|
On April 06 2018 11:10 ChristianS wrote:
But again, it's a lot like Doodsmack's tempban. It was easy enough for us to tell what he was getting at, but his post only had a single aggressive "here's my opinion" sentence, a quote, and a link. Adding anything more, like a "here's what's in that long article I'm posting" type summary, or "here's why I think this article is actually new significant evidence in this argument and not just an excuse for me to bring up an old argument" type argumentation (you know, tie in the specifics in this case) makes you a lot less likely to get actioned.
Eh, both of them are questionable Seekerisms that were heavily debated. Not unprecedented, but the precedent is kind of dumb.
|
The dissent always comes from the same handful of posters.
|
On April 06 2018 12:18 Plansix wrote:
The dissent always comes from the same handful of posters.
As does the unflinching obedience.
|
On April 06 2018 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 12:18 Plansix wrote:
The dissent always comes from the same handful of posters. As does the unflinching obedience.
My guy, this isn't the V for Vendetta. We are on a video game website devoted to digital sports. You can't be oppressed here, you just need to go to a different club house.
|
|
|
On April 06 2018 13:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 12:18 Plansix wrote:
The dissent always comes from the same handful of posters. As does the unflinching obedience. My guy, this isn't the V for Vendetta. We are on a video game website devoted to digital sports. You can't be oppressed here, you just need to go to a different club house.
Where else can't people be oppressed in your view? The supermarket, ESPN, schools, professional sports, the internet, private clubs, where? Seems to me people can be oppressed pretty much anywhere given the right circumstances.
lol @ bold.
maybe, but doesn't mean, I won't call it like I see it. You like that white moderate quote a lot (not exactly sure you understand it) you may want to ponder on this part a little longer.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Before anyone gets confused, I don't mean any 'injustice' done to me, I mean the injustice of inaction about a police force that seems to be killing unarmed citizens with apparent impunity.
|
On April 06 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 11:10 ChristianS wrote:
But again, it's a lot like Doodsmack's tempban. It was easy enough for us to tell what he was getting at, but his post only had a single aggressive "here's my opinion" sentence, a quote, and a link. Adding anything more, like a "here's what's in that long article I'm posting" type summary, or "here's why I think this article is actually new significant evidence in this argument and not just an excuse for me to bring up an old argument" type argumentation (you know, tie in the specifics in this case) makes you a lot less likely to get actioned. The police killed an unarmed man, AGAIN. The article provides the circumstances. I provided my preferred solution. People disagree, we discuss. That's how this shit works I thought. I don't know how/why anyone thinks what the mods are doing is helping, but if I have to explain why an article about police killing an unarmed man and abolishing the police go together and deserve discussion I may just be overestimating my company.
On a somewhat unrelated note, sideways implications that other posters are stupid is one of your more unfortunate rhetorical tendencies. Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but it always reads to me like you're saying "they'd ban me if I just called you an idiot, but just so you know, I think you're an idiot."
Yeah, totally, the relationship between the two is pretty clear. You also didn't flesh out your argument really at all. You probably didn't feel the need because people have debated "abolish the police" with you before and they already know your position, but at that point the article you're posting is really just an excuse to resurrect an old argument because you've got an axe to grind.
Maybe this framing will be useful. To me, a post like that is basically asking the thread to turn their discussion to the thing you're posting about and come argue with you. In a sense, it's kind of like creating a new thread in one of the other forums in that way. And like when you're creating an OP, the discussion will be better if you flesh it out a bit. Try to create a post that explains itself enough that someone unfamiliar with the subject matter or your prior posting would still be able to get the gist of what you're saying. Otherwise the only people who will want to participate are people still holding a grudge from last time you brought it up, which isn't a great discussion.
