|
On April 07 2018 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
If your goal is to achieve a "smoother discussion" perhaps lay off the baseless and irrelevant personal attacks next time.
|
On April 07 2018 07:47 zlefin wrote:
we never did get an answer to the question about what level of advocating for ethnic cleansing is acceptable. another instance of unclear rules.
Don't want this ^ lost for sake of whatever this is Aquanim is going to bring up.
On April 07 2018 08:24 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. If your goal is to achieve a "smoother discussion" perhaps lay off the baseless and irrelevant personal attacks next time.
Which ones were those?
|
On April 07 2018 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 08:24 Aquanim wrote:On April 07 2018 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. If your goal is to achieve a "smoother discussion" perhaps lay off the baseless and irrelevant personal attacks next time. Which ones were those?
Well, (for starters) you were trying to disparage Seeker's judgement by calling his action "unilateral". By your own admission that was both unverified and "tangential".
EDIT: I'll also follow up Plansix' post which he was too polite to hit you in the teeth with:
On April 06 2018 23:37 Plansix wrote:
The opening demand to know who reported the post made thrust of the complaint evident.
Between this and your attacks on Seeker it's really obvious you were trying to find a specific person you could fire off vitriol at.
|
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. 
Now do thread bans without previous warned posts/temp-bans for months.
My thread temp-ban (unspecified duration) took place after internal discussions that I was not privy to, and occurred without moderator interaction on which posts were over the line. I saw feedback from multiple mods that said they'd been mulling this over for some time (my posts in the prior thread over some period of months). Some of these have known ideological biases and a penchant for trolling, others haven't interacted much, still others generally fair but disliked the burden on moderation given the volume of my reported posts. The missing voices that took more/less moderate positions in the past thread are you and Falling. I'm somewhat interested in your feedback.
|
On April 07 2018 08:29 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2018 08:24 Aquanim wrote:On April 07 2018 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. If your goal is to achieve a "smoother discussion" perhaps lay off the baseless and irrelevant personal attacks next time. Which ones were those? Well, (for starters) you were trying to disparage Seeker's judgement by calling his action "unilateral". By your own admission that was both unverified and "tangential".
Not exactly. I was merely trying to note that it wasn't a response to a report or a discussion about the post in question with anyone, I felt "unilateral" better conveyed that point than "unprovoked".
I preemptively conceded that it wasn't 'unilateral' using the argument you ended up making (after editing out my preemptive concession).
It's tangential because it turns out my presumption was true as far as we can tell, and we can use whatever word you want to in order to describe it or ignore it altogether for now since it isn't the main thrust of the argument, while it still is relevant and by all appearances accurate (with the preexisting concession).
EDIT: I'll also follow up Plansix' post which he was too polite to hit you in the teeth with:
On April 06 2018 23:37 Plansix wrote:
The opening demand to know who reported the post made thrust of the complaint evident.
Between this and your attacks on Seeker it's really obvious you were trying to find a specific person you could fire off vitriol at.
polite my arse lol.
No I wasn't. I've said SEVERAL times and from the beginning (within ~20 minutes of the first post and before the first mod response) that I think it could have been resolved in PM cordially.
I haven't attacked Seeker at all btw, can we stop repeating this? Maybe a little after him quoting the "we're right, you're wrong, deal with it" post. But I hardly consider that an 'attack'. That was sincere disappointment.
On April 07 2018 08:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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. Now do thread bans without previous warned posts/temp-bans for months. My thread temp-ban (unspecified duration) took place after internal discussions that I was not privy to, and occurred without moderator interaction on which posts were over the line. I saw feedback from multiple mods that said they'd been mulling this over for some time (my posts in the prior thread over some period of months). Some of these have known ideological biases and a penchant for trolling, others haven't interacted much, still others generally fair but disliked the burden on moderation given the volume of my reported posts. The missing voices that took more/less moderate positions in the past thread are you and Falling. I'm somewhat interested in your feedback.
I don't think it's any secret that we disagree about almost everything and struggle to communicate effectively with each other but when you're right I'll agree (even if I die a little on the inside). I think the way your temp ban was executed also stands as an example of a poorly handled situation.
#Freedanglars + Show Spoiler + then probably ban him again, but the right way 
|
+ Show Spoiler +Not exactly. I was merely trying to note that it wasn't a response to a report or a discussion about the post in question with anyone, I felt "unilateral" better conveyed that point than "unprovoked".
I preemptively conceded that it wasn't 'unilateral' using the argument you ended up making (after editing out my preemptive concession).
