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.
Thank you for taking the time to explain, Rococo.
Mets is far from being the poster in this forum who makes the most insults and personal attacks. Why exactly has he been treated differently from those who do far more of those?
People need to remember that they don't necessarily have all the information. For example, there was one poster (not Mets) who got banned and then began creating dummy accounts solely for the purpose of reporting dozens of posts per day, mainly in an effort to argue about the reasons for his ban.
In other cases, posters who have been warned about something become abusive with mods in PMs. (Again, I have no idea what PMs Mets sent to CN, but it happens.)
Just something to keep in mind.
Unmoderated political forums almost always follow the same path. People start to realize that all manner of trolling, bigotry, hate mongering, and edge-lording is permitted on a particular platform or site. Then trolls, bigots, hate mongers, and edge lords start to migrate to the platform or site. Then the people who don't want to be associated with that kind of stuff abandon the platform or site.
This isn't an iron rule, of course. So
instead what happens is that some people are allowed to troll. some people are allowed to insult. and only some viewpoints are allowed.
in general those follow mainstream Democratic narratives and Western chauvinism.
instead what happens is that some people are allowed to troll. some people are allowed to insult. and only some viewpoints are allowed.
in general those follow mainstream Democratic narratives and Western chauvinism.
I understand that you disagree, but I would say that the level of trolling and personal attacks is relatively low here compared to a lot of places, and the diversity of viewpoints that are tolerated is relatively wide, as evidenced by the fact that you and Kelhus are among the most frequent posters in the forum.
illustrative of my point
“Tolerated”
Lmao
if 2+2 became a welcoming place for the worst people on the internet, and those people actually started to migrate to the site, I would leave immediately and I suspect many others would as well. There are certain things that I am unwilling to be associated with, even if my personal posting is entirely defensible.
associating with garbage from long-time members that you wouldn't (apparently) accept from a new account isn't the moral high ground you think it is. neither is the acceptance of a "diversity of viewpoints that are tolerated".
idgaf who is and isn't allowed to post here, but angling as if the moderation isn't part of the problem is nonsensical to the handful of people still paying attention
I’m not going to spend any time debunking Boids personal attacks and falsehoods.
Suffice it to say, I have had no infractions or moderations as a poster here in the politics forum in many years, and I would assume if any of those things Boids alleges were true they would have been reported and moderated.
Beyond that, when I became a moderator I made sure to alter my own expectations for my posting, and have not violated any of the rules I myself enforce.
The moderators AS A TEAM decided to ban mets after many many discussions after his repeated meltdowns.
We also decided, just in my time as a mod, to permaban Jbouton, Schlitz mmmm, and Luciom caught a 30 day. I did two of those three myself as well because they were in threads I moderate. Mets is hardly an exceptional case, he is just the most resistant to being rehabilitated.
How many times as a moderator would you be willing to repeat this scenario with the same individual? :
Mod: Please don’t do this again
Poster: *defiantly* Does it again
Mod: Ok seriously, please don’t do this again or there will be moderation
Poster: *defiantly* Does it again
Mod: DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN
Poster: *defiantly* Does it again.
I don’t know how else to explain that this isn’t about Mets content, it isn’t about his personality, it isn’t about my personal feelings; it’s about the above behavior!! Nobody wants to moderate it anymore.
I’m not going to spend any time debunking Boids personal attacks and falsehoods.
Suffice it to say, I have had no infractions or moderations as a poster here in the politics forum in many years, and I would assume if any of those things Boids alleges were true they would have been reported and moderated.
Beyond that, when I became a moderator I made sure to alter my own expectations for my posting, and have not violated any of the rules I my
You go girl
A number of people seem to be acting like there is an inexhaustible supply of suitable mod candidates and that being a mod here is a privilege. I have no idea who PW or anyone who agrees with him thinks is going to run in these "mod elections", and I would strongly suspect that anyone who has ever modded this forum has considered it a chore.
This, basically. Or no suitable candidates, anyway.
associating with garbage from long-time members that you wouldn't (apparently) accept from a new account isn't the moral high ground you think it is. neither is the acceptance of a "diversity of viewpoints that are tolerated".
idgaf who is and isn't allowed to post here, but angling as if the moderation isn't part of the problem is nonsensical to the handful of people still paying attention
There are plenty of places you can go to get a right wing slant on your moderation. You'll never find "fair" moderation.
