By “personal attacks” I mean anything that could be reasonably described as an “insult”. I would say illegal threats fall into a different category, and no, I am certainly not OK with those.
1 Like
There was a third option. This is a very odd way to answer a simple question.
Anyway, you’ve told me what I needed to know.
Thanks!
That’s a great fucking line. I’m going to have to remember that one.
I didn’t consider that moderating you. It’s very hard to argue anything when you’re a mod. Dunno if you noticed, but in another thread where I started to get into it I just recused myself because of that. :shrug: Hard to be a mod. Part of why we should rotate imo. But :shrug:
Sorry, you don’t get to call me “megalomanical” and someone who abuses power and then also get to have your inquiries into my moderation judged as simple, benign questions. Everyone knows they are not.
Meh, this is a bad take. There is objectively bad behavior that deserves scorn and abuse sometimes. I like Suzzer, I think he is a good poster, and I agree with him on most things. His decision to travel during a pandemic and then post about it absolutely deserved derision.
If you say so. Seemed pretty straightforward to me but it doesn’t matter.
That sounds like being ok with abuse to me.
Maybe you’re right that it deserves abuse, but it’s still abuse. Vote for less modding?
Nope. You’re making like an inverse slippery slope argument or something. Vote that the community has voted on mods whom I trust to exercise their judgment on when abuse can be allowed to slide and when it should not be.
It’s pretty hard/impossible to define the points at which ribbing turns to scorn turns to abuse, which is why I believe this community didn’t try to.
1 Like
Obviously everyone should be allowed to insult and abuse posters who deserve the insults and abuse. That’s just common sense.
4 Likes
That’s just not in any way a “no abuse” rule imo. Not what was voted on. It wasn’t “abuse is ok if the mods don’t like the opinions of the person being abused”.
Ok, seems like a misunderstanding. I saw you as the mod in that conversation and honestly expected there to be action (on myself as well). When you kinda went to bat for him, I saw that as a mod taking his side, and then with the whole ignored flag while my relatively harmless stuff gets hidden.
Seems like a misunderstanding and I will let it go. I did not make a stink at the time because I did not want to cause drama but it really upset me.
I will say again one last time I strongly disagree with watevs being on that list, but agree with everyone else. Like, victor for instance. He posts stuff that routinely makes me mad. But he is almost always coming from an earnest position and a place of sincere conviction. He’s not trolling or trying to piss people off. He also makes efforts elsewhere to be a good poster and a member of the community. He clearly cares a lot. I think he is good to have around here.
I would never say those things about watevs, and I think given how many people have decided to just collectively ignore him would be a major clue if i was a mod. But I’m not, so I’ll shut up now.
1 Like
I’m sure jman will agree as long as he doesn’t think he’s on the list.
Calling it out once or twice is different from following him around every time he posts.
3 Likes
Suzzer deserved a healthy dose of grief for needlessly traveling during a pandemic. How we draw the line between strong criticism and abuse is a judgement call, but I’m pretty sure the way he’s been treated hasn’t crossed the line.
2 Likes
Yeah, god forbid anyone should do that.
1 Like
Cool. I didn’t really think of it as going to bat for watevs…but too much to explain here. I’ve said before that I don’t think watevs cares much about the community and that’s a problem, but w/e.
I will say this about myself and my fellow mods…it’s much harder to moderate people who think you are out to get them. I was far more reluctant to ban jman or CW in the time that I banned them than I was jal. I could just PM jal and explain that I was trying to calm things down and I knew he’d be cool with it. And I know that ALL the other mods struggle with this and at least have some reticence to moderate people who they expect will complain about being abused. That’s not to say that all modding is perfectly objective by me or anyone else, but that pressure to not moderate opponents is real and it has affected moderation.
1 Like
I think the mods are already empowered to make these judgments even with imprecise definitions.
Sure, I mean they have to be really don’t they?
But there will inevitably be problems with differences of opinions between the mods leading to a lack of fairness, and even inconsistencies from each mod according to what side of the bed they got out of. As I said, they are human and we have to expect errors, as in the jmakin/micro example above.
What people won’t accept I think, and recently have become suspicious of, is the huge potential in this system for bias, whether conscious or subconscious, and this isn’t helped by the invention of the idea of there being a “Brit clique” which is QAnon levels of nonsense invented by someone no longer here for reasons we can only guess at, and perpetuated by others in his absence, which if repeated often enough probably gains some traction as we’ve seen with other conspiracy theories.
1 Like