So you not shutting down this thread is a “moderator action?” Seems like a ridiculous semantic game.
If you have a problem with threads getting throttled you should obviously discuss it with other mods before unilaterally overturning the decision. That’s common sense and also the way things have always worked here.
why does yuv need permission from otatop to remove a throttle but otatop doesn’t need yuv’s permission to impose one?
Of course it is. Same as rejecting a flag. Clearly if I reject a flag and another mod goes and accept it after me that would be overruling, correct? Even though my decision was simply to not moderate a post/user.
Non active decisions are decisions. If you can calm down and have an adult discussion about this it will help the community, assuming you are still interested in it.
Are you merely ignoring the flag or actively deciding to remove the flag? The second seems like a mod action, the first does not.
If you can calm down and have an adult discussion about this
I’ve been perfectly civil with you today even after you insulted my English skills, but okay, I will take a deep breath now and try to be calm.
Please explain how you’d know what conversations happen on a forum not visible to you.
Or at least mention that you did it when someone uses your turning it off as an example of me playing favorites
And then don’t assume that if I say a “mystery mod” removed it I’m being snarky, there’s no log of who throttles or unthrottles threads so until Yuv started taking credit for it a couple of days ago I didn’t know who had turned the throttle off.
Seems like kind of a dick move to be a self proclaimed “inactive” mod and take an action that dramatically increases the amount of moderation “active” mods have to do.
You don’t actually have to do anything. You banned me for a week for criticizing your extremely dumb moderation decision. “Too combative” you said so ban him for a week. Ban 6 ix for three weeks because he posted a fucken hobbit meme or something. You do this bullshit because you like it and you hate me and my friends.
The issue in hand is that if there are two moderators with two different approaches -
one is CW like approach of micro-moderating everything (as in TimB and CN and D10 would all have been banned for their posts here, which I disagree with of course).
the other has a microbet type approach of allowing adults to talk unless something extremely out of the norm happens.
(i just put names for the sake of the post, it’s not a discussion about the respected users).
By definition mod #1 will be far more dominant and mod #2 has very little to do about it. He can try to race to every flag but that’s
a) not always possible
b) not all bans occur due to flags, maybe not even the majority of them
c) it causes extremely unbalanced forum experience for users, which results in people being justifiably “butthurt”.
I’m not arguing against your civilness. I have seen you read and respond to actual content written before and you have not given me that same courtesy. So I can only assume it is because of some prior actions.
i have not seen it so my apologies about that. I thought your ‘mystery mod’ was snarky as I’m the only other standing mod right now.
Repeating something 30 times doesn’t make it true.
Hard potato pee pee, as someone would say.
Jonny resolved a flag yesterday and Sven silenced Max last week, even cW has been doing some minor moderation here and there.
I agree. But litigating the definition of what a “mod action” is isn’t going to resolve this. The mods need to sort this out among themselves or the admins need to step in because having coequal mods at loggerheads is disastrous for the community. Which is why it was always a serious taboo over on 22 for a mod to ever overrule another.
Multiple people independently arriving at the same conclusion makes it likely.
Denying it doesn’t make it not true. Your actions make your feelings clear. Maybe you really think that weeklong ban was just and fair but I doubt it.
I will go back to the “fuck off” example.
It appears everyone, “captain” and “horseman”, “npc” and “malcontent” all enjoy a good hearty ‘fuck off’. We’re all adults, we can take it and it’s fun to say fuck off.
But only a month or so ago “fuck off” was an insta ban of increasing length. Not only that, but people were flagging every ‘fuck off’ under the sun in hopes of getting their rival banned.
So now as a moderator who doesn’t think fuck off is ban worthy i need to either convince that mod, convince the community to de-mod him, create a completely unfair moderating scheme by rejecting ‘fuck off’ flags when i see them first or just let it be.
While the first mod doesn’t have to do anything. He can just ban.
well my apologies. I misread your response.
As you seem to accept that there’s one group of mods who favour banning one group of posters and another group of mods (only one in fact) who doesn’t, would you accept that there needs to be a more even number of mods on both sides because the lack of balance in moderation is creating the problems here?
it would make no difference that’s my point. You could have 9 such mods and 1 CW mod and it still wouldn’t help with the current norms.
If they were sufficient in numbers to reverse unfair bans though?
It sounds a bit Supreme Courtish but that’s probably the only way here if people are still hooked on moderation.