You aren't likely to find someone who just doesn't have an opinion on womens rights, or immigration, or BLM.
All things considered seems right wingers have a lot of freedom to express what other widely consider hate/bigotry/discrimination.
In general, criticisms of Trump are largely based on evidence based facts (liar, swindler, low morals, convicted sex abuser, hateful/violent rhetoric)
In general, criticisms of say Kamala are largely insult based opinions (Slept her way to the top, Unqualified, DEI, female)
In your opinion those might be the same things but objectively they aren't. One is fact based, the other is opinion based. How would you moderate that? My personal opinion is you should allow people spewing hateful opinions to get blasted with other hateful opinions. When people spout fact based criticisms, you shouldn't allow them to get blasted with hateful opinions.
associating with garbage from long-time members that you wouldn't (apparently) accept from a new account isn't the moral high ground you think it is. neither is the acceptance of a "diversity of viewpoints that are tolerated".
I am on no higher or lower moral ground than you are. We both post here. I'm sure that we both disagree with a lot of what is posted here.
I'm sure that you agree that this is not the worst corner of the internet. And I'm sure you agree that if it were bad enough, you would leave (as I would).
I guess it reflects positively on you as a lawyer that you're this terrible at lying.
Are you this terrible at understanding the passage of time?
CN joined the forum as a participant but was not green. She started insulting Mets, but he had her on ignore.
...
Time passes
...
CN becomes a mod. Mets can no longer ignore her, and no one has claimed he could.
Yeah, I was wondering about this as well. It doesn't appear to be a hugely complex chronological sequence of events.
People need to remember that they don't necessarily have all the information. For example, there was one poster (not Mets) who got banned and then began creating dummy accounts solely for the purpose of reporting dozens of posts per day, mainly in an effort to argue about the reasons for his ban.
In other cases, posters who have been warned about something become abusive with mods in PMs. (Again, I have no idea what PMs Mets sent to CN, b
Yes, those kinds of things are possibilities, which is why I asked.
We also decided, just in my time as a mod, to permaban Jbouton, Schlitz mmmm, and Luciom caught a 30 day. I did two of those three myself as well because they were in threads I moderate. Mets is hardly an exceptional case, he is just the most resistant to being rehabilitated.
How many times as a moderator would you be willing to repeat this scenario with the same individual? :
Mod: Please don’t do this again
Poster: *defiantly* Does it again
Mo
From the outside, we don't see these warnings, but we see that the things he does again and again are not as bad as what we see others doing again.
I don't see how the warnings are relevant. The question is why others are not punished for more abundant and more abusive public posts.
Are you this terrible at understanding the passage of time?
CN joined the forum as a participant but was not green. She started insulting Mets, but he had her on ignore.
...
Time passes
...
CN becomes a mod. Mets can no longer ignore her, and no one has claimed he could.
I was calling out Donk for his lie about Mets being required to grovel, but great effort trying to follow a simple conversation. You'll get there next time.
The idea that people get banned due to their political views is absolute nonsense.
Those that get banned have a few things in common. They are generally bad posters to begin with. And when their bad posting is called out, instead of toning it down they double down on their bad posting Then they double down again. And again. They just don't have a pause button, so the moderator had to do the pausing for them.
I was calling out Donk for his lie about Mets being required to grovel, but great effort trying to follow a simple conversation. You'll get there next time.
Lol just quit while you're behind man. You literally said "you can't put a mod on ignore" multiple times and even accused someone else of lying about mets putting her on ignore. FWIW I read that exchange exactly the same as donkjr and chillrob did and was wondering the same thing.
The question is why others are not punished for more abundant and more abusive public posts.
We’ve been through this already several times. Others are being punished. Most of them reform their behavior and you hear nothing more of it. Others push back and are then subject to escalating moderation. Still others push back both privately and publicly AND personally attack the moderators.
It’s a fairly trivial task for anyone to deduce which posters fall into which groups, and it has nothing to do with their political affiliations.
I find mets a horribly abusive poster at times, but Palestine is such an emotional subject for many people if the ban has to stand I do think he should be allowed to post elsewhere on the forum.
It’s a fairly trivial task for anyone to deduce which posters fall into which groups, and it has nothing to do with their political affiliations.
idk, it does seem to be a pattern that Republicans and their water-carriers are the ones who keep getting banned for being revanchist bigots. But that's probably not what chilly was going for here.
