Moderation Questions

A lot of the post reports are for things that I feel are actually rather benign, which is odd since I also often see worries about over-modding. Often (but not always), we use this thread or post in the thread in question to explain that actions that have been taken so you'll know you're not being totally ignored.

I don't think that a group discussion about banning someone would make much sense. Even if majority right now said that they support that, it would too easily turn into a flame war that can kill more productive discussion.

Comparing the IDF to the "eintzgruppen" is engaging in anti Semitism, whether he's personally anti Semitic or not. As are comparisons to the "Warsaw ghetto". He was warned over his behaviour and kept right on going fully knowing how offensive his behaviour was. You yourself called him over it iirc, so not your why you're feigning confusion now. When victor stops going out of his way to be as offensive as possible, maybe the mods won't ban him. Just a thought.

I'll give you an example from a recent post report of yours. Without quoting it exactly, you were concerned about the issue of people who support Israel war effort being referred to as supporting blowing up hospitals. The issue of how that argument (connecting support for a war effort to support for its consequences) is going to be modded has been gone over in detail many times. You dont agree with that. I get it. But it doesnt mean every time you report a post with that argument in it that I am going to write out yet another version of the same answer and post it here or send you a pm. We get many posts that we just dont consider rising to the level of requiring mod action. And we at times get way too many to craft a reply to each one. And lastly we are not going to justify each mod decision to each individual that reports a post.

Your assumption that mods either dont read the reports or are biased just because we dont take the action you think is appropriate is unfounded. And as stated before, we are not going to announce every warning or pm we send to a poster. So yes, there are mod actions you will be unaware of.

If you feel discussions are falling into "meaningless, repetitive arguments.." then stop arguing with that poster. You have no obligation to continue repeating yourself when a guy repeats himself. Just STOP. If you cant do that, then that's on you. Dont be this guy:

The issue is people can say "mets supports killing babies he likes seeing babies dead" and any time it is said you put the onus on me to disprove it

I said he needs to more carefully differentiate between Jews and Israelis when discussing these issues because conflating the two led to some pretty concerning interpretations of his posts. He acknowledged that and said he would do better.

I relate to Victor’s horror at so many children and babies being murdered by governments and militaries. People should be absolutely losing their minds over that.

That's not an analogous quote. But lets use the "mets supports killing babies because he supports Israel's war effort and that war effort has killed thousands of babies, therefore anyone who supports Israel supports killing babies".

That's an opinion someone could have based on a certain logic connection. So sure, if you believe that its possible for you to support Israel's bombing campaign but at the same time not support the consequences of that bombing, then it falls on you to decide either to ignore the comment completely or rebut it. Because in this example there is no dispute as to the facts. Israeli bombing is killing thousands of babies. The debate is about opinions of what "support" means.

The example you gave falls into the category that genocide lover did, which crossed the line. It ascribes emotional satisfaction from the deaths that, unless a poster actually said that, is not appropriate and there is no logic connection between supporting the ear effort and liking the consequences on civilians and babies.

But the post you just mentioned had two other issues above what you just stated.

First, I haven't even seen any claims that Israel has blown up hospitals. I can't swear that they haven't, but I can't imagine that it wouldn't have been posted in the thread if they had. What has happened is that Israel has attacked hospitals to get to the Hamas leaders hiding there, and that some civilians were killed in the process. Regardless of how bad you think that is, it is in no way the same as "blowing up" a hospital, which would be dropping a bomb from a plane to deliberately kill everyone inside.

Second, he said it was the same thing as the 9/11 attacks, because there were people just as bad in the WTC in 2001. I don't know how he got that, he didn't say which baby murderers and kidnappers were in the WTC. But even assuming that there were those terrible people, it is clear that the intent of the WTC attacks were to kill as many people as possible, not to take out any particular individuals. Al Queda never even claimed that they were trying to kill any particular bad people.

Based on those two issues, do you really think it was as simple as your original claim? It's ok to say "you guys want to blow up hospitals", which you know no one supports, has not even happened, and basically "(paraphrasing) you're as bad as the 9/11 hijackers"? Those sure seem far worse to me than things that you think are bad enough to deserve a ban (like disparaging trans people, for instance). Is it worse than saying something like "trans people want to shoot up churches"? If so, why?

If you want to take 9/11 at face value (which you shouldn't but if you did), then obviously the targets weren't just random population centers but ones with symbolic value such as the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and whatever flight 93 was supposed to hit.

