EPTThe end.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 116
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21655 Posts
The end. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 06 2018 21:04 Aquanim wrote: I have no interest in debating the role of the police in the United States with you in Website Feedback, if that's what you're asking. So you're just assuming that Seeker didn't discuss it with any other moderators, without any evidence whatsoever, to suit your own argument? I didn't think that's what we were arguing. I asked who reported it and we discovered no one did. So that leaves us with the conclusion Seeker acted alone, because it wouldn't make a lot of sense to discuss it with the mod team and not just send me a PM instead. That said, the supposition has been lingering pretty much the entirety of the conversation, if it's not true they could say so. Though I don't think that would necessarily be better anyway. On April 06 2018 21:04 Gorsameth wrote: Your post did not meet the new standard for linking articles. So it was actioned. The end. On April 06 2018 21:09 Gorsameth wrote: The mods set the guideline for articles. Your post did not meet it (no matter how 'obvious' the point is). There is nothing for Seeker to discuss with other mods. K thanks. On April 06 2018 21:13 Aquanim wrote: To add to this, If Seeker acted entirely in concordance with the guidelines set down by the moderators as a body, then I do not think it is accurate to say that Seeker acted "unilaterally". I already conceded the point about "unilaterally" and noted it's mostly tangential. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21655 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On April 06 2018 21:09 Gorsameth wrote: The mods set the guideline for articles. Your post did not meet it (no matter how 'obvious' the point is). There is nothing for Seeker to discuss with other mods. To add to this, If Seeker acted entirely in concordance with the guidelines set down by the moderators as a body, then I do not think it is accurate to say that Seeker acted "unilaterally". | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
after reading the last two pages i’m certain it is not Seeker that’s having the tantrum. your defense of having provided one line of context fell flat. we can all appreciate that you don’t like that. i think as a group of adults we should be able to move forward understanding that there exists an arbitrary minimum to providing an article and you did not make the cut. and frankly a lot of the adults already had after we had this exact same discussion twice over. if you need a specific word count to abide by, grow up. this is all so childish it is an absolute marvel the thread remains open. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 06 2018 22:50 brian wrote: i mean you equated warning a post, one that is roundly agreed upon as deserving, to a ‘tantrum’ and ‘abusing power.’ equated warning a post to ‘tattling.’ after reading the last two pages i’m certain it is not Seeker that’s having the tantrum. your defense of having provided one line of context fell flat. we can all appreciate that you don’t like that. i think as a group of adults we should be able to move forward understanding that there exists an arbitrary minimum to providing an article and you did not make the cut. if you need a specific word count to abide by, grow up. this is all so childish it is an absolute marvel the thread remains open. I could understand the confusion, but I wasn't accusing Seeker of throwing a tantrum. I was saying they can do that and still be within the established parameters of the platform. It's context, if Seekers complaint was that it wasn't enough that's what he should have said instead of saying it didn't have any. This is like the third time I've had to say the second part to the people saying I might not have this issue if I said it in the original post (which I did). | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
and there was no misunderstand with regards to your complaint either, i thought i made that very clear. we don’t need a word count. figure it out. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 06 2018 23:07 brian wrote: there was no misunderstanding. that’s why i said equated. No I didn't equate it, I was trying to use an extreme example to demonstrate they can do whatever they want because it's 'their house'. So the standard "muh freedoms" and "the this isn't a country/Mods aren't the government" crap had nothing to do with my argument as Tofu tried to suggest. Like I said, I can understand why you might take it that way, but that's not what I was saying. and there was no misunderstand with regards to your complaint either, i thought i made that very clear. we don’t need a word count. figure it out lol, what do you need then? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 06 2018 23:37 Plansix wrote: The opening demand to know who reported the post made thrust of the complaint evident. Did it? It was an afterthought, because I was hoping we could work it out in PM next time. What did you divine from it? EDIT: Figured this would be a throw away attack with no actual substance, just pure bullshit. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
On April 06 2018 21:04 Gorsameth wrote: Your post did not meet the new standard for linking articles. So it was actioned. The end. This is pretty much it. I was not throwing a tantrum nor was I specifically targeting you GH. Your “supporting” statement did nothing to explain what the source was about or why it is even relevant to discuss it. IDK how else to say this. What are you not getting? Also, there is no moderator rule or law that states that we can only action if someone reports it. We are free to carry out a mod action if we know it warrants one. If you think that was me unfairly singling you out then I honestly don’t know what to say because I sure as hell am not the only moderator in the history of TL to have done that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 07 2018 01:54 Seeker wrote: This is pretty much it. I was not throwing a tantrum nor was I specifically targeting you GH. Your “supporting” statement did nothing to explain what the source was about or why it is even relevant to discuss it. IDK how else to say this. What are you not getting? Also, there is no moderator rule or law that states that we can only action if someone reports it. We are free to carry out a mod action if we know it warrants one. If you think that was me unfairly singling you out then I honestly don’t know what to say because I sure as hell am not the only moderator in the history of TL to have done that. So if I don't want to be actioned I need to include context and discussion points comparable to these unactioned posts? Or maybe just post a tweet of the story instead of the actual story? On April 06 2018 08:28 ticklishmusic