|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 11 2018 02:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Myself, I've always favored light moderation for this reason - I think excessive moderation is more harmful than neglectful moderation is.
And maybe that's one of the better solutions. But there doesn't seem to be much consistency between the staff on that matter. Which kind of makes much of this discussion pointless because it's clear that those who listen are not those who act.
|
I really don't see a problem with actioning people who routinely write posts with a "shitty tone". In other parts of the forum, the normal procedure appears to be to warn them first, then give progressive bans. In danglars case, it appeared to be to tolerate him for a really long time, till he became so emboldened that every post was shitty then "temp" ban him from the thread. In GH case, it was to just temp ban him for seemingly no real reason other than to see if the thread will be improved.
In any case misrepresentation isn't a problem, as it should be fairly easy for the misrepresented poster to rectify by either clarification or explanation. What is becoming a problem is not arguing against a position per se but to argue against a postion that the poster himself has neither written or alluded towards, but as a general attack against a political viewpoint, which then the offended poster who posted was used as a sounding board feels aggrieved to defend against.
|
On May 11 2018 03:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I really don't see a problem with actioning people who routinely write posts with a "shitty tone". In other parts of the forum, the normal procedure appears to be to warn them first, then give progressive bans. In danglars case, it appeared to be to tolerate him for a really long time, till he became so emboldened that every post was shitty then "temp" ban him from the thread. In GH case, it was to just temp ban him for seemingly no real reason other than to see if the thread will be improved.
In any case misrepresentation isn't a problem, as it should be fairly easy for the misrepresented poster to rectify by either clarification or explanation. What is becoming a problem is not arguing against a position per se but to argue against a postion that the poster himself has neither written or alluded towards, but as a general attack against a political viewpoint, which then the offended poster who posted was used as a sounding board feels aggrieved to defend against.
In nearly every case, I matched or exceeded the tone in which I was addressed or which the debatable news/ideology topic was addressed. That's why people have such a trying time finding examples. Whereas, others are quite easy. So, when you assume the "normal procedure" was abandoned after some kind of emboldening influence, I contend that I consciously refrained from initiating the practice of personal insults/berating that others practiced and thus did not win the same warns/temp bans as them.
Really, the new subjective standards bring in force a new de-facto standard of self-censorship (See Drone's Post on some pros of it) when the argument is becoming repetitive and the emotional responses gain in tenor.
|
On May 11 2018 02:41 farvacola wrote:
On that last note, #bringbacktherapethread :D
I have to assume this nightmare predates my time on TL.
|
Reading through it is actually quite a nostalgic pleasure. It even has Moltke posts!
|
On May 11 2018 06:48 farvacola wrote:Reading through it is actually quite a nostalgic pleasure. It even has Moltke posts!
Moltke and his quantum fields. You wanted to believe he and KwarK could battle forever.
And Jesus, this thread is a sea of bodies and shitpost.
|
what a thread. kwark argued six years ago that there's nothing sexual about rape.
|
On May 11 2018 04:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 03:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I really don't see a problem with actioning people who routinely write posts with a "shitty tone". In other parts of the forum, the normal procedure appears to be to warn them first, then give progressive bans. In danglars case, it appeared to be to tolerate him for a really long time, till he became so emboldened that every post was shitty then "temp" ban him from the thread. In GH case, it was to just temp ban him for seemingly no real reason other than to see if the thread will be improved.
In any case misrepresentation isn't a problem, as it should be fairly easy for the misrepresented poster to rectify by either clarification or explanation. What is becoming a problem is not arguing against a position per se but to argue against a postion that the poster himself has neither written or alluded towards, but as a general attack against a political viewpoint, which then the offended poster who posted was used as a sounding board feels aggrieved to defend against. In nearly every case, I matched or exceeded the tone in which I was addressed or which the debatable news/ideology topic was addressed. That's why people have such a trying time finding examples. Whereas, others are quite easy. So, when you assume the "normal procedure" was abandoned after some kind of emboldening influence, I contend that I consciously refrained from initiating the practice of personal insults/berating that others practiced and thus did not win the same warns/temp bans as them. Really, the new subjective standards bring in force a new de-facto standard of self-censorship (See Drone's Post on some pros of it) when the argument is becoming repetitive and the emotional responses gain in tenor.
Well dont, you've ctfl-F "danglars" in searching my posts. Something that I didn't think of to care or do. Unfortunately, I for you, I stand by them. Including,
"The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true.
You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there.
I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted.
The bad faith is all