About Moderation

[otatop]

@econophile

Has Cactus ever raised this as an issue?

He has when I tried to contain him because he was posting in bad faith but I don’t know of any recent complaints.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

I guess the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is the new Friday. Thread title should be reverted to “Don’t take the bait.”

[DrChesspain]

[MaxCut]

For the sake of clarity I will point out that when I make posts here like the one in question, my desire is not for more moderation, it’s for more consistent moderation. As I have stated before, my preference is for less moderation and fewer/shorter bans in particular. If banning is the way it’s going to go, as it presently is, it should be consistent.

As to the main point of your post, considering the feeling of those directly involved should carry the most weight, but it shouldn’t be a necessary condition.

[MaxCut]

That’s an incorrect interpretation of what my desires are based on that post. I don’t desire to fight about things I’m correct on, but that’s what happens. I would obviously prefer to be given a fair audience instead of a bunch of crap like “Friday” and “usual suspects” and “he’s badgering the mods” and being banned for 4 days and so on.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

I believe this is just a factor of your trust level because this is a new account. If you continue using this account for a while to make posts and engage in other activity (liking posts, having your posts liked, etc), then your trust level should increase pretty quickly. The “newbie” trust level is one of the downsides of having your account deleted and coming back on an alternate account.

Edit: I went ahead and liked your post to try to help you out!

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@econophile

However, in cases like the post we are talking about which, in my admittedly subjective view, is borderline,

How is it even “arguably borderline?” Cactus made a post something to the effecti of “our democracy has begun it’s descent into” [something bad]. My response was a hyperbolic example of how we’re actually already at something bad. Maxcut’s attempt to frame that as some kind of personal attack or trolling or pig-piling of cactus is a pretty transparent attempt to stir up shit for the sake of stirring up shit. The target of the shit-stirring wasn’t even me, it was CW, because he admitted he laughed at my post.

[jmakin]

unless you’re me, who is permanently at tl1 because i’m a risk for “destroying the site.”

how i’d do that, not too sure

[AngryQueer]

I had a nice walk today in my cute new neighborhood with everything you could ever neer within a quarter mile walk

[econophile]

I’m responding to a couple things here.

1. I don’t see how DrModern’s post of a picture is very different than AQ’s post of a picture. I’m not taking action on either.
2. goofyballer’s quote of a post from yesterday is hardly stirring up “old” drama

But everyone please take this as a warning to not bicker for the sake of bickering. I think we were having a largely productive conversation about moderating standards.

[StrontiumDog]

@NotBruceZ

Yes. You should be able to say that ideas are stupid. Saying that someone holds a stupid idea implies that someone might be stupid, but there’s plausible deniability that you might just think they are a non-stupid person with a stupid option on a particular issue. If we say you can’t label their ideas, then how can we criticize anyone’s point of view on anything? You might as well include a “no sarcasm” rule if you want to tone police to that extent.

@NotBruceZ

I’d would much rather have the moderation policy to be to ask people to say “your idea is stupid because_____” and temp-ban them if they can’t/won’t fill in the blank to cut down on the drive-by dunking on each other. Instead of banning bring up old drama, I’d have a “cite or ban” policy and make people take the time to do the work of digging up old posts and quoting them.

[jmakin]

oh, I recall plenty, but it was after dozens of posts of pearl clutching claiming I’d destroy the site if I wasn’t. since I didnt want to make anyone uncomfortable (still dont know what I’d do with tl3) I asked for it, but the reason was definitely that.

[econophile]

I’m reading your post as a lighthearted hyperbolic statement as well. Deciding what counts as an “attack” or what needs to be moderated will often be subjective, though, and different people may arrive at different conclusions.

[econophile]

@jmakin

unless you’re me, who is permanently at tl1 because i’m a risk for “destroying the site.”

how i’d do that, not too sure

@MrJbroRisen

So you don’t recall that you requested that yourself?

@jmakin

oh, I recall plenty, but it was after dozens of posts of pearl clutching claiming I’d destroy the site if I wasn’t. since I didnt want to make anyone uncomfortable (still dont know what I’d do with tl3) I asked for it, but the reason was definitely that.

Now we are venturing into the territorial waters of old drama.

[MaxCut]

@j8i3h289dn3x7

Maxcut’s attempt to frame that as some kind of personal attack or trolling or pig-piling of cactus is a pretty transparent attempt to stir up shit for the sake of stirring up shit.

pig-piling

@NotBruceZ

@Cactus

But it appears we’ve begun our descent

LOL, “begun”.

@feedthabeast

He’s a few years behind on everything.

@LFS

You are at the stage of grief where you think we can good-faith our way out of this. We’ve all been there, except for most of us it was many years ago.

@sriracha

The Sweet Summer Child is now a moody adolescent.

@j8i3h289dn3x7

@Cactus

But it appears we’ve begun our descent

In other news, I’ve heard there’s some kind of unknown respiratory illness causing pneumonia in Wuhan. I wonder if we should be concerned about that. Also, I think MySpace might get overtaken by Facebook one of these days.

[CaffeineNeeded]

where is pig piling a thing that people say? Dog piling is what i’ve always heard, or am I the weird one?

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

So first of all, I don’t read every response to a post before I respond, and second, those are all pretty funny and non-combative responses to a post that definitely had “sweet summer child” qualities to it, and we’ve never considered “sweet summer childing” someone before to be some kind of attack or trolling, because it’s pretty clearly not. You are really grasping at straws.

[MaxCut]

same thing

[anon38180840]

If you want to be put onto the normal TL level, let us know and we can look into it, I don’t think there are any features that would make anyone feel unsafe, but I’ll double check and then approve it.

Otherwise let’s not revisit that whole episode, it’s pointless at this point in time.

[MaxCut]

@j8i3h289dn3x7

So first of all, I don’t read every response to a post before I respond, and second, those are all pretty funny and non-combative responses to a post that definitely had “sweet summer child” qualities to it, and we’ve never considered “sweet summer childing” someone before to be some kind of attack or trolling, because it’s pretty clearly not. You are really grasping at straws.

There’s a history of bullying Cactus here and you were the ffith in. Hardly grasping at straws.

(eta: It’s irrelevant to my point, but to be fair to Cactus here, it wasn’t even correct to “sweet summer child” him. He was implying that those who are agreeing that Democrats should prosecute Trump are signaling our descent into facism. That’s not him just realizing that shit’s been going poorly in the US, democracy-wise.)

The point in my post was that cuse, a moderator banning people for insults, added to it with his comment about it being so absolutely hilarious that he spit his drink out. It was not that clever and I venture to guess he was so amused because he disagrees a lot with your target (Cactus).