If memory serves, last time you talked about "abolishing the police" it was followed by several pages of people attacking what they thought was your position and you insisting they were either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresenting you. Is it really so hard to imagine that the discussion would be more fruitful if you spent a bit more time explaining things that seem obvious to you, but apparently aren't obvious to everyone?
|
On April 06 2018 13:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 11:10 ChristianS wrote:
But again, it's a lot like Doodsmack's tempban. It was easy enough for us to tell what he was getting at, but his post only had a single aggressive "here's my opinion" sentence, a quote, and a link. Adding anything more, like a "here's what's in that long article I'm posting" type summary, or "here's why I think this article is actually new significant evidence in this argument and not just an excuse for me to bring up an old argument" type argumentation (you know, tie in the specifics in this case) makes you a lot less likely to get actioned. The police killed an unarmed man, AGAIN. The article provides the circumstances. I provided my preferred solution. People disagree, we discuss. That's how this shit works I thought. I don't know how/why anyone thinks what the mods are doing is helping, but if I have to explain why an article about police killing an unarmed man and abolishing the police go together and deserve discussion I may just be overestimating my company. On a somewhat unrelated note, sideways implications that other posters are stupid is one of your more unfortunate rhetorical tendencies. Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but it always reads to me like you're saying "they'd ban me if I just called you an idiot, but just so you know, I think you're an idiot."
There's a lot in there but I don't mind tackling it.
That's a pretty popular trend beyond any resemblance it may have in my own posts. To that end I could be better about it, but it's not without cause.
Yeah, totally, the relationship between the two is pretty clear. You also didn't flesh out your argument really at all. You probably didn't feel the need because people have debated "abolish the police" with you before and they already know your position, but at that point the article you're posting is really just an excuse to resurrect an old argument because you've got an axe to grind.
In a thread that posts every fart out the Mueller investigation and practically any dumbass thing Trump tweets I think resurrecting an argument about our police force killing citizens would be a legitimate one if that's all I was doing. I find the characterization of "axe to grind" to be dismissive of something more important than quite a number of the posts in the thread.
Maybe this framing will be useful. To me, a post like that is basically asking the thread to turn their discussion to the thing you're posting about and come argue with you. In a sense, it's kind of like creating a new thread in one of the other forums in that way. And like when you're creating an OP, the discussion will be better if you flesh it out a bit. Try to create a post that explains itself enough that someone unfamiliar with the subject matter or your prior posting would still be able to get the gist of what you're saying. Otherwise the only people who will want to participate are people still holding a grudge from last time you brought it up, which isn't a great discussion.
If that's what they want they should ask for it. Presuming that's what they want I can do that in the future. That still could have been resolved with a PM request instead of public sanction, particularly since no one had reported it and it was a personal gripe.
If memory serves, last time you talked about "abolishing the police" it was followed by several pages of people attacking what they thought was your position and you insisting they were either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresenting you. Is it really so hard to imagine that the discussion would be more fruitful if you spent a bit more time explaining things that seem obvious to you, but apparently aren't obvious to everyone?
Probably not as they didn't not get it because I didn't write posts about. I wrote posts addressing what they said and they ignored them for whatever reasons. I doubt what you prescribe would prevent that from happening again at all.
|
If tweets from the president now require "context" or points for "discussion" then I guess it's consistent that everything does.
|
On April 06 2018 14:16 Introvert wrote:
If tweets from the president now require "context" or points for "discussion" then I guess it's consistent that everything does.
I guess advocating for abolishing and disarming the police, citing an example of their failure, and declaring it as one with no equivocation isn't context or discussion.
Or the mods are wrong and haphazardly implementing stupid rules. Could be either one.
EDIT: The irony of responding to not actioning posts that are reported by actioning posts that aren't isn't lost on me.
