Forums / Maintenance / Report Problems

The following is reported and stated because it affects the ability for all users on the website to speak without fear of being warned. To keep this readable I have divided everything into 5 bolded points of focus. To the users, I encourage a skim. To the moderators, I encourage a full read.

1.) I made this following comment on the Kaa Hypnosis entry and received a warning for it:

https://knowyourmeme.com/comments/5749633

That comment says:

"Is it possible that KnowYourMeme's Tumblr-logic (look where that got Tumblr) locking of galleries for having lewd content is censorship, against the mission of KnowYourMeme to document memes, and a threat to KnowYourMeme's bottomline by being widely unpopular?

No, it's the users who are acting entitled."

31 upvotes 0 downvotes

It is relevant to point out it received 31 upvotes and 0 downvotes as that will tie into my argument for why this should NOT have triggered a warning.

2.) The private message warning I received from a moderator for this comment:

"Reason: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/rules-and-guidelines/

Keep it relevant. Make sure that any addition or contribution you make to the site is relevant to the topic at hand. If you have nothing to say on a particular subject, skip the topic and move on. Similarly, please make certain your media contributions are relevant, regardless of the state the entry or thread is in. If you want to address a specific individual about personal matters, contact the user via private message instead of starting a public discussion.

https://knowyourmeme.com/comments/5749633

At least one part of your comment should be "on topic". You have plenty of space to complain about mods that don't clutter unrelated entries."

The moderator was promptly responded to in as respectful a manner as I could. I was very perturbed my stay on KnowYourMeme was threatened because of what seemed to be perfectly standard comment section rhetoric.

3.) What the KnowYourMeme rules say on this matter:

The following quote was perfectly restated by said moderator already:

"Keep it relevant. Make sure that any addition or contribution you make to the site is relevant to the topic at hand. If you have nothing to say on a particular subject, skip the topic and move on. Similarly, please make certain your media contributions are relevant, regardless of the state the entry or thread is in. If you want to address a specific individual about personal matters, contact the user via private message instead of starting a public discussion."

4.) My interpretation of how the KnowYourMeme relevancy rule would apply to my comment:

My comment references that KnowYourMeme locks galleries with lewd content. The comment, by KnowYourMeme's own rules, must be relevant to the topic it is posted on or it qualifies for moderator action such as warning, removal or whatever else is deemed appropriate.

The proof against me is quotation of my comment and quotation of the KnowYourMeme rules. Here is my rebuttal.

KnowYourMeme's rules do not clarify what is and is and is not considered the main 'topic' of a discussion or entry, leaving it open to broad interpretation. Thus, in accordance with the wording of this rule, I will contend that the topic for an entry can include how and why an entry was made. If KnowYourMeme does not intend for its rules to be interpreted in this manner, it is free to amend them at a later time to hold a more narrow definition. Until such time, such rules should be interpreted as-written regardless how broad they may be.

This relevancy rule as-is, is by its own wording open to broad interpretation that can include anything related to the topic as being on-topic, such as why the topic was chosen for documentation. I thus will prove how KnowYourMeme locking galleries with lewd content relates directly to the Kaa Hypnosis entry as a topic, and why the topic that is the Kaa Hypnosis entry was made.

4.a) The Kaa Hypnosis entry's reason for creation was because of the drama caused by moderators locking the Shorstack gallery.

The Kaa Hypnosis entry was made specifically because one or more KnowYourMeme moderators participated in locking the Shortstack image galllery, which created what has been described as 'drama' by users, and that drama in turn inspired superjumpman to create the Kaa Hypnosis entry.

The user superjumpman is heavily memed as of recent in the KnowYourMeme image gallery for having made the entry in relation to said drama. Here is a quote directly from superjumpman, creator of the Kaa Hypnosis entry:

https://knowyourmeme.com/comments/5749633 "Tbh, I was planning to make an entry for kaa anyway but all this drama around the shortstack entry. made me think it as the ideal opportunity to make one.
There was a need for that entry because it's one of the more (in)famous internet fetishes.
If i wasn't so lazy i think i would've posted that entry like 2 years ago when Jacob suggested it."

Here are 3 more memes that further establish that said drama was in relation to the locking of the Shortstack entry, and that said drama was related to why the Kaa Hypnosis entry was created:

Thus, it is true that the Kaa Hypnosis entry was made due to drama surrounding the creation of the Shortstack entry by superjumpman's own admission, and this connection between the creation of the Kaa Hypnosis entry and the drama surrounding locking of the Shorstack entry is further evidenced by multiple user-made memes. In turn, since the KnowYourMeme relevancy rule by its own wording broadly protects anything on-topic, which in this case includes anything related to the Kaa Hypnosis entry, it is thus fair to say my comment is on-topic in this regard!

4.b) My comment references that KnowYourMeme locks galleries with lewd content, and the Kaa Hypnosis entry IS a gallery with lewd content.