wrote: market is gonna be ugly tomorrow. On April 05 2018 05:23 On_Slaught wrote: Its official that he is signing a proclomation, to be specific. DHS getting it ready. They made clear it is going to his desk. On April 05 2018 03:20 Doodsmack wrote: Remember now, Trump's policy and strategy on this trade war are clear. I expected a better response from you Seeker. I'm especially disappointed that you would make the same mistake I clarified just posts before. Tofu threw a fit and there's no question his post would/should be more actionable than an incomplete news post, but you know. That's why you said nothing about it but repeated the errant claim of me saying you threw a fit (like come the f on man). We're all familiar with the popular refrain "If it doesn't get reported we probably wont see it" It's not about singling me out. It's just somehow you guys are getting worse at modding the thread, not better. Should have just said "Yeah, I probably should have sent you a PM and avoided all this, My bad" but god forbid you guys admit when you screw up and there was a better alternative plan of action. Looking over the last pages, ChristianS was the only person not making a shit tier "your wrong because I said so, the end" argument. (As usual IgnE had some good lines, but I'm always only half sure he's not making fun of me too with his pithy insights) That you picked the twice posted in 5 minutes shit tier argument to quote should be embarrassing | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19035 Posts
Okay. Drop it. You clearly think we're wrong, and we clearly think we're not. End of discussion. Move on. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 07 2018 06:19 tofucake wrote: Making a post detailing why you were actioned in 3 succinct points is a fit, but blasting the entire mod team for incompetence and calling every post not agreeing with you for the past several pages shit tier isn't a fit. Okay. Drop it. You clearly think we're wrong, and we clearly think we're not. End of discussion. Move on. That doesn't tell me anything about whether the examples I posted should be followed and so is quite unhelpful. As was your original contribution to this conversation. My comment wasn't calling the entire mod staff incompetent, it was saying they are doing a worse job at moderating the US politics thread than they were before they were doing whatever they are now. (Edit: I should note there have been some improvements, just net net I think worse, but that's a more complicated issue and one I may concede is just 'different'.) I also very clearly did NOT call every post disagreeing with me shit tier, I called the ones saying something to the effect of "I'm right, your wrong, the end." shit tier. You seem too emotionally involved to see this clearly and would suggest you step away if you can't discuss it. Of course, this is also your house. You can be a shitty host if you want and shut down the conversation. That's within your power and there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in checking it. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28650 Posts
 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 07 2018 06:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: Greenhorizon being completely honest, I think you had - and have - a valid point. When moderating, we sometimes make somewhat arbitrary decisions, and sometimes a post ends up being warned that maybe should not have been, and sometimes a post that was more deserving of being warned skips the radar. And the whole warn for posting articles or tweets without an explanation is a new thread-policy, so it's even more likely that inconsistencies will happen. But at this point your antagonism is counter-productive. At worst, you got an undeserved warning. It's not the biggest deal, right? You've made your point. We do have internal discussions. I think it's totally fair that you call attention to posts like these, but you're not making people want to hear you out when you call their posts shit-tier. This might be us being fragile - doesn't really matter - you're still gonna make a better case for yourself with just a bit nicer phrasing. This is what I expected from you guys. If we started with this instead of doubling down on how obviously right the moderation was and how obviously wrong I was I think it would have been a much smoother discussion, as I have alluded to with my suggestion this could have been dealt with differently from the beginning. Part of what bothers me is that I just went back and forth with Seeker about how this happened several times somewhat recently. There was me getting warned for calling advocating for ethnic cleansing 'advocating for ethnic cleansing" with no real explanation until I pestered seeker about it and he agreed it was one of those posts that didn't have a good reason for being warned. Then there was another for me going back and forth with Doodsmack on whether Trump had Russian puppets (or whatever the specifc phrasing was) on his team and us coming to to the conclusion Trump didn't, or at least none that dood could name. When it came here, Kwark continued the already settled argument and no other mod responded. Then another where I was being attacked personally in posts and instead of the offender being sanctioned, we were both just told to knock it off. Whether it's personal or not isn't something I think we could settle here without an unprovoked confession of feelings/thoughts I have no idea if anyone harbors. But it is bad policy and or bad enforcement imo. I know these interactions have a predisposition to feel and get personal, but I'd like to try to keep this about providing feedback improving all of our experiences here in a way consistent with how your post approached this, as opposed to posts like Tofu's. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On April 07 2018 07:21 Seeker wrote: I am currently out of town and on a business trip with my co-workers. When I have time, I will go back and take a closer look at the posts that you quoted GH. Rest assured that they will receive warnings if their supporting statements are not sufficient enough. Just to be clear, that wasn't my intention. I think that would be a poor way to handle it. I would much rather you guys go back to the drawing board on this and once you have a better policy/implementation strategy, act accordingly moving forward. Otherwise, it would only make sense to temp ban doodsmack since it's obviously inconsistent with any iteration of this policy I can imagine and he's a repeat offender for the exact same thing. Again I didn't post it to snitch, or to bring the (what I feel is recklessly unhelpful) hammer down on those posts. It was so that you guys hopefully reflect internally or transparently about what is an effective way to deal with these perceived issues going forward. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
| ||