|
On April 06 2018 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 13:50 ChristianS wrote:On April 06 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 11:10 ChristianS wrote:
But again, it's a lot like Doodsmack's tempban. It was easy enough for us to tell what he was getting at, but his post only had a single aggressive "here's my opinion" sentence, a quote, and a link. Adding anything more, like a "here's what's in that long article I'm posting" type summary, or "here's why I think this article is actually new significant evidence in this argument and not just an excuse for me to bring up an old argument" type argumentation (you know, tie in the specifics in this case) makes you a lot less likely to get actioned. The police killed an unarmed man, AGAIN. The article provides the circumstances. I provided my preferred solution. People disagree, we discuss. That's how this shit works I thought. I don't know how/why anyone thinks what the mods are doing is helping, but if I have to explain why an article about police killing an unarmed man and abolishing the police go together and deserve discussion I may just be overestimating my company. On a somewhat unrelated note, sideways implications that other posters are stupid is one of your more unfortunate rhetorical tendencies. Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but it always reads to me like you're saying "they'd ban me if I just called you an idiot, but just so you know, I think you're an idiot." There's a lot in there but I don't mind tackling it. That's a pretty popular trend beyond any resemblance it may have in my own posts. To that end I could be better about it, but it's not without cause. I agree. I don't think you're the worst about it by any means. I think it probably affects the thread more negatively when you do it than when others do just because they disagree with you more strongly than most, and I don't mean to lay blame for that at your feet. I only mention it because on more than one occasion I have thought about engaging in a discussion with you and decided not to because I didn't feel like trying to piece together whether or not you're calling me stupid, and in general thought the discussion wasn't likely to be civil. The mods would like it less, but personally I'd rather someone just come out and call me stupid than dance around it.
Show nested quote +Yeah, totally, the relationship between the two is pretty clear. You also didn't flesh out your argument really at all. You probably didn't feel the need because people have debated "abolish the police" with you before and they already know your position, but at that point the article you're posting is really just an excuse to resurrect an old argument because you've got an axe to grind. In a thread that posts every fart out the Mueller investigation and practically any dumbass thing Trump tweets I think resurrecting an argument about our police force killing citizens would be a legitimate one if that's all I was doing. I find the characterization of "axe to grind" to be dismissive of something more important than quite a number of the posts in the thread.
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that police shootings and police brutality aren't worthy topics of discussion. The "axe to grind" I was referring to was more your "abolish the police" slogan, and people's responses to it. To me, the post you got warned for reads like "See? I told you we need to abolish the police, but you guys all thought it was stupid. I was right!"
Also largely unrelated, but I think I'd agree that a lot of the tea leaf-reading people do around the Mueller investigation isn't especially worthwhile. But it's interesting to people, and the discussion isn't usually too acrimonious, so the mods don't seem to mind it.
Show nested quote +Maybe this framing will be useful. To me, a post like that is basically asking the thread to turn their discussion to the thing you're posting about and come argue with you. In a sense, it's kind of like creating a new thread in one of the other forums in that way. And like when you're creating an OP, the discussion will be better if you flesh it out a bit. Try to create a post that explains itself enough that someone unfamiliar with the subject matter or your prior posting would still be able to get the gist of what you're saying. Otherwise the only people who will want to participate are people still holding a grudge from last time you brought it up, which isn't a great discussion.
If that's what they want they should ask for it. Presuming that's what they want I can do that in the future. That still could have been resolved with a PM request instead of public sanction, particularly since no one had reported it and it was a personal gripe.
I don't disagree. I'm not privy to what mods have PM'd people, but just from what's been said publicly I'm not sure they've done the best job conveying clearly what they want or what the rules are. It feels like they're worried to say anything too specific because then that will be taken as absolute law and they'll be held against that standard later; the new trend is "subjective moderation." But ideally I think the rules would be both consistent and transparent, and "subjective moderation" isn't necessarily very good at either.
Show nested quote +If memory serves, last time you talked about "abolishing the police" it was followed by several pages of people attacking what they thought was your position and you insisting they were either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresenting you. Is it really so hard to imagine that the discussion would be more fruitful if you spent a bit more time explaining things that seem obvious to you, but apparently aren't obvious to everyone?
Probably not as they didn't not get it because I didn't write posts about. I wrote posts addressing what they said and they ignored them for whatever reasons. I doubt what you prescribe would prevent that from happening again at all.
I mean, you might be right that it wouldn't make a difference. I do think that it helps more to be clear in your first post than to clarify in future posts, because people don't always read follow-up posts as closely (or at all), and just respond to the first one. Maybe sometimes they think you're changing your position in those follow-up posts and trying to weasel out of owning whatever you said in the first place. If people aren't reading your posts carefully or they're assuming you're arguing in bad faith, that's not your fault, but it's possible if you were a bit clearer in the first place they'd have fewer opportunities to misunderstand you.