Is there any doubt my comment references KnowYourMeme locks galleries with lewd content? -my comment certainly makes that reference. The accuracy of said reference can be debated, but my comment nonetheless makes said reference. Is there any doubt that the Kaa Hypnosis gallery contains a large amount of lewd images? A large portion of said gallery contains images depicting over-sized breasts, often scantily clad, along with hypnotized women being gripped tightly by a snake with a face of pleasure. It does not take a grand imagination to see how that as a sum whole package can reasonably be interpreted as sexual in nature.

Thus, since it is true my comment references that KnowYourMeme locks galleries with lewd content, it is true that the Kaa Hypnosis entry is a gallery with lewd content, and it is reasonable to interpret KnowYourMeme's relevancy rule as broadly protecting on-topic content which in this case includes anything related to the Kaa Hypnosis entry, it is thus fair to say my comment is on-topic in this regard!

5.) The precedent this moderator ruling would set:

If this moderator ruling were left in place, it would willfully ignore the existing written wording of the rules, that convey simply conveys: "Keep it relevant. Make sure that any addition or contribution you make to the site is relevant to the topic at hand." This would give way to moderators narrowing definitions of words and rules to mean whatever they want them to mean, so long as it fits their desired interpretation. Don't like what someone said? -why, it must be off-topic. What kind of community would we be at that point though? -certainly not a genuine or trustworthy one.

I am hopeful that the moderators in charge will anull this warning, not for just my sake, but for the sake of everyone on KnowYourMeme. If KnowYourMeme wants to grow then the first step is to establish that moderators are listening to us users such as through these appeals to logic and rules. Should this fall on deaf ears then I respect that decision. But likewise and as small a meaning as this may hold for some mods, my decision to leave would also have to be respected as hard as that would be for me as I rather like you guys and your site.

Choose the users, choose the wording of your own rules, choose to anull this warning. Thank you for your extreme patience in reading this long set of posts.

Thank you for raising these fair points of contention I am sure some moderators have thought upon reading my posts. It is true, I could have appealed through the medium of Discord. It is true, I could have tried handling this with the moderator directly. Both of these are valid points to bring up, and legitimate ways I could have handled this.

Why did I do something seemingly illogical and foolish like making a thread instead of the methods you outlined? Am I just a dick trying to make the KnowYourMeme moderators look bad? It seems so rude, so ignorant to do things in this manner, right?

I thought of these things in advance, I did not do this on a whim, I want to assure you these actions were taken for reasons I consider fair to the users and the moderators. In no way should any of this be interpreted as disrespect as it is not -but it is most certainly a defense I consider justified given my account and ability to speak was effectively threatened by receiving a warning.

First, I would not appeal a ticket to the police man who provided it. I would feel quite stupid doing so. If a police man handed you a ticket, would you say to that same police man "I disagree, here's my reason for why I disagree with that ticket … Now that I've explained, please take back your ticket." Would you do that? And if the answer is no, why would you expect similar of me toward the moderator who provided me the punishment? That would be quite foolish of me to do and a waste of time. If anything, the moderator would at that point feel obligated to double down on their position because they already gave the punishment.

I trust that a moderator has already made their determination upon providing a punishment, as the time for talking was BEFORE providing it. After that point of the 'ticket' being provided, my only logical option is to appeal to mods at large to remedy the underlying issue. Is it possible the moderator would have rescinded? I admit it is entirely possible, but given the immense unlikelihood combined with the immense discomfort of an interaction where I have to explain, to the person who gave the punishment, why they should rescind it, you can surely at least empathize with my choice not to, even if you may disagree.

So you may wonder then, why did I not pursue the avenue of Discord?

Well, I do have to wonder why I should? There is no place on KnowYourMeme to my knowledge that says "punishment appeals are done through Discord." Discord is not a place I am comfortable personally using due to a lot of terrible experiences with people on that platform and how it is managed as a platform. For you Discord might be an excellent venue for communication, and I understand that as there is vast potential and use cases for it. For me Discord is absolute fucking hell and I really do not want to have to go there as it is very uncomfortable for me personally.

On top of all those reasons I would not want to use Discord because it would hide the issue. I DO want this issue PUBLICLY documented because it caused ME personal stress and likely has or will CAUSE OTHERS personal stress. Should me being distressed with the site not be considered an issue worth acknowledging? Should I just bitch about it on a separate thread in some comment so nothing gets done or worse I get warned yet again?

Please do not interpret this strong language as targeted toward you, this is purely reflective of me and my feelings on this subject.

I want people to know I have had this issue, that this is an existing issue, and that it needs to be resolved. There are TONS and TONS of comments very similar to mine on the Kaa Hypnosis and Shortstack entries, so those posters all have weight in how the moderators decide to handle this case.I do not want this issue buried. I do not want this issue hidden. We need this resolved in the open especially since everyone has a stake in this.

My respectfulness extends to the point of focusing solely on the issue and not targeting anyone singularly. My only goal is for a moderator or group of moderators to decide "okay, this is clearly wrong, we should fix this" and then anull the warning. I fully understand this moderator was just trying to defend the site, its mods, and made a decision many other moderators potentially would have made if they cared enough to do so. This is purely focused on fixing the logic of how things are done, not the moderator, not the individual.