Possibly. But the WTC was probably the place they could kill the most people regardless of symbolism, and Pentagon had obviously military value. The other one was probably headed to the Capitol or the White House, both places housing the leaders of the country, also an obvious target regardless of symbolism.

Corpus- I deleted that post, and others that followed because they were critiquing another poster and not seeking a mod answer to a question. This thread is only for things that require a mod response, not general discussions about Victor or any other poster.

Your paraphrasing is not accurate and changes the meaning of the post you reported. And just to ne clear, here is the quote from your post report.

"chillrob has reported a post.

Reason: Claims other posters support blowing up hospitals."

That was it.

You've got the decision on this. We are not going to debate decisions after they are made each time a poster doesnt agree with it.

Fair enough and you did mention that more than once before, my bad cheers

Correct, I didn't take as much time to elaborate the nuance of the post when typing in a report that I didn't even know if anyone would read. I didn't think it was necessary, because I figured if anyone were to take my report seriously, they would read the entire post and understand the nuance themselves. Apparently I was incorrect.

Microbet has been temp banned for 3 days for insults to another poster in the IP thread

Yes you were incorrect again. Both in your assumptions and in your interpretation of the post in question. You failed to take into account the quoted post (also in your report) that specifically referenced hospitals. But you have said you dont read things carefully so its not surprising you missed that point.

Let's phrase it directly as a question related to moderation policy and how it's applied (per the language in the OP) so maybe you'll help the rest of us out.

Would you be so kind as to explain your thinking here so we know what is and what is not acceptable? It appears from the outside that we have two posters:

Poster 1 - walks like an r-word, talks like an r-word, takes and defends positions that self-avowed r-words would take.

Poster 2 - hey, r-word, here's what's wrong with the positions that are r-wordist (as an aside, much of this is aligned with the suggestion taken above)

Mod - poster 2 is out of bounds bc names are bad in this forum...

Again, we get that it's only fun to be a mod if you can lord over the ungreen masses and ban people at will, but those of us wackos who think it's a bit more problematic to make and defend r-word statements than to refer to that sorta person as r-word, would like clarity on the rules of engagement.

Is it mod policy that someone who makes and defends r-word statements and defends r-word positions is OK, but calling said person an r-word (while engaging them in good faith on their position btw) is not?

Thanks in advance

First, to be clear, you don't get **** about what is and isn't fun (a word I have never heard a mod use to describe modding) about being a mod. The power thing is as far away from reality as anything in the conspiracy theory thread.

I'm not sure what you're trying to depict in your first example, as I'm not even sure which r-word you are referring to. But let's assume it's racist and not another problematic r-word. Is it the site wide policy of attacking the argument and not the person that you are having the question about? Sometimes a person who is not a racist might make a statement that they don't believe is racist while another poster believes it is. So rather than call the person a racist (a personal attack) explain why you feel it is racist. It's possible the other person meant it another way or once you point it out realizes the problem. Maybe he insists it isn't racist and maintains his argument.

Then if you feel the statement(s) are so clearly racists that they require mod action report the post. The mods will take a look and if needed take action.

Calling a person names does absolutely nothing to advance a position or rebut another's position. So in your example 2 the name calling does nothing but insult the poster personally and usually draws an insult in return and we are left with a childish schoolyard type name calling drill rather than an adult discussion.

Microbet was banned for 3 days for directly calling another poster a racist. As a regular forum poster he must have been well aware that others have been banned for longer periods for the same thing and it is expressly against the rules. His would have been longer if not for his clean record irt this type of post.

I hope that clarifies the policy. If you believe the site should remove the "attack the argument not the person" rule then by all means make that recommendation in the ATF forum. There are posters in other forum who believe personal insults are part of normal internet discourse so they may join your effort. But since it is a site wide policy only the owners can change it.

My question was deleted :(

Is there a material difference between calling someone an antisemite and calling them a racist as far as moderation goes? I post in the I/P thread a lot…

Apologies in advance if I should have not asked again, agh.. I hope I can say here ftr I have no personal issues with you or your modding 👍 I don’t want to be in trouble!

Tbf I didn't read the post which was deleted and that apparently insulted me but i personally don't take racist as an insult, while I do take fascist as an insult, and I repeatedly asked microbet to stop calling me a fascist, which afaik he stopped doing.

I am definitely racist using the silly definitions currently common among certain leftwing circles, as is almost everyone, so it can't be an insult even if the poster intended it to be one.