I don't know if this will be of any value to you, but I remember reading the whole "abolish the police" discussion last time, and coming out of it pretty uncertain of what your position was. I probably didn't read all your posts very closely, and definitely skimmed some of your back and forth with (iirc) Falling, so that might be my fault. The best I could piece together, your plan was something like:
Step 1: Fire everybody in the country who currently works in law enforcement.
Step 2: Local governments across the country try to figure out a new system of community-centered law enforcement based on some new principles (I think you posted a Rolling Stone article with some ideas).
Step 3: Achieve some new, more perfect system where lethal force is used very rarely, if at all.
But I have no idea if that's actually close to what you think or not. I didn't really have time to post on TL that day anyway, but even if I had I think I was hesitant to post in that discussion because I thought I'd just get some insults for my trouble. At least in my head, asking you to clarify what alternative you were suggesting would be met with "why is it my job to figure out the alternative, first you need to acknowledge that the current system is untenable and we need to abolish it." Meanwhile saying "I think what you're saying is this, here's what I would think about that" would be met with "omg that's not what I'm saying at all, read my posts before responding why don't you." Granted, all that's in my head, and maybe you wouldn't have reacted so negatively – I'm not really sharing this to try to blame you for any of that. But maybe it's useful to you to know how you come across sometimes.
|
On April 06 2018 15:24 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 13:50 ChristianS wrote:On April 06 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 11:10 ChristianS wrote:
But again, it's a lot like Doodsmack's tempban. It was easy enough for us to tell what he was getting at, but his post only had a single aggressive "here's my opinion" sentence, a quote, and a link. Adding anything more, like a "here's what's in that long article I'm posting" type summary, or "here's why I think this article is actually new significant evidence in this argument and not just an excuse for me to bring up an old argument" type argumentation (you know, tie in the specifics in this case) makes you a lot less likely to get actioned. The police killed an unarmed man, AGAIN. The article provides the circumstances. I provided my preferred solution. People disagree, we discuss. That's how this shit works I thought. I don't know how/why anyone thinks what the mods are doing is helping, but if I have to explain why an article about police killing an unarmed man and abolishing the police go together and deserve discussion I may just be overestimating my company. On a somewhat unrelated note, sideways implications that other posters are stupid is one of your more unfortunate rhetorical tendencies. Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but it always reads to me like you're saying "they'd ban me if I just called you an idiot, but just so you know, I think you're an idiot." There's a lot in there but I don't mind tackling it. That's a pretty popular trend beyond any resemblance it may have in my own posts. To that end I could be better about it, but it's not without cause. I agree. I don't think you're the worst about it by any means. I think it probably affects the thread more negatively when you do it than when others do just because they disagree with you more strongly than most, and I don't mean to lay blame for that at your feet. I only mention it because on more than one occasion I have thought about engaging in a discussion with you and decided not to because I didn't feel like trying to piece together whether or not you're calling me stupid, and in general thought the discussion wasn't likely to be civil. The mods would like it less, but personally I'd rather someone just come out and call me stupid than dance around it. Show nested quote +Yeah, totally, the relationship between the two is pretty clear. You also didn't flesh out your argument really at all. You probably didn't feel the need because people have debated "abolish the police" with you before and they already know your position, but at that point the article you're posting is really just an excuse to resurrect an old argument because you've got an axe to grind. In a thread that posts every fart out the Mueller investigation and practically any dumbass thing Trump tweets I think resurrecting an argument about our police force killing citizens would be a legitimate one if that's all I was doing. I find the characterization of "axe to grind" to be dismissive of something more important than quite a number of the posts in the thread. Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that police shootings and police brutality aren't worthy topics of discussion. The "axe to grind" I was referring to was more your "abolish the police" slogan, and people's responses to it. To me, the post you got warned for reads like "See? I told you we need to abolish the police, but you guys all thought it was stupid. I was right!" Also largely unrelated, but I think I'd agree that a lot of the tea leaf-reading people do around the Mueller investigation isn't especially worthwhile. But it's interesting to people, and the discussion isn't usually too acrimonious, so the mods don't seem to mind it. Show nested quote +Maybe this framing will be useful. To me, a post like that is basically asking the thread to turn their discussion to the thing you're posting about and come argue with you. In a sense, it's kind of like creating a new thread in one of the other forums in that way. And like when you're creating an OP, the discussion will be better if you flesh it out a bit. Try to create a post that explains itself enough that someone unfamiliar with the subject matter or your prior posting would still be able to get the gist of what you're saying. Otherwise the only people who will want to participate are people still holding a grudge from last time you brought it up, which isn't a great discussion.
