Granola Ambassador" is, what a moderator is and what an administrator is and what their individual functions and roles are on the boards.
We'll consider adding this.I would like to see a board where we can talk about sex issues...it is such an important issue for many of us. My understanding is that it the family filters would screen MDC out and not allow access, therefore we would not be family friendly board? What if that forum was invisible, like the TP and TAO or by password only like Surviving Abuse is?
We're not interested in offering more private forums at this time. For some background...what has happened to precipitate such a reworking of the UA?
Just a general review as part of our desire to consider community issues, needs and desires and implement change where we can.
I think that what is considered to be off topic for a forum needs to be more clearly defined (preferrably with memberships input) and the results of doing so. I think we should allow for general venting for means of support in TAO regardless if the topic possibly could be posted elsewhere. As almost all topics could probably be posted elsewhere as it is.
We are discussing this issue and the general one of venting. But it really can't be something stated in the UA.
I would like to make a suggestion, which pertains to the rules so that's why I'll put it here. It would be great to have an MDC healing forum, a locked one that the public cannot see. Then there is no embarrassment for MDC for being called out and discussed by members. All well functioning corporations have a vent place or session. It helps heal the community. We can't just bottle up how we feel if we feel something unfair has happened. It only creates an undercurrent of unease, sarcasm, innuendo and then a breaking point where one or more members explode and lose their memberships. (which is rife here and has been for a while now) Lack of healing/venting isn't conducive to NFL. We can call out members, but we can't call out those with power. Our only vent outlet is a PM. A one on one thing where things can be hidden. I like full disclosure. It is only fair.
Interesting suggestion. Sounds a bit like a wrestling ring.
I don't think we have said anywhere that you need to bottle things up. We have laid rules and guidelines for how to deal with issues. What we do restrict is the inappropriate handling of issues such as posting attacks and accusations, namescalling, etc. Rife? Do you know how many people have actually lost their memberships? Very few. There is a lot of talk of people being "banned" but it happens very infrequently and usually only after multiple and ongoing issues.
The Kitchen Table is intended to offer recourse. Let's allow it a go to see if it helps deal with such things.
Do not post to excessively debate or criticize the MDC User Agreement, or to otherwise discuss the moderators, administrators, or their actions. Constructive criticism and questions for purposes of clarification are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator by private message or personal e-mail. If this is not successful, see Recourse (highlight).
The bold should say "only" not "best". There is no other option. Which is one of the many reasons for my suggestion.
Not true. We have, for some time, hosted discussions of this nature in Q&S. I think we will change that with the implementation of the Kitchen Table though. Q&S should be used for it's intended purpose, which I explained earlier in this post and all issues with admin and mod actions can be taken to the Kitchen Table.
Also, while the UA says that we are AP and NFL specific, I think it would help to have a short paragraph outlining what exactly that means.
Not sure if we can place such a statement that would be as comprehensive as you might want but I'll suggest it. Can we have something in there where if you don't post in X time (a month, a year, something consistent), that your membership will be deleted. This will clean up the member list and also free up unused usernames for people.
I don't agree with this at all. With all due respect I am not sure why so many people are so concerned about it, as it doesn't really affect other members. This is not a standard thing you will find in most internet communities. I think everyone should have the option to lurk if that is how they feel safest.
We will not be purging the members list.
I would think that the purpose of the UA is to handle problems if they arise from the discussion of a topic. It seems redundant to also forbid certain topics in the first place.
Mothering and MDC do not purport to be a place of "all things to all people." There are some things we don't host and things that are not ours to do. Our resources are limited, not unending. Some topics are just too volatile to handle and are not inherent to Mothering's purpose on the web. That doesn't mean they are unimportant or do not affect families. It just means it is not ours to host. So when we see that some discussions create too many issues for our community and/or for us to handle well, we will decline to host them. What has always, always, very deeply disturbed me is the blocking of ISP's. I know far too many people who have had their ISPs blocked here as a form of banning-without-the-label. I have always equated it, in my mind, as a way to "disappear" someone and completely silence conflict and dialogue. If someone is to be banned, then ban them; don't leave their user ID up there and intact, looking for all the world like they've just moved on to the next big message board, when they are in actuality blocked. Words don't adequately express my anger and rage over this particular board issue.
