Do you think this answers my question?
I’d think they would ask for an edit or ban within a few minutes.
You raise a good point. I think the issue is that people aren’t getting banned on this forum for things that are obvious like that. Instead the most common ban reasons are “trolling” or making a post in a heated argument that is viewed as crossing the line.
Because these are subjective in nature, the mod actions end up being seen as taking a side, which in some cases they are. This rule would be to govern those instances which make up almost the entirety of mod actions on this forum.
OK, you’re on one. But I’ll persist. Has anyone ever been called anything on this board that you think is over the line? Like, if I said you were clearly mentally unstable and friendless, would that be a bridge too far? Hypothetically?
Maybe just “Mods need to talk to problem posters before banning, unless conduct is truly egregious (racial slurs, donkey porn etc.)”
Obviously there’s some reasonable judgement that has to come into play. I don’t think it’s a bad idea overall.
2 Likes
This is already a bannable offence - you can check the moderators log
So, some things should be bannable offences and the mods wouldn’t need to try and talk to that bad poster before banning them?
Blatant trolling is egregious.
I think this is fair - 95% of bans fall into the non-egregious category, where I think most people will stop/calm down if given the chance. We’ve tried it in the past - asking people in threads to stop, and generally it seems people do stop.
I do realize it’s more work for the mods, but we’re at what maybe 1-2 bans a week so I don’t think it’s a huge burden before going to a ban to send a PM first. If it’s ignored - then move to the next step.
2 Likes
To those who object to the current wording, I would appreciate if your comments could include whether you completely disagree with the spirit of the guideline or if you believe the spirit of the guideline is correct and just prefer to figure out better wording? There is never going to be a perfect way to word a guideline to cover every possible situation that could come up, so I would like to avoid letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Especially as these are meant to be guidelines for moderators and the only punishment would still be via an RFC to remove a mod who was explicitly and purposely operating outside of the guidelines.
1 Like
I think what this discussion is showing is that we can never get away from the subjectivity of mod decisions. Maybe a better rule would allow for snap-bannings, but that the bannings would be silencings (with a time limit?) and an attempt by Mods to “talk to” that silenced poster. Then, if that silenced poster returns and keeps being a problem (after being “talked to”) the gloves would be off.
1 Like
I saw Churchill was silenced (I do appreciate the use of silence instead of ban). It wasn’t for anything in this thread was it?
2 Likes
I’m fine with 1-4 but would eliminate 5.
1 Like
meb,
Just pump the brakes man. I get you don’t like my crypto takes but you’re completely unhinged. If I were the vindictive power hungry tyrant you claim I would have snap banned you for calling me “a mediocre white man,” along with several other drive by personal attacks.
Just stop man. There is no moderation crisis. There was one questionable ban and @JonnyA, I’m sorry for the quick trigger. I’m not going to stop banning/silencing repeat offender trolls.
I’ve dropped the RFC to remove you, but I think some community guidelines for mods would be a good idea. I might be misremembering, but I believe @skydiver8 was the one who originally requested this.
If this is in response to my question about if Churchill was silenced because of any post itt, I think that’s a valid question as I have a really hard time seeing what it would be for.
He was trolling the COVID thread for the 100th time
1 Like
If you think Churchill was trolling the covid thread there, then you (and others) should re-read because that’s a terrible decision. Sockpuppet loggng out for the evening.
Maybe if RM could agree to be more chill in the crypto thread it would help.
The literal worst repeat offender is on a short leash. And he’s silenced for a whopping 7 hours.
You gotta respect the effort at least
I don’t. And you shouldn’t be enabling this group. This thread is a nice example of exactly the type of bad faith nitpicking over every decision. It isn’t needed.