If that's what they want they should ask for it. Presuming that's what they want I can do that in the future. That still could have been resolved with a PM request instead of public sanction, particularly since no one had reported it and it was a personal gripe. I don't disagree. I'm not privy to what mods have PM'd people, but just from what's been said publicly I'm not sure they've done the best job conveying clearly what they want or what the rules are. It feels like they're worried to say anything too specific because then that will be taken as absolute law and they'll be held against that standard later; the new trend is "subjective moderation." But ideally I think the rules would be both consistent and transparent, and "subjective moderation" isn't necessarily very good at either. Show nested quote +If memory serves, last time you talked about "abolishing the police" it was followed by several pages of people attacking what they thought was your position and you insisting they were either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresenting you. Is it really so hard to imagine that the discussion would be more fruitful if you spent a bit more time explaining things that seem obvious to you, but apparently aren't obvious to everyone?
Probably not as they didn't not get it because I didn't write posts about. I wrote posts addressing what they said and they ignored them for whatever reasons. I doubt what you prescribe would prevent that from happening again at all. I mean, you might be right that it wouldn't make a difference. I do think that it helps more to be clear in your first post than to clarify in future posts, because people don't always read follow-up posts as closely (or at all), and just respond to the first one. Maybe sometimes they think you're changing your position in those follow-up posts and trying to weasel out of owning whatever you said in the first place. If people aren't reading your posts carefully or they're assuming you're arguing in bad faith, that's not your fault, but it's possible if you were a bit clearer in the first place they'd have fewer opportunities to misunderstand you. I don't know if this will be of any value to you, but I remember reading the whole "abolish the police" discussion last time, and coming out of it pretty uncertain of what your position was. I probably didn't read all your posts very closely, and definitely skimmed some of your back and forth with (iirc) Falling, so that might be my fault. The best I could piece together, your plan was something like: Step 1: Fire everybody in the country who currently works in law enforcement. Step 2: Local governments across the country try to figure out a new system of community-centered law enforcement based on some new principles (I think you posted a Rolling Stone article with some ideas). Step 3: Achieve some new, more perfect system where lethal force is used very rarely, if at all. But I have no idea if that's actually close to what you think or not. I didn't really have time to post on TL that day anyway, but even if I had I think I was hesitant to post in that discussion because I thought I'd just get some insults for my trouble. At least in my head, asking you to clarify what alternative you were suggesting would be met with "why is it my job to figure out the alternative, first you need to acknowledge that the current system is untenable and we need to abolish it." Meanwhile saying "I think what you're saying is this, here's what I would think about that" would be met with "omg that's not what I'm saying at all, read my posts before responding why don't you." Granted, all that's in my head, and maybe you wouldn't have reacted so negatively – I'm not really sharing this to try to blame you for any of that. But maybe it's useful to you to know how you come across sometimes.
When people genuinely approach the situation wanting to better understand my position I'm more than willing to engage. When they pretend my position is idiotic and wrong without understanding it or asking relevant questions and then add in a "how would you do that stupid idea" to make it look like it wasn't just a snide remark and then eventually bail on the argument when theirs falls apart I tend to be less polite in my engagement.
Occasionally someone unrelated to that gets caught in the crossfire, but I think I've done well to apologize and answer questions/engage with other positions.
So if you're curious, and perhaps ignorant about some of the details of the topic, simply mention that and ask the questions or do a little work and read the conversation. Otherwise the contribution probably isn't worth much anyway.
Abolishing the police is about disempowering the people that the 'reformists' still can't even get to give them an accurate body count.