ISPs are only blocked when a member does not respect our requests. As for removing a username upon banning, I addressed the matter earlier in this post. And while we do say a banned member loses MDC membership I think a sincere request to return would be entertained so removing the membership is not really a good thing if that were to happen. Once removed we cannot reinstate that person's past account. I understand having a rule that prohibits posting to invite people to invade another board. However, I was recently informed by a mod that we can no longer say, "I heard on my Yahoo group," or, "I read on a blog," because that constitutes referring to another board. I think this is silly and that the enforcement of the rule needs to be returned to its original intent only.
It really depends on what you are posting about. If it is a negative statement you are making about what you read then it can create issues for us. It may not make sense to you but we have had to deal with such issues too many times so we know well what such statements can bring us and we ask that you please refrain. And really, for the purpose of discussion, to say "I heard from someone..." or "I read..." is just as good as "Someone on my Yahoo group said..." So we ask you to refrain to help acoid any posssible issue.Can we please have a mention about MDC standing against elective c/ and in support of homebirth and uc? or at least hb?
We'll consider it.
One major problem I see (after having thought extensively about it) with deleting usernames after the person has been inactive is how to deal with the member's posts after his/her username is given to someone else or deleted entirely. There is one particular board that I frequent a lot and one very knowledgeable person does not come there anymore. If someone wanted his username after he hasn't come back for a year or so then what would you do with the thousands of very very informative post that he posted during the time he was here? Would the new person get to take credit for them or would they simply read "username deleted" or what? How would that be handled? I realise that it would be a nice thing to be able to get a username that had already been taken by someone who really doesn't come here anymore, but how would that work exactly?
We don't plan to purge inactive accounts. So no worries there. I am also troubled by the ease at which non-members can read threads just by doing a search. Any way to disable search engines from gathering posts or threads? (I realize this isn't a UA issue - just mentioned it since someone else did further down.)
We want topics to come up in search engines. Mothering and MDC are advocate engines and want to spread the word. To try to keep out the general public is not really conducive to that. If you have concerns about your posts you might be better served by a more private board that does not have a web purpose. I support and appreciate MDC not taking a stand on issues in the UA. I don't believe those statement belong in a user's agreement. However, I do think linking to a mission statement as suggested in another post is a smashing idea. I think putting advocacy statements in a UA is the start of a slippery slope to censorship.
This is our thinking. But we will consider the entire matter as it does affect participation and moderation.
"In any way violates the law" ... well, where? What laws apply? Who has jurisdiction? And what laws? There are lots of women here plotting illegal birth situations that don't get shut down - are you cutting out their last resource to been-there-done-that information? The same applies to vaxxing - in many states it is illegal to claim a religious exemption just to be able to be exempt, and your magazine has even stated that is the case and counselled against it - yet the threads and posters encouraging it go on and on about how to do exactly that. Would they now finally go?
It is for you to interpret as you think may apply to you situation and where you live. It is for us to use as a policy to decide on hosting a thread or not. In some cases we may feel we can host something that fringes on the illegal. In other cases not.
I like the stricter, more defined way of dealing with thread closures. I had a thread closed after a beligerant poster got on. It is still closed and all the posts are still there. It was not reviewed or re-opened. Three of my complaint e-mails to the MOD are still in the "unread" category. The new UA guidelines and the Kitchen Table would give me recourse to get equitable action from the MOD if this ever happened again.
When this happens the next step would be to report it to an administrator. If you did that and it was still not resolved then it would be raised to the Kitchen Table at your request.
Do not post to invite MDC members to other boards for adversarial purposes or post inflammatory information about discussions at other boards. Clarify this please? Does it mean "do not post inflammatory information about discussions happening at other boards on MDC" (don't bring a fight over here) or does it mean "do not post information about discussions at MDC on other boards" (don't take your fight over there)?
I would assume that your intention is the former as it would be significantly OVER REACHING MDC's juristiction to say that users here can't discuss MDC outside of the board itself. The next logical step after this seems to be that users at MDC can not speak of the board IRL which is of course ridiculous and impossible for the moderation at this board to enforce.
It means "do not post inflammatory information, about discussions happening at other boards, on MDC".
Follow the rules and guidelines specific to individual forums. These will be posted at the top of the forum. This seems to set up a double standard. For example certain forums have guidelines regarding the discussion of spanking. However under this rule there is nothing against posting pro-spanking posts in another forum which lacks that rul. If MDC truely believes in the secondary rules in each forum, should they not also be board wide?
