Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
it's a shame all these incredible mods have all these people who rarely agree with each other all conspiring against them to fabricate that they are overstepping their duties
Do you think it is a conspiracy where all these posters got together and said we are going to ignore the rules and keep posting off topic stuff in the mod thread or do you think each poster came up with that poor decision individually?
And interestingly there have been around 15 posts reports about insults in the last week alone. The standard for when someone reports a post is that the reader believes it is a flagrant enough violation of the rules that it requires a mods action. So that means 15 times in one week forum members wanted action taken. So otoh I've got claims of overstepping our duties while otoh I've got lots of requests to take action, including from some who also say I am overstepping my duties.
lol. Nothing respectful has ever, in the history of the universe, even in the languages no one in the US even knows what they are, followed the phrase "with all due respect" or its variations. 😉
appreciate this clear cut response. I have no added "with all due respect" to my text check.
Free srm!
guys your posts aren't the biting criticisms you think they are when you screenshot yourself not using dark mode.
Do you think it is a conspiracy where all these posters got together and said we are going to ignore the rules and keep posting off topic stuff in the mod thread or do you think each poster came up with that poor decision individually?
And interestingly there have been around 15 posts reports about insults in the last week alone. The standard for when someone reports a post is that the reader believes it is a flagrant enough violation of the
I say out the snitches, and we'll deal with them in the streets.
Of course. It's having the skill to get your point across while maintaining a civil and respectful tone in the forum. That's the whole point. Some people can do it and some cant.
I find the phrase "you are, at best, misguided" can do a lot of heavy lifting when you want to call someone a moron while maintaining civility. Gave up a bit of game there.
Do you think it is a conspiracy where all these posters got together and said we are going to ignore the rules and keep posting off topic stuff in the mod thread or do you think each poster came up with that poor decision individually?
And interestingly there have been around 15 posts reports about insults in the last week alone. The standard for when someone reports a post is that the reader believes it is a flagrant enough violation of the
All of these post reports due to "insults" are your own fault. You are banning people left and right under the flimsiest pretexts, and that is creating a new culture where people are demanding bans where they never would have beforehand. Example: With the possible exception of JMakin (which was totally justified), I don't remember Victor ever demanding that people be banned before you banned him. You banned him for two weeks for the genocide lovers remark. As soon as his ban was over, he was in here demanding similar treatment of other posters for their jabs against him, which you apparently felt like you must oblige as you went ahead and took the requested actions. You see how that worked out? You ban one poster for two whole weeks over something that is certainly insulting to many, but still not historically ban-worthy, and it cascades into him demanding bans of other users, and then those users demanding bans, and on it goes. After all, if somebody is going to eat a ban in this forum for perceived insults, then it is only fair that everybody else does as well.
I am not saying you are 100% at fault for this. There are certain posters that came into the politics forum after the October attacks on Israel and immediately started demanding bans of people that they didn't like. What you are responsible for is reinforcing negative behaviors that are detrimental to this forum, such as the wanton reporting of insults and people demanding bans for innocuous jabs. There was a time where we would go back and forth with each other and sort this out on our own, and as long as it didn't go too far, it was alright. Now this forum is turning into a bunch of crybabies running to daddy because the big brother isn't playing nice.
In conclusion, if you want people to stop the excessive post reports for nonsense reasons, then stop rewarding people for making excessive post reports for nonsense reasons. You could probably start by not publicly using the reports as justification for your mod actions, as you did in the quoted post above.
Have a great day! 😀
I think we've reached the rinse and repeat cycle in this discussion, so I'll close it with this. Here is rule number one, applicable to the entire site.
2+2 Rules
No personal attacks. A personal attack is an attack directed at a person (or group of people), rather than at a post or argument itself. This is, of course, somewhat subjective. Basically, be kind to one another, or at the very least, keep it civil. Very few people want to read lengthy flame wars. If someone attacks you, we ask that you use the “Report a Post” button rather than responding in kind. Attack the argument, not the person.
This rule was approved by the new owners and reflects the culture they want on their forum. There is no carve out for the politics forum, or for posters who have known each other a long time. It's a pretty straight forward and easy to understand rule. Mods enforce site rules. If posters in politics would simply follow this rule,95% of mod actions would be eliminated and people could just focus on discussing the various topics.
But it is not realistic to expect mods to just stop enforcing the rules because some posters are unwilling or unable to follow them. Ultimately the responsibility falls on the posters themselves to adhere to the guidelines, whether they agree with them or not. All of this noise about moderation can end immediately. Just follow the rules. And if you think the rules should be changed, ask the owners to change them. Before you hit the post button, just ask yourself, per rule 1, "are you attacking the argument not the person" and "is your post kind, or at least civil". If the answer is no (and in almost every case it's obvious) then don't post it.
It really is that simple.
Mods have always exercised their own judgement as to how and to what extent to enforce the rules, as do you. It's just that most regs here disagree with yours.
♥👍
Dear Browser,
Instead of deleting any of this could you please move all of this discussion including the imperative stuff from last night to a thread called "Pedants discuss language and grammar", where we can house all future discussion?
*Eta looks like you're on it. Ty
Dear Browser,
Instead of deleting any of this could you please move all of this discussion including the imperative stuff from last night to a thread called "Pedants discuss language and grammar", where we can house all future discussion?
*Eta looks like you're on it. Ty
Done. It's called The Grammar of Politics Thread
Victor- stop trolling the mod thread. I deleted those posts. You know why you were banned. You dont think you should have been. Fine. You've been told that we are not going to address every possible phrase as to whether something is allowed or not. The I/P thread alone had over 200 posts in it in the last two days. No one, including you, has reported any of those as thinking they require mod action. And I, for one, certainly didnt have time to read every line in every post at all, much less carefully enough to catch every possible violation.
You really need to move on from this.
Thanks
no I really dont think that people should say that I love rape apology.
so the only way I move on is when you admit that there are 2 sets of rules and that any accusations against me personally is allowed, and that I am not allowed to respond in kind nor am I allowed to point out all the insane tiktok videos from Israeli soldiers.
find a partner that loves you as much as BOIDS loves defending genocide
how dare u
Wow Vic totally stole that guy's line!
Victor = not wrong
Well Luckbox with all due respect...
no I really dont think that people should say that I love rape apology.
so the only way I move on is when you admit that there are 2 sets of rules and that any accusations against me personally is allowed, and that I am not allowed to respond in kind nor am I allowed to point out all the insane tiktok videos from Israeli soldiers.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. You are wrong, though, on two things. One, that there are two sets of rules. And two, that that is the only way you will move on.
Luciom has been temp banned for one week for equating transgender with mental illness. The post has been deleted
Excuse me but I didn't equate being transgender with mental illness.
I repeatedly wrote I don't think that's the case, which btw is why it should not be a healthcare issue and we shouldn't pay for it.
I used the word deluded which isn't about mental health. I am not a native English speaker but I know being deluded simply means being convinced of something which is objectively false (and I checked the dictionary which confirms that).
I would like you to re-read the post you deleted and that got me banned to please indicate exactly where I said trans people are all mentally ill, because I didn't.
Otoh I can call a policy insane I hope, even if it's a policy about trans people, without that being read as a claim of mental illness. It's just another word for absurd in that context as it's used by most people.
Please clarify where exactly I equated being trans with being inherently mentally ill because I didn't and I have tens of posts stating quite the opposite.