Asking questions about how to do that is fair, thinking me not having the answer (or one that satisfies them anyway) invalidates the premise, is failing to understand the premise in the first place. The alternative they propose is another decade of police killing unarmed civilians, nothing done effectively changing that, no way to measure if policing is working in the first place.
The presumption that what we have is effective is wholly unsubstantiated. Clearly I'm not talking about abolishing the police without a plan for how to address the social functions we need done. I'm talking about getting the police the f out of the way when it comes to deciding what those are, how we want them addressed, and how we'll measure our effectiveness at resolving them.
That's what people need to be discussing. How we will make abolishing the police work. Not how incremental reforms they can't describe any more clearly than my plans to abolish the police and never were in any of those discussions are the only sensible path forward. They aren't in any way shape or form and the suggestion is magnitudes more absurd than abolishing the police.
I'll argue with people that aren't on board with abolishing the police yet, but I'm not going to give the argument the significance that's allowed so little progress so far. If someone wants to argue that their 'reformist' strategy is better or more well thought out, let them show it, not tell it.
I'll put my plans for abolition up against anyone who claims their argument for reform is better planned or will lead to better outcomes. That's not what people were doing though. They were making absurd arguments about unpaid vigilante volunteers and other nonsensical points that had nothing to do with my argument. After about the third time I stopped explaining why that didn't have anything to do with what I was arguing and told people that their arguments looked stupid since they weren't reading my argument.
TLDR: Show me the example of the post that did so much as outline the 'reformist' path (that near everyone acted as if was obviously better) even as much as the RollingStone article did abolishing the police. You won't/can't, because I was the most frequent and knowledgeable (based on related posts) poster on police reforms before I started supporting abolition. There isn't a better plan in that camp, I searched exhaustively.
|
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant.
|
On April 06 2018 19:52 Aquanim wrote:
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't think one needs to know anything about my posting history to figure it out but I get that others think differently.
|
On April 06 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 19:52 Aquanim wrote:
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't think one needs to know anything about my posting history to figure it out but I get that others think differently.
To get the vague gist of it possibly, but unless one followed the previous discussions on the topic it's a non sequitur at best.
If you understand that other people think differently and that their viewpoint has some validity, do you retract your statement that this moderation action is "indefensible"?
|
On April 06 2018 20:23 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 19:52 Aquanim wrote:
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't think one needs to know anything about my posting history to figure it out but I get that others think differently. To get the vague gist of it possibly, but unless one followed the previous discussions on the topic it's a non sequitur at best. If you understand that other people think differently and that their viewpoint has some validity, do you retract your statement that this moderation action is "indefensible"?
No they don't and no it's not. "Abolish the police" "Disarm the police" are both pretty straightforward. Why would we do such a thing? Because they are killing unarmed people and not facing consequences most of the time. That is a failure of policing.
Their thinking differently doesn't mean the context and discussion points weren't there, it means Seeker didn't see it and acted unilaterally and the justification that my commentary 'doesn't tell me anything... ' is factually inaccurate
|
On April 06 2018 07:55 tofucake wrote:
You don't have any right to nor should you ever expect "justification" for the things we do here.
We don't have any rights, as moderators hold all the power, but other more morally decent moderators do expect justification for their own actions. They believe that it is the correct course of action to do so, whether it is to increase popularity of the site, or because of their own moral imperative, or for some other reason, they don't seem to hold the same believe as you that mod status is a vehicle of expressing power and to shit over other people.
It's the reason why this section of the forum exists, and I am thankful to the other moderators who don't hold the same "nor should you ever expect "justification" for the things we do here" view as tofucake's.