I trust that if this site is at its core moderated on logic and rules, my appeal for warning nullification will be approved, and in turn we will have a precedent for similar freedom to speak about other topics on the website.

Yknow, while I don’t pay attention to the lewd entries (mostly because I fucking despise that shit), I just gotta say this:

This wasn't resolved, which I must report after patiently waiting for 2 weeks to no administrator response after multiple messages to the main admin Don.

I did however get another warning because I merely uploaded images without thoroughly adding tags/sourcing; instead of just talking to me or letting me know that has to be done.

This is incredibly anti-user behavior and I refuse to help document any further entries until this matter is resolved. My current number of edited entries is 3, which would have been much higher if this issue had not been stunting my motivation, and for that matter implicitly threatening anything perceived as incorrect or offensive will get me warned or banned, since entry 1.

Very disappointed. Feel free to say or do whatever you guys want but if it doesn't involve rectifying the reported issues, you have to empathize if I do not reflect a positive experience having helped the site the short time I have.

Honestly, I'm pretty sad about this as I really did like this site and saw a great deal of potential. Toodles.

Yes.
Both Efezs Yiollr and Imperial Guardsman had similar problems…

They had saved an posted screenshots of their warnings that I in turn screenshot and saved.

Since this is 1) affecting other users 2) head admin won't respond to me and 3) I am all set to quit using this site, I am naming the mod that sent me the warnings. It was as you screenshot: moderator Doeoeod. I've heard other users reporting the same issue from the same moderator.

Not that it matters at this point. No one is going to fix the problem so no point in me bothering with the courtesy of privacy when I am still pressured off the site by unresolved warnings either way.

Maybe it's that mod's fault, maybe it's a moderator culture fault, but mainly it's the fault of the head admin for ignoring me. Peace out.

So you broke the rules (which were provided to you, there was no vagueness to it) and received a warn for it. Big fucking deal. Warns do wear off you know. They're not a permanent stain on your reputation (unlike a suspension). I have in fact been warned before too but I don't care because I KNEW what the warn was for and I ACCEPTED what I did violated the rules. I moved on instantly and there was no bad blood against the mod and myself because he was just doing his job.

I don't know what you want from me.

So you want lewd galleries to remain unlocked for the sake of "documentation". I mean, I get what you're saying, but there's no way you can say that without looking like a perv.

Talk first. Threaten last. A warning is not talking.

A bureaucratic issue of tags or opinions in an image is not a threat to the site. You punished what was otherwise a contributor to the KnowYourMeme business, instead of just letting me know what's off. We are both not paid for our contributions, so it is illogical for us to not act as if we are on the same side here.

It's done either way. The implicit threat and lack of accountability is still there.

No normal business would treat its contributors like this. I promise there are many other contributors who have left if this is how others are being treated -which is clearly the case at this point.

The fact this basic mentality of moderate enforcement and talking first wasn't conveyed by your superiors, in a site where garnering good rapport with unpaid contributors is key, speaks volumes of the ethics of your superiors. You should not have to figure this out as it should have been explained to you and shown to you through its enforcement on other mods. For that reason I primarily hold this problem against your superiors.

It's just online drama at the end of the day so don't sweat it too much. I'm still very dissatisfied and done here though. Wish I could offer you something positive to say but, this is the conversation that happens when power is mishandled.

I can always go back to editing Wikia.

>A warning is not talking.

Except reasoning for the warning is given within the warning itself, which expresses which rule is broken. Deeming a notification of rule violation as a "threat" is a pretty blatant overreaction on your part.

>A bureaucratic issue of tags or opinions in an image is not a threat to the site.

In a vacuum, yes, but when a user is attaching unnecessary information to a piece of media, it becomes an issue of organization and relevancy. Not to mention, KnowYourMeme allows the expression of differing opinions, when and where it is relevant to express such. The tag and notes section of an image or video is not a place for useless information and expressing contempt. Much like how you would make an entry regarding a video game meme, you would apply relevant information to it and not including personal opinions or firing potshots at other users (for example).

>No normal business would treat its contributors like this. I promise there are many other contributors who have left if this is how others are being treated -which is clearly the case at this point.

Yes, KYM has unpaid contributors voluntarily contribute to the site, but it takes an effort on the contributor's part to follow the guidelines and rules in terms of media and information uploading. Actively ignoring it and then crying foul play when you get warned for it (which isn't even the end of the world, it's like receiving a verbal warning in class to not talk during a lecture) is not a valid enough reason to vent about "abuse of power."

>The fact this basic mentality of moderate enforcement and talking first wasn't conveyed by your superiors, in a site where garnering good rapport with unpaid contributors is key, speaks volumes of the ethics of your superiors. You should not have to figure this out as it should have been explained to you and shown to you through its enforcement on other mods. For that reason, I primarily hold this problem against your superiors.

You could have very well expressed this issue with one of the site admins or any of the mods on the site. Don would be more than happy to answer questions you have in regards to contribution guidelines.

>It's just online drama at the end of the day so don't sweat it too much.

That you are very much committed to extending the life of, so I wouldn't be acting conceited about this whole thing if I were you.

Have a nice day.