This will probably be addressed as we look at clarifying what we will and will not host. But for some forums it is specific - such as religious discussion of circumcision. That is not permitted on TCAC but currently permitted in other forums where and if appropriate. Spirituality is another example. The specific rules to that forum, if applied boardwide, would really squelch things when there is debate over a topic.
o After 24 hours, the moderator will remove the thread to an administrative board where it will remain for review before being pruned as a matter of board maintenance.
Why, if the thread is already destined to be "pruned" (an internet lingo term meaning deleted), does it need to be reviewed? I assume you mean to say that the thread "will remain for review before POSSIBLY being deleted". Review is pointless when a threads fate is already determined.
We're rewriting this.
One thread was on that became locked with this message. Apparently it was related to some other thread that I had never read. I emailed the moderator, politely asking why it was closed (there was no profanity or mean comments on it) and when/if it would be open again. I got no reply. I don't know if the thread was ever opened again or not. If this happens, I think the moderator should at least reply with why and what is happening. I don't mean with specifics about a specific user or their comments, but a reply would be professional. I also don't mean in obvious casses where people have been disrespectful or hurtful, in those cases I think it is best personally just to avoid the whole discussion. But on a thread of 10 posts, none of which are bad and you are just scratching your head, saying "what's wrong?"
I agree. We'll discuss this further and see what we can do. What happens if someone registers using a personal "handle" and later decides to open a non-profit or an income-generating blog or to use some portion of the handle in either an e-commerce or brick-n-mortar biz? Does that member's historic posts get deleted when they are assigned a new, non-commercial (non-solicitation is the intention) username?
No, the username will be changed and all posts past and current will be under that new username.
As for the other areas... I have always felt that, in laying out guidelines for how a group is to interact, less is more. Trying to anticipate and head off every potential negative situation stifles discussion and makes people afraid or uneasy to participate.
including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.
I think this is a part of the UA that is currently inconsistently applied. For example, one can say pretty much whatever one wants to about George Bush, the Pearls, Ezzo, the U.S. government, pharma companies, Wal*Mart, Nestle, etc. (and the list goes on) with absolutely no mention of the UA. Even though I agree with nearly all of it, I still think if we have a UA that says you can't cast suspicion on someone or say anything bad about someone, these sorts of threads shouldn't be allowed. And that seems very odd to me.
I'll agree that it is a bit of a rocky road to application. But it's not true that you can say pretty much whatever you want about Bush, et.al. Just ask the mods who have been bashed for not allowing members to bash Bush!
But it is true that you can express your negative opinions about things they say and do. There may be some inconsistency in application of this rule but I hope there has been some semblance of keeping discussions respectful. I think they do try but it is a very difficult matter when you're talking about people and actions that influnece and affect the public at large in a big way. So it may be reasonable to exoect that application will be stricter in some cases and less so in others. All relevant to the discussion at hand.
i agree that this board is already quite "rule heavy" for a bunch of adults.
less is more.
I would agree. But when "adults" behave in a manner that necessitates laying out rules, especially for a community of this size, I don't see it unreasonable to have rules that address recurrent issues and things not wanted by the host. Some of the posts in this thread are asking for even more detailed do's and don'ts so clearly we all see things differently. It is for Mothering to make the final decision about the necessity of rules. A no rules forum is more suited to a smaller private community. also, i think banning any innuendo or sex talk just makes everyone focus on the "forbidden fruit" as it were.
That's fine. They can focus on it in the privacy of their own homes or elsewhere on the web.
Sarcasm is a natural part of human speech and expression. I don't see why it should be banned. I'm sure that I could see places for everyone (including the mods) has used sarcasm. Sarcasm is not always negative, it is also used in a positive way.
True. But sarcasm can also be very rude and attacking. We apply this rule on a case by case basis. Certainly some sarcasm can be fine. Some is not.When you say "alert the Board Administrator," do you mean with the report button in the post? Do you mean the moderator of that individual forum? Any moderator at all? The Big Dude In Charge (that'd be Cynthia_Mosher)?
The Board Administrator could change, and has recently, so Board Administrator applies to the current admin. But I believe you are referring to this:
Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email or private message. We will make every effort to remove objectionable messages within a reasonable time frame, if we determine removal is necessary. If you feel another member is behaving in a manner that is in violation of these rules, do not take matters into your own hands. Let us try to resolve the situation. Simply alert the Board Administrator.
That really should be reworded to say "alert the moderator of the forum."
What's the difference between the Web Editor and the Board Administrator? Is there a list of names somewhere? If not, that would be helpful.
Check the masthead of Mothering Magazine's latest issue for titles and names.