I voted in favor of throttles in the prior thread, but I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here. I think they can have some legitimate uses, but they’re just deployed way too often now. It’s the mods semi-explicitly saying that they are unable or unwilling to actually moderate the discussion in the thread, so they are going to smother it so they don’t have to deal with it. I can understand that that might be the best decision in certain circumstances, but if it’s happening constantly, it means something is very wrong.
5 Likes
I have it on good authority that it is completely fine to vote on the same topic multiple times until you get the result you want. (Situationally dependent.) (The “situation” primarily depends on what the mods and their buddies want for a result.)
9 Likes
We currently have an open RFC thread that is throttled. That makes no sense. If people don’t want to completely do away with throttling of threads, I’d hope we can at least agree that some changes need to be made.
4 hours is a crazy long time period for a throttle. The reasons stated as a positive for a throttle are accomplished by 30 minutes. Also, if you’re going to throttle a thread, it should be a temporary solution, used for a day at most. When you permanently throttle a thread, especially with such long time limits, you’re just begging that discussion to spill out all over the rest of the forum.
10 Likes
I agree with this. I didn’t vote in the other poll because I generally dislike throttles but thought that a community vote for every throttle would be overkill.
I can see three potential questions here that are separate from the community vote issue, which could have options like these:
- Should we have throttles at all? (yes, no)
- Should there be a maximum throttle length? (yes - 4 hours, yes - 1 hour, no maximum)
- Should there be a maximum duration a thread can be throttled? (yes - 1 week, yes - 1 day, yes - 6 hours, no - throttles can be permanent)
I have a little skepticism of community votes on issues that have already become community flashpoints since I don’t think people will be considering throttles in a vacuum, they’ll be considering throttles as currently used. Folks that see current throttle use as a means of slowing down posters that they dislike will probably be in favor of throttles, rather than considering the general utility of throttles. Basically, “it’s a tool currently used to quiet those that I’m tired of hearing from so I am in favor of them” rather than “I think throttles are a good tool for the community.” That being said, it’s going to be hard to disentangle this for any moderation issue so I don’t have a better proposal than community vote.
For what it’s worth, my votes on the three questions above would be yes, 1 hour (or less, but I think 1 hour was the lowest we can go?), and 1 day, but this would also require some sort of provision that throttle decisions are documented in the log with a specific explanation of why a throttle is needed, in hopes that they would be used very infrequently and not just to quiet one or two posters.
8 Likes
This right here is an excellent post. Thanks for your input!
Can anyone confirm if the minimum time you can set a throttle for using the forum software is one hour as hokie mentioned?
Fair enough. I would probably agree that the About Moderation thread specifically should be throttled at something less than 4 hours. But I also think moderators should be trusted and empowered to act in the best interests of the community. The idea that mods are or have been heavy-handed tyrants refusing to engage with questions and constructive criticism is false.
it’s less. The discourse forum seems to suggest the minimum time can be measure in seconds.
1 Like
Can it be based on posts in the thread over the last hour?
From a thread a couple of months ago:
1 Like
No. W/o throttling I think things would be much worse, more people would be rage-quitting, and even more rancor would spread into the rest of the forum.
When pretty much every thread in AU is an extension of the same feud, which has basically devolved into playing a new version of the penis game, but instead of saying penis more loudly, it’s “No YOU’RE toxic for calling ME toxic!” just straight cutting posting down means less of that, and less of that is better than more of that.
I mean, if you think we should ban anyone who posts that someone’s posts are making the site worse or that they want the site to die or what have you along those lines, I’m game, but it’s going to be really quiet in here.
This post would be a great spot to allow for some back and forth discussion, but unfortunately the thread is on a 4 hour throttle. Would we rather goofy just create another thread? Should a poster who wants to discuss any moderation issue create a new thread since the 4 hour throttle makes the existing thread worthless?
https://unstuckpolitics.com/t/about-moderation/3439/4696?u=meb
What did the mods say when you PMed them to ask to have the throttle removed or relaxed?
I just PMed you in response to this post. I’ll let you know how you reply when I hear back.
9 Likes
You might want to check which site your royal highness has logged himself into for his mod duties. We are not required to PM mods on this site.
1 Like
2 Likes
It’s funny because he doesn’t understand that wookie was saying throttles can be appealed by a PM and then doubled down to try and burn goofy when he actually just burned himself!
1 Like
Generally, if I think a janitor has missed a spot, I think it’s much better to go to them directly and in private rather than to their superiors.
Confirming Wookie did remove the throttle from the about moderation thread. Thank you to Wookie. Everyone play nice in there please.
1 Like