EPTThe moderation has consistently pussyfooted around the issue of ever establishing a semblance of consistency in decision-making. It gets quite tiresome after a while.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 111
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The moderation has consistently pussyfooted around the issue of ever establishing a semblance of consistency in decision-making. It gets quite tiresome after a while. | ||
KwarK
United States41984 Posts
The political spectrum is infinitely divisible. You can agree on 99% of issues and the remaining 1% will still become a chasm over which people will argue forever. With that in mind there is no real need to provide a home for every political opinion. Refusing to provide a home for certain political opinions will not make the thread worse, for that to be the case the inverse would have to be true, that the more extreme political opinions you add to the thread the better it gets. Danglars exclusively argues in bad faith. His position as a conservative poster does not excuse that. We don't need dishonest neo-Confederates to have a good topic, and getting rid of them won't create a circle jerk. Hell, the left is renowned for its schisms and fractal nature. That's why the "Judean People's Front" running gag in Monty Python's Life of Brian is so good. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2018 10:24 micronesia wrote: The issue is not insufficient contribution so much as destructive contribution (regardless of political alignment; good contribution can compete with destructive contribution but only to a point). The description (by some) of this as some 'study' to see what will happen is silly in my opinion. When TL moderation identifies a user with unacceptable behavior, moderator action results. Other users may be crossing the line as well and further action very well may occur. Clearly TL moderation does not agree that other users were worse offenders. No one is arguing about what the mod staff’s determinations have been. The question is whether those determinations have been arbitrary and capricious. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On March 27 2018 10:29 LegalLord wrote: Honestly seems like each mod is trying their own take on explaining a widely unpopular decision with a successive attempt to spin it in their own special way. I’m not seeing any consistent logic here, just a generic take from each individual moderator based on how they would be likely to interpret things. The moderation has consistently pussyfooted around the issue of ever establishing a semblance of consistency in decision-making. It gets quite tiresome after a while. They don't all agree or think the same way. I'm sure they had discussions for months on this and people who just don't care about the thread like KBB or people who think conservative posters like me xdaunt and danglers are neo-confederates like kwark ended up winning out over the debate to kill the thread and tell everyone that the thread is for liberal posters only. They don't want the garbage landfill anymore they want to gentrify general and open a whole foods next to UK politics and the North korea did something shocking thread. I guess we can wish they were honest up front with it but its better to just tear the band aid off now and save everyone time. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On March 27 2018 13:42 Sermokala wrote: They don't all agree or think the same way. I'm sure they had discussions for months on this and people who just don't care about the thread like KBB or people who think conservative posters like me xdaunt and danglers are neo-confederates like kwark ended up winning out over the debate to kill the thread and tell everyone that the thread is for liberal posters only. They don't want the garbage landfill anymore they want to gentrify general and open a whole foods next to UK politics and the North korea did something shocking thread. I guess we can wish they were honest up front with it but its better to just tear the band aid off now and save everyone time. A shockingly incorrect take based on conflation, incorrect inferences and a lack of reading comprehension. There is a reason Danglars was banned, and it's not because he was a conservative no matter how wounded and persecuted you may feel. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On March 27 2018 13:42 Sermokala wrote: They don't all agree or think the same way. I'm sure they had discussions for months on this and people who just don't care about the thread like KBB or people who think conservative posters like me xdaunt and danglers are neo-confederates like kwark ended up winning out over the debate to kill the thread and tell everyone that the thread is for liberal posters only. They don't want the garbage landfill anymore they want to gentrify general and open a whole foods next to UK politics and the North korea did something shocking thread. I guess we can wish they were honest up front with it but its better to just tear the band aid off now and save everyone time. I'm just going to take my previous statement and quote it with a few adjustments. Sermokala, you are not a mod and thus, you have no idea what we have or haven't discussed in regards to the US Politics Mega-thread. What we have chosen to publicly disclose is not 100% of everything that took place that led to our decisions. We are not obligated to disclose every single detail. Please stop talking as if you know exactly what's going on in our minds. If you keep this up, you will be forcing our hand. You've been warned. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
