AtlantaMarty
No longer active
Moderator actions are often done publicly (i.e. in threads, as opposed to over PMs), so why is public discussion of them against the rules?
Very simple example: Because it'll derail threads.
You infract someone for insulting another user, then the next 3 pages (yeah, well, maybe 1) is about that guy complaining about that action, other people discussing it, and the thread is a wreck.
EDIT: Yes, that happens. Once I gave someone 1 point for some average insult in a thread. The guy wouldn't accept it, would post multipe times about that issue in the thread. He ended up being banned for a week, because he accumulated 7 more points for basically not letting it go and further discussing it. In that situation...bro...accept it, move on, don't be a pain in the rear end.
And yes, also to keep the workload low.
You insult someone, you get punished. There's no need to discuss if "idiot" was an appropriate term in that situation, it's an insult. You need to accept it, and be an adult about it.
There might be other examples though, where PDMA can be warranted, but the 2 examples are probably the most prevalent.
You will not always understand the circumstances. Why would we want to potentially embarrass one of our members by having to explain their situation in public?
Do not think angry people think like that? At least in my experience.
Seems easier to just not need to deal with anything biting anyone at all.
What do you suppose is gained by redefining PDMA as spam?
What scenarios do you envision where you need to discuss a moderator action, in public, and it isn't intended to argue or otherwise back up the moderator into a corner?
It seems the only person complaining is you.
Moderators aren't beyond reproach. Check out the infraction appeal forum. Most of them are against me.