It's tangential because it turns out my presumption was true as far as we can tell, and we can use whatever word you want to in order to describe it or ignore it altogether for now since it isn't the main thrust of the argument, while it still is relevant and by all appearances accurate (with the preexisting concession). I haven't attacked Seeker at all btw, can we stop repeating this? Maybe a little after him quoting the "we're right, you're wrong, deal with it" post. But I hardly consider that an 'attack'. That was sincere disappointment.
I find it hard to believe that you did not intend any personal attack, but I'm well aware that if you did you'd never admit it so I don't feel the need to pursue this further.
No I wasn't. I've said SEVERAL times and from the beginning (within ~20 minutes of the first post and before the first mod response) that I think it could have been resolved in PM cordially.
Are you trying to say to the mods "PM me and discuss stuff instead of warning me, or I'll start an antagonistic and messy argument with you in Website Feedback"?
EDIT: The power to have a non-messy, non-antagonistic discussion in Website Feedback was still entirely in your hands before you made the first post.
|
I’m rarely polite online. I’m a charmer in person. But Aqua is on point, one does not ask who reported them to have a nice chat. And the person did not press the report button to have a nice chat with the poster.
|
On April 07 2018 08:57 Aquanim wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Not exactly. I was merely trying to note that it wasn't a response to a report or a discussion about the post in question with anyone, I felt "unilateral" better conveyed that point than "unprovoked".
I preemptively conceded that it wasn't 'unilateral' using the argument you ended up making (after editing out my preemptive concession).
It's tangential because it turns out my presumption was true as far as we can tell, and we can use whatever word you want to in order to describe it or ignore it altogether for now since it isn't the main thrust of the argument, while it still is relevant and by all appearances accurate (with the preexisting concession). I haven't attacked Seeker at all btw, can we stop repeating this? Maybe a little after him quoting the "we're right, you're wrong, deal with it" post. But I hardly consider that an 'attack'. That was sincere disappointment. I find it hard to believe that you did not intend any personal attack, but I'm well aware that if you did you'd never admit it so I don't feel the need to pursue this further. Show nested quote +No I wasn't. I've said SEVERAL times and from the beginning (within ~20 minutes of the first post and before the first mod response) that I think it could have been resolved in PM cordially. Are you trying to say to the mods "PM me and discuss stuff instead of warning me, or I'll start an antagonistic and messy argument with you in Website Feedback"?
Find it hard to believe if you want, but it wasn't that and I'm big enough to apologize for not making that more clear from the first post.
No, I'm saying if you're implementing a new moderation strategy, PM'ing people about their violations (especially when they weren't reported) would be more effective than the route Seeker and Tofu took.
You seem like you're looking for a fight about this for no explicable reason.
On April 07 2018 09:01 Plansix wrote:
I’m rarely polite online. I’m a charmer in person. But Aqua is on point, one does not ask who reported them to have a nice chat. And the person did not press the report button to have a nice chat with the poster.
Maybe you wouldn't, but I would. I appreciate the grade-A armchair personal psychological analysis I'm getting here though
I also do my best not to press the report button out of personal animosity, but out of a genuine concern for the discourse.
|
On April 07 2018 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:No, I'm saying if you're implementing a new moderation strategy, PM'ing people about their violations (especially when they weren't reported) would be more effective than the route Seeker and Tofu took.
That's as may be. In any case, if you are looking for a "smooth discussion" in future, I recommend less antagonism (of whatever form). For instance, if I walk into a discussion and the other side has led by indicating that they already believe my position is "indefensible" then I am far more likely to make an argument of the form "I'm right, you're wrong, the end" - because no matter what argument I make, somebody who's already convinced I'm wrong is not going to care, so why bother making an effort?
You seem like you're looking for a fight about this for no explicable reason.
I seem like a lot of things.
|
Canada11607 Posts
@GH
At this point, you've spent +3500 words arguing why you shouldn't have to use so many words when posting an article. How hard could it be to expand the conversation a bit more, using your own words?
Simply posting the equivalent "Still for abolishing the police" doesn't add anything. We already know you want to abolish them. Same thing if, let's say xDaunt started posting these sorts of articles:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/?page=8
And only saying "Still against gun control, y'all."
Ok. We already knew that. So what?
How hard can it be to add a little more?
|
On April 07 2018 09:18 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:No, I'm saying if you're implementing a new moderation strategy, PM'ing people about their violations (especially when they weren't reported) would be more effective than the route Seeker and Tofu took. That's as may be. In any case, if you are looking for a "smooth discussion" in future, I recommend less antagonism (of whatever form). For instance, if I walk into a discussion and the other side has led by indicating that they already believe my position is "indefensible" then I am far more likely to make an argument of the form "I'm right, you're wrong, the end" - because no matter what argument I make, somebody who's already convinced I'm wrong is not going to care, so why bother making an effort? Show nested quote +You seem like you're looking for a fight about this for no explicable reason. I seem like a lot of things.