I deleted it bc it essentially was asking to justify action against one poster v another, something we're not going to do. As I have mentioned many times each mod action is based on the particular circumstances of that incident. The wording, the context, previous poster history and warnings, bans etc. often posters want to isolate a particular word and compare it with another absent any other factors.

We can't give such specific guidance where it's like a chart where you can look up a word or phrase and see the penalty. There is always a gray area as to what is and isn't considered inappropriate. As mods it falls on us to make judgement calls. And just like referees with judgement calls we will have people who agree, and those who don't. And sometimes we may miss a call or make a bad call. **** happens.

While I understand your perspective, we can't enforce policies based on whether or not a particular poster says he does or doesn't mind. That's unknowable and unworkable.

I don't really get you, Browser. You seem like a nice guy and all, but this take that it is some massive burden to be a mod of this forum is absurd and a slap in the face of anybody around here that has any common sense.

(1) You made ZERO posts in the politics forum before it was decided that you would be the next mod, so it's not like you came here in order to maintain and protect a community of which you were an established member. Why would you agree to be the head mod of a community that is notoriously difficult to moderate due to the heated discussions that often take place? Are you suggesting that you are doing this massive self-sacrifice because you like getting nothing in return?

(2) In the last twenty years that I have been on this site, I don't believe there has ever been a politics mod that has flexed as much muscle as you have. In the short amount of time you have been back, you have taken far more moderation action than all the other mods combined while you were out. Are you suggesting that when you assert the level of control over the users of this forum to a degree that no other mod, it is painful for you?

(3) Since you started imposing your heavy-handed style of modding, participation, especially the casual participation between users that I feel is the most entertaining and rewarding part of being a member of this kind of community, has dropped dramatically. That general thread you demanded everybody use? Not one post in a over a week. d2 has explained to you in the past that "banter" between users develops spontaneously in the threads where they happen to occur. Your response was that you didn't care, as it was your mod thread and you decide what goes in it. Do you do that because you like that imposition on your time?

Considering those points, it is bizarre that you continue to hold this position that you don't relish this power over the users of this forum. Again, you NEVER POSTED IN THIS FORUM BEFORE YOU WERE MODDED. What kind of person even volunteers to moderate a forum of which they are not apart? Are you related to the owners and doing them a personal favor? Can it be the more logical conclusion that you took on this mod position because it gives you some power and a sense of responsibility in this forum?

You raise a lot of questions, and I will give you my honest answers below.

We agree on something already

.

Thanks. I try to be nice. As to the burden to mod this forum, go back and read the posts from former or current mods when they explain why they are leaving or the advice they give to new mods. They all relate to the extensive time involved in modding this forum versus any other forum. And since you, as far as I know, have never modded this forum, you couldnt possibly have any actual knowledge as to what is involved. So your comment about the burden exists being absurd is based on ...nothing.

Actually I lurked here for a while and made a few posts to get a sense of what the forum was like before I volunteered to mod here. I wanted to see how a forum could be uniformly considered so shitty that not a single existing mod was volunteering to mod it, and no one from the established politics forum was volunteering to be a mod either. That's really a remarkable situation that I hadnt seen in any other forum.

I only ended up as "head mod" when I came in because the other mods desired to greatly reduce the amount of time they spent modding this forum, but graciously agreed to stay green as back up.

As to why I agreed to take this on, I explained that in the very first paragraph in my first post in the mod thread:

"Hello everyone.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to serve as a moderator in Politics and Society. I asked for this position because I believe we are experiencing a polarization in our politics and society unseen since the 1960s. We may well be at a juncture from which we will either make great progress or suffer great setbacks in regards to our democratic foundations and civil rights over the next few years. So I believe it is important to maintain a forum for discussing these important topics. When the other mods had to step back a bit due to their real life time obligations, I asked to join the mod team to help keep the forum going."

When no one was willing to volunteer to mod the forum, a large number of mods recommended just eliminating the forum altogether. I thought (and still do think) that it is valuable to have a place to discuss the politics engulfing the US and other countries and it would be a loss to lose the forum.

Painful? No. Sad that it is necessary to have to spend time enforcing the simplest of policies over and over again? Yes.