He was unpleasant, rude, condescending, dismissive, terrible. IMHO - and it should be clear by now that many felt the same way (report stats). the last 5 pages of this feedback thread have argued that it was his political views that caused the temp ban. I strongly disagree. you can have your views without being (rude, unpleasant, condescending, etc etc) I see conversatives, liberals, and the whole spectrum in between in the new thread that can have an actual debate without turning it into a shitshow. I did not see this in the old thread. This is better. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Just look at all of these non-regular people with different views arguing with each other without being rude or making up fake strawman arguments. Thanks. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 28 2018 06:41 Belisarius wrote: Nowhere in the OP does it say this. If people are going to get warned for random things that aren't listed, the mod really needs to edit the post and add a note to the warning saying what it's for. I wish TL did this in general, but it's even more important under an openly "subjective" regime. It's even more confusing when you then go back and change the post so nobody has even the slightest clue what happened. I agree with this. I'm with them in saying that a no call-out policy would be great, but without it being clearly delineated in the OP it's not going to be obvious that it's a thing. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On March 27 2018 21:15 NewSunshine wrote: He posted like shit. I don't mind if you want to argue the other side, and even as he played his endless rhetorical games I still tried to look at it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't participate in the thread for the same reason most of us do. He's there to win, and to make the person arguing with him look bad. And if someone spots it and calls him out on it, he switches to his good ol' victim routine. It's old. Agreed 100%. I think his contributions mostly hurt conversation significantly. The condescension is also noticeably higher than many other posters. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On March 28 2018 06:59 NewSunshine wrote: I agree with this. I'm with them in saying that a no call-out policy would be great, but without it being clearly delineated in the OP it's not going to be obvious that it's a thing. TL never once said that the rules in the OP were the only rules people had to abide by. We're not moderating based solely on the rules outlined in the OP. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 28 2018 08:53 Seeker wrote: TL never once said that the rules in the OP were the only rules people had to abide by. We're not moderating based solely on the rules outlined in the OP. I mean, I wouldn't expect that, but if everybody's still feeling out the new decorum for the thread I'd expect some kind of post about it. People were clearly surprised and confused when it happened. Not to say the rule is bad, but it's hard to follow when nothing was said about it except to Mohdoo. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On March 28 2018 11:57 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, I wouldn't expect that, but if everybody's still feeling out the new decorum for the thread I'd expect some kind of post about it. People were clearly surprised and confused when it happened. Not to say the rule is bad, but it's hard to follow when nothing was said about it except to Mohdoo. So long as it doesn't end up being some kinda "you get 3 strikes and that's one of them" thing, I don't mind being made an example of. I would think it would be super fucked up for me to end up banned from the thread because of very specific rules I didn't know existed, but that isn't the case yet. But if I screw up legitimately, and I end up banned because I also ended up being a sacrificial lamb, doing something basically everyone used to do, that would be dumb. I think it is fair to ask for a nice laid out set of rules. Also, is there a system for warnings resulting in bans? Like if I am warned twice more, am I banned? How does someone end up banned? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
irl, there are multiple way to deal with the jabbing, poking, thrusting, gesticulations and so on, ranging from ignoring the guy to punching him in the face but on the forum there's ... nothing(sure you might be able to ignore him but you'd have no (clear)idea what he means/where is he coming from/his level of resolve etc). most of the people getting banned here come from the second category and they get it because they can't translate that energy into words since ... it is not doable; they end up cursing more, being provocative/belligerent for no reason, half-assing almost everything because they can't fucking poke you so whats the point?. that is not an excuse for anything but a reminder that written dialogue, by default, is at least limiting for some people if not totally excluding. also+ Show Spoiler + Seeker did it | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
Nixer
2774 Posts
On March 29 2018 03:48 LegalLord wrote: On a bit of a different note, when and how did Wrath get banned from the thread? I just straight up don't remember him posting there. Requested a ban from all politics threads. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On March 28 2018 13:55 Mohdoo wrote: So long as it doesn't end up being some kinda "you get 3 strikes and that's one of them" thing, I don't mind being made an example of. I would think it would be super fucked up for me to end up banned from the thread because of very specific rules I didn't know existed, but that isn't the case yet. But if I screw up legitimately, and I end up banned because I also ended up being a sacrificial lamb, doing something basically everyone used to do, that would be dumb. I think it is fair to ask for a nice laid out set of rules. Also, is there a system for warnings resulting in bans? Like if I am warned twice more, am I banned? How does someone end up banned? Excludos was also warned for calling out Danglars. We don't want people getting publicly called out like that if the sole purpose is just to humiliate them. To answer your question Mohdoo, no, there is no system for warnings and bans. All mods think and act differently. A lot of it has to do with your mod history and how frequently you receive mod actions. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
| ||