I think that advice could be applied to all of us. I generally don't complain about general incivility though for politeness sake, that's a pet peeve of other posters. I've had strangers on the street and myself get into far more combative arguments than anything here and managed civil outcomes. Without trying to insult or belittle anyone, people are more emotionally sensitive here to critical commentary and 'vulgar' language.
As it stands I'm fine with the rough and tumble arguing. I even enjoy a good ribbing now and again to keep me honest. What I don't like is when people let that overwhelm them and prevent them from engaging in a real conversation because their feelings were hurt.
Presuming you're 100% right about me "starting it" regarding the characterization of Seekers explanation, it's the moral and ethical responsibility (to the extent TL has them, not a slight, just acknowledging they are of TL's own determination ultimately) of the person in power to be the bigger person.
I get that it's their house, they can be as capricious or methodical as they wish and switch on a whim if they want, my point is that it's how our society has organized itself and even if someone (myself or anyone else) comes in hot or worse than I did, they should first preempt this stuff with strategies I've described, but if they are already here and pissed, staff should be the more reasonable party.
On April 07 2018 09:33 Falling wrote:@GH At this point, you've spent +3500 words arguing why you shouldn't have to use so many words when posting an article. How hard could it be to expand the conversation a bit more, using your own words? Simply posting the equivalent "Still for abolishing the police" doesn't add anything. We already know you want to abolish them. Same thing if, let's say xDaunt started posting these sorts of articles: https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/?page=8And only saying "Still against gun control, y'all." Ok. We already knew that. So what? How hard can it be to add a little more?
Not hard at all, which was why I thought it would make a lot more sense to send that request initially instead of warning me.
As to your point about "still for abolishing the police" I disagree, but that sounds like the start of yet another long conversation about how I disagree with that characterization for several reasons, which I don't think is the point.
|
GH's article is legitimate news, and I think the thread is better with it. I think the warning was capricious in light of other similar posts, although I also think it is probably reasonable to ask for a couple sentences contextualizing an article in the thread.
Different articles require more or less contextualization. Given that the (legitimate) purpose of linking the article was to draw attention to ongoing police executions, this particular instance tends, for me, towards self-evident and away from a greater need for contextualization. I don't think asking GH to make a separate thread about police brutality makes much sense since it an ongoing political topic. I think part of the reason he was warned is that his posting of the article "without context" was really viewed as an attempt to re-instigate the previous discussion about abolition of the police. I oppose attempts to strangle the thread by preemptively cutting off discussion through arbitrary use of discipline.
The saddest thing about this warning has been the chilling effect in the USPol thread, which is now struggling to compete with this thread for number of new words per hour. I think GH has made his point though, and hopefully we can discuss something more interesting.
|
Although I agree that sometimes one sentence would be enough, the rule is not there to stop good actors. It is to prevent people from shitposting + copy-pasta-News-article. As a semi-professional shit post artist, it’s harder to do if your required to write 3-4 complete sentences. The rules also exist for new people who will post by following the example of other posters.
And the USpol thread is better with the personal arguments contained to this thread. We don’t need to get back on our bullshit.
|
On April 07 2018 09:33 Falling wrote:
@GH
At this point, you've spent +3500 words arguing why you shouldn't have to use so many words when posting an article. How hard could it be to expand the conversation a bit more, using your own words?
It’s the capricious nature of the action and the fact that the mods have no consistent logic that is what GH is against. Saying “why not just use more words” kind of misses the point.
|
The mods have fairly consistent logic. It's that the application of it varies sometimes. It's like NFL refereeing, which everyone knows can go one of several ways and they complain about it, but typically don't go down the entire this is super unfair why am I being victimized route.
|
I would say that "the mods" are not one physical entity; they are all individuals (except stealthCC who is a bot) and as such they do not have fairly consistent logic. That's why they have hidden conversations on moderation behind the scenes. I write this as an unrelated observation.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
I wish it was possible to block people and not be able to see their posts.
Some people are so utterly frustrating the way they will ignore what you actually say in favour of the ulterior motive they wish you had.
I get the rage from this thread sometimes :/
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37120 Posts
I am back from my business trip and in front of a computer once again. So, I will be more active within this thread now. If something needs to be said/addressed, please feel free to do so.
|
what about things that don't "need" to be addressed, but it would be helpful if it were done so, and they've already been listed in thread and were not addressed at the time (and hence might simply have been intentionally ignored)?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37120 Posts
On April 08 2018 22:47 zlefin wrote:
what about things that don't "need" to be addressed, but it would be helpful if it were done so, and they've already been listed in thread and were not addressed at the time (and hence might simply have been intentionally ignored)?
Post it so I can see what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
