EPTUkrainian Crisis thread
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
 As you've mentioned, its tricky, because there's a mix of news, "news", reports from the ground, and the situation is rapidly changing. Its also an emotional issue with multiple perspectives, so its tricky. We're working on coming up with a solution that will both make the thread readable and keep it relevant. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
KadaverBB
Germany25658 Posts
We get it, the thread is problematic right now. Stahp  | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On May 22 2014 03:45 Cheerio wrote: I guess I would require others to be moderated by the same strict standards I was. As said, we are actively looking for a way to steer the thread back on track. I don't think blanket banning everyone is the right solution, and I would also disagree that you've been moderated very harshly. You've received two warnings for fairly obvious offenses - the kind of offense we have been fairly good at moderating consistently throughout the thread - and no bans. Not particularly harsh, in my opinion. I understand that you think the thread is problematic at the moment, but the way you've gone about addressing the issue yourself has, again in my opinion, not improved things at all, in fact only serving to further complicate things for the moderation team. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
About the fairness issue. Page 548, three posts at the bottom of the page On May 19 2014 06:54 likeasu wrote: Aligarh Poroshinko will be new president of Ukraine. Ordinary ukrainians form west of country are fucked by economic situation, people from east are fucked and killed by their own ukrainian army, people from Odessa are fucked and burned by "praviy sektor"............... On May 19 2014 06:56 PaleMan wrote: ...and Cheerio still thinks Maidan is a huge win :facepalm.jpg: On May 19 2014 07:01 likeasu wrote: thanks God I`m not on of these maidanian jumping guys who think thay have americans friends... All of those were reported, not a single warning. Those posts are both low content and aimed at sparking aggression in the thread. And those are just an example, there are many more. At least my post was aimed at improving the quality of posting. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
As for your three quoted posts, I would have warned two out of those three, but you also need to realize the issue of reporting those you are arguing against in the midst of a heated discussion. You reported almost twenty posts (many by the same users) in the Ukraine Crisis thread in rapid succession, which can (and likely) does create a new set of concerns for moderation that we have to deal with. Naturally, some bad posts are going to slip through in a thread closing in on 600 pages of heated discussion, but sending a PM to a moderator if you have an issue with a poster can have the same effect, if not more, than simply reporting every one of that user's recent posts. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:05 Zealously wrote: Other moderators may have differing views on this matter, but I'm not particularly keen on lenience because someone has made contributions to the thread earlier. If you make a post, good or bad, you should expect to be held accountable for what it is you post, on a post-by-post basis. I agree that your contributions to the thread have been among the best of all the regular posters', but to me that doesn't mean you get a free pass to making bad posts. ok. I guess I am entitled to my own view as well. And I do not wish to add content anymore if it is not being appreciated. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
I agree that moderation in the thread has been a problem, I'm not disputing that. But I am disputing you in saying that we've been picking and choosing among users and only moderating some while consciously giving unfair amounts of lenience to others. That really is not the case, though it might be natural for you to feel that way if you feel like we've been unfairly harsh on you. Your continuous attempts to add meaningful content is greatly appreciated among those who use the thread as a source of information, including myself, but you should never assume that you're above the rules because you add something of value to the discussion. That opens the way for the very kind of inconsistent moderation you're talking about here. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:41 Zealously wrote: Surely you realize that out of, say, 6-700 reported posts in the thread, one or another will be non-actioned for any number of reasons. There is also the fact that warnings and bans aren't the only two ways of moderation - I've sent a fair share of PMs to several users in the thread when I've deemed a warning unnecessarily harsh, or when some manner of misunderstanding may have resulted in a post in contrast with the standards we've set for the thread. That you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening, but you seem fairly stuck on the fact that you were warned while others weren't, disregarding other factors. You are making it look even worse, so where was my PM? On May 22 2014 05:41 Zealously wrote: I agree that moderation in the thread has been a problem, I'm not disputing that. But I am disputing you in saying that we've been picking and choosing among users and only moderating some while consciously giving unfair amounts of lenience to others. That really is not the case, though it might be natural for you to feel that way if you feel like we've been unfairly harsh on you. Your continuous attempts to add meaningful content is greatly appreciated among those who use the thread as a source of information, including myself, but you should never assume that you're above the rules because you add something of value to the discussion. That opens the way for the very kind of inconsistent moderation you're talking about here. I'm not asking for special treatment. In fact I already got it, the moderation placed me way below average. That's what I'm angry about. And "above the rules" sounds funny, considering your posts don't have a report button. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
This will change in the future. Cheerio: You were not treated unfairly. You were in a personal fight with another poster that had nothing to do with the thread. Both of you got a warning. Fair and square. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 06:11 zatic wrote: In the past few weeks there has been almost no moderation in the thread because it was near impossible. The thread was a complete mess. This will change in the future. Cheerio: You were not treated unfairly. You were in a personal fight with another poster that had nothing to do with the thread. Both of you got a warning. Fair and square. From my perspective that wasn't a personal fight. I was trying to urge him to use capitals, which he was totally ignoring for like months, including in the names of TLer's nicknames and names of countries. You even yourself confirmed that is against the rules, and still clearly noone from the moderation spoke to him about it. Also when the level of moderation becomes stiffer, I guess a warning is due. edit: also note you didn't warn me for a personal fight or something along those lines, you warned me for low content posting. Please put some effort into your posts. One word replies and other low content posts are not appreciated here. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On May 22 2014 06:01 Cheerio wrote: You are making it look even worse, so where was my PM? I'm not asking for special treatment. In fact I already got it, the moderation placed me way below average. That's what I'm angry about. And "above the rules" sounds funny, considering your posts don't have a report button. You're either not properly reading or not understanding what I'm saying. You were warned, yes, and by me at that, because I felt that the post in question was clearly warnable. When a post is not clearly warnable but nonetheless problematic for the thread, a PM might be a more suitable solution. You never received a PM because your posts were either clear-cut warnable, or obviously not. A PM is a middle ground that is sometimes beneficial to take. I also do not quite understand why you feel like you've been treated extremely harshly in the thread in question. I understand that you disagree with your warnings, but several users have been banned once or multiple times for repeated offenses, and you have not. I don't know what average you're talking about, but our opinions quite clearly differ on the severity of the mod action taken against you. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
As for the thread, it's quite bad currently, but not hopeless as it was before ETT blanket-banned spammers. The week afterwards was quieter but also more constructive. This suggests that it's not really about individuals, but rather about the general attitude towards what the thread is about and what is acceptable. I've personally PM'd mods about Paleman deserving a permaban for prior posts but in the week after ETT's incursion Paleman actually made, what I see as, positive contributions to the thread. So, if I may nudge you towards a solution, I'd say clearer but stricter rules would help. I post there a lot, and I would not mind much stricter rules due to the sensitivity of the subject matter. Previously I've backtracked from suggesting it due to the ridiculous load on moderator time that this would (at least initially) impose. And I'd rather ignore the random ad hominem attacks than have that thread closed entirely. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
"I was treated" unfairly doesn't help at all. On the subject of users like nunez or users that are too aggressive or insulting: that sort of posting is mostly borderline offenses (some will get actioned, some not), but once we find the best solution, it will most likely involve harsher moderation and posting standards, of which many in the thread will not pass. Suggest solutions, then see how things improve. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Suggest solutions stop posting in that thread like i did zealously wrote: what zealously wrote two quibbles one very minor and one only slightly less minor this there are so many posts we can't get it all is used so often i.e. almost every time. if the same problems keep arising which obviously they are then devote more resources to it please. yeah it's just the internet and all that but you want it to be a nice place or at least semi-nice obviously it isn't perceived that way and talking about being stricter doesn't seem to do much because even if it is stricter for a while i guarantee within a month or two there's another 2-3 threads in website feedback about the same thing over and over. now that isn't much of a criticism it's really a small thing. now to bring in something lichter wrote to set up quibble 2 "I was treated" unfairly doesn't help at all. neither do most of the responses, quibble number two being "you don't understand" or some other kind of lecture that doesn't invite the person complaining to understand and move on in a way that satisfies anyone really, instead it almost follows a formula: 1. you don't understand 2. we're discussing it 3. your feelings are wrong 4. so deal with it 5. person on receiving end is rarely satisfied, and, some time passes, same shit happens again how about instead of that when you have a conversation like that between zealously and cheerio zealously says "we're not here to shit on you or anyone for being bad then have to lecture down the law if people complain about it we just don't want people to be bad so don't be bad." i feel like i am being kinda very inarticulate here as to what i think would be better from the staff but instead of an atmosphere of fostering any kind of personal relationship it's too impersonal imo. again okay it's the internet moderators on an internet forum shouldn't have to form relationships with posters the way andy griffith did with the fine fictional residents of mayberry or anything like that but i do think that taking a more inclusive and mutually cooperative approach over time might yield good results. or i might be completely wrong its the internet what i'm saying might work in the real world but on the internet maybe (maybe even probably) not i duno  | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
The source of Cheerio's complaint is the lack or leniency of moderation for some and a perceived harshness towards him. The mods already swore to improve in cleaning up the thread and just put up a new mod note for people to read. Dunno what you can ask for more than that. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The thread was closed for the day, which I think is a good idea, but today might be a bad day for it. There's a major offensive today by the Ukrainian forces and casualties are higher than ever before. Also, there's an emergency UNSC meeting today. Perhaps you can close it for a few hours only, or make a few exemplary posts yourself to cover these news items and to show the way. I have a few questions as to the interpretation of the rules (I realize most of it will come about on a case-by-case basis). Basically, what constitutes a news source? Some of the more prolific news sources are InterpreterMag, r/UkraineConflict, @StateOfUkraine, stopfake.org, etc which aren't traditional news sources (r/UkraineConflict is technically a reddit thread). They post mostly interpreted live events coverage with vetting against false news. Also, do direct statements (these days mostly tweets, but also draft articles etc.) from journalists count as news? Most newspapers have stopped the practice of writing up day-by-day status quo articles and instead have set up agglomeration sites such as these: Example. The consequence of this is that you can't really post news articles as they no longer get written up unless it's something big (even UNSC meetings don't get their own articles anymore, just blurbs), and tweets, and other informal messages through such agglomeration sites are what interested parties follow. Is it ok to post these tweets (for example the tweets reporting UNSC statements line by line, tweets/audio clips by govt. officials, but anything really) as long as the context makes it clear why that's important? Anyway, I guess I'll see myself. In my personal opinion, the stricter this is, the better, as having to explain why a source is important and trustworthy might make a lot of sense in the context of all the propaganda that's out there. | ||
| ||