That said, I don't view repeating a slogan as "abolish the police" ad nauseum as a proxy for an argument as in line with the new standards for the thread, and it would had been simple to write so, as opposed to writing such a directed disgustingly insulting post to GH and by extent to the rest of common users.
|
On April 06 2018 20:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 20:23 Aquanim wrote:On April 06 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 19:52 Aquanim wrote:
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't think one needs to know anything about my posting history to figure it out but I get that others think differently. To get the vague gist of it possibly, but unless one followed the previous discussions on the topic it's a non sequitur at best. If you understand that other people think differently and that their viewpoint has some validity, do you retract your statement that this moderation action is "indefensible"? No they don't and no it's not. "Abolish the police" "Disarm the police" are both pretty straightforward. Why would we do such a thing? Because they are killing unarmed people and not facing consequences most of the time. That is a failure of policing. Their thinking differently doesn't mean the context and discussion points weren't there, it means Seeker didn't see it and acted unilaterally and the justification that my commentary 'doesn't tell me anything... ' is factually inaccurate
What do you mean by "acted unilaterally"? So far as I can see every other moderator who's offered comment has agreed with Seeker's action. As for that matter have a majority of the users who offered comment.
|
On April 06 2018 20:51 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 20:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 20:23 Aquanim wrote:On April 06 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 19:52 Aquanim wrote:
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't think one needs to know anything about my posting history to figure it out but I get that others think differently. To get the vague gist of it possibly, but unless one followed the previous discussions on the topic it's a non sequitur at best. If you understand that other people think differently and that their viewpoint has some validity, do you retract your statement that this moderation action is "indefensible"? No they don't and no it's not. "Abolish the police" "Disarm the police" are both pretty straightforward. Why would we do such a thing? Because they are killing unarmed people and not facing consequences most of the time. That is a failure of policing. Their thinking differently doesn't mean the context and discussion points weren't there, it means Seeker didn't see it and acted unilaterally and the justification that my commentary 'doesn't tell me anything... ' is factually inaccurate What do you mean by "acted unilaterally"? So far as I can see every other moderator who's offered comment has agreed with Seeker's action. As for that matter have a majority of the users who offered comment.
I guess we're done with the rest?
Best we've been able to decipher (as Seeker has largely stayed out of this) is Seeker saw the post and immediately actioned it with a warning. It wasn't reported so presumably he didn't discuss it with anyone. I would expect mods to back each other up most of the time, so defending it after the fact (in some shitty ways as pointed out recently) doesn't make it less of a unilateral action.
I suppose one could say he was acting with their pre-existing approval to subjectively moderate whatever posts they want however they want. But it's mostly tangential to the whole thing anyway.
|
On April 06 2018 21:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 20:51 Aquanim wrote:On April 06 2018 20:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 20:23 Aquanim wrote:On April 06 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 19:52 Aquanim wrote:
(As I understand moderation policy,) The bar for an acceptable post has been raised above "it was possible to work out the meaning from a knowledge of the poster's history and/or a thorough read of the linked source".
The fact that a number of people did work out the meaning (given those clues) is completely irrelevant. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't think one needs to know anything about my posting history to figure it out but I get that others think differently. To get the vague gist of it possibly, but unless one followed the previous discussions on the topic it's a non sequitur at best. If you understand that other people think differently and that their viewpoint has some validity, do you retract your statement that this moderation action is "indefensible"? No they don't and no it's not. "Abolish the police" "Disarm the police" are both pretty straightforward. Why would we do such a thing? Because they are killing unarmed people and not facing consequences most of the time. That is a failure of policing. Their thinking differently doesn't mean the context and discussion points weren't there, it means Seeker didn't see it and acted unilaterally and the justification that my commentary 'doesn't tell me anything... ' is factually inaccurate What do you mean by "acted unilaterally"? So far as I can see every other moderator who's offered comment has agreed with Seeker's action. As for that matter have a majority of the users who offered comment. I guess we're done with the rest? I have no interest in debating the role of the police in the United States with you in Website Feedback, or getting dragged into such a debate inches at a time, if that's what you're asking.
Best we've been able to decipher (as Seeker has largely stayed out of this) is Seeker saw the post and immediately actioned it with a warning. It wasn't reported so presumably he didn't discuss it with anyone. I would expect mods to back each other up most of the time, so defending it after the fact (in some shitty ways as pointed out recently) doesn't make it less of a unilateral action.
So you're just assuming that Seeker didn't discuss it with any other moderators, without any evidence whatsoever, to suit your own argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