To sum things up, I'll end with the next couple of paragraphs from my very first post. For all the moaning about heavy handed modding and this imagined need to exert power, 90+% of the deletions or bans Ive issued have been for posters refusing to stop personally insulting each other and name calling. That's it. The other "big" issue is people being unhappy that they cant keep posting offtopic stuff in the mod.thread. There are roughly 40 threads that have had new posts in them in the last 6 weeks. 40. Out of that 40, there is exactly 1 thread that has special rules about off topic discussions, the mod thread. So the notion that not letting people ramble on about whatever enters their heads in the mod thread is stifling participation in the forum is completely unfounded.

The most modding enforcement complaints are not about content censorship. Its about just not letting people be *******s to each other. If you cant carry on a robust debate without resorting to name calling, either your argument is weak or your vocabulary is weak. No personal attacks is rule one set by the new owners. If anyone wants to make the case to them that it is impossible to have a political discussion without personal insults, by all means go to ATF and make the case. If the owners approve an exception for politics I will stop enforcing that rule immediately.

From my first post:

"My overall modding principle is simple: Be Nice. Disagreement need not be disrespectful, and everyone must be treated with respect. Calling a poster derogatory names or hurling snarky insults never usefully advances a discussion. It just bogs things down and turns off many would be participants. And it's not nice. Don't do it.

My goal is to have a forum where people with a wide variety of opinions along the political spectrum enjoy expressing and debating their views in a spirited manner, free from insults, bigotry and denigrating comments. If you enjoy discussing these important and often polarizing issues in a passionate, yet respectful manner, I look forward to getting to know you and working with you to create a forum people will enjoy visiting and contributing to. You can be as committed, determined and relentless as you like in advocating for your position. Be persuasive, thought provoking and challenging. But be nice."

Browser, you spent a whole lot of time posting a complete non-answer to the fundamental points I made in my post.

1. I am positive that everybody knows that modding this forum is a pain in the ass. I don't know how people find the time to do it, as I even find getting wrapped up in back-and-forth arguments to be too time consuming for my schedule these days. What I was asking throughout my post was: knowing how much time it takes to mod the politics forum and the hassle involved in doing so, why did you, a person that was not a poster here, feel the need to take on the sacrifice?

2. Why do you feel that you need to mod so much more strictly than all other mods before you? If there is an interesting off-topic discussion or entertaining banter blossoming in a thread, no other mod before you would have thought "this is technically in the wrong thread, so it is time to kill it.' If people got pissy and took shots at each other, they were not just banned willy-nilly. Why do you feel you have to be the one that breaks from 20 years of convention by being the first mod to do that?

Given that those two questions still do not have satisfactory answers, can you really not see how it looks like you are controlling and like having power over people? This back and forth started when you said that the notion was as far from reality as the stuff in the conspiracy thread. Are you so lacking in empathy that you cannot put yourself in the shoes of a regular person anymore?

I feel like you are fundamentally misunderstanding why people post here. There are like a dozen active or semi-active posters left here. If those few posters were only interested in "our democratic foundations and civil rights over the next few years", they could just go to Reddit, argue with some 17 year olds about the issues, and be done with it. People post here because this forum is a community. People want to discuss issues and banter with other people that they been involved in this community for a long time. Your modding style is creating a chilling effect where people are posting less out of fear of having their posts deleted or being banned. We know you think you are the lynch pin that holds this whole place together, but that is not true. d2, Trolly, and Victor are far more important to the health of this forum than you are; you temp-banned 2/3 of those posters in the last few weeks...

I hate that I even took the time to post this. I think you are an excellent poster when you make non-mod related posts, so I don't want to lob criticism or negativity at you. I am especially wary because there is a high chance that you are just going to delete this post that took me 20 minutes to type out and potentially put myself at higher risk of banning an account that I have logged onto every day for 19 years. I took the time to type out this reply because I think we all see where this is headed, and I doubt any of the regs around here are happy with the direction we are accelerating toward.

One last thing. Anytime anybody lobs any criticism at you, you go straight for the GO COMPLAIN TO ATF IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT line. No serious poster is going to post about this in ATF. It is the equivalent of a police officer saying "if you don't like that I knocked your son's teeth out and beat him into a coma for jaywalking, you can always lodge a formal complaint with my sergeant." That is especially true when it appears like you might have some sort of special relationship with the owners or management of 2p2. We are bringing up the issue with you, in the mod thread you created specifically to address these issues.

Have a nice day. I have a long day in court today. I seriously hope this post is still up when I come back home tonight.

Cmon Donk. Please consider shedding a tear somewhere else. You aren't the first to get upset with a P&S mod. You won't be the last.

Browser is doing fine. Give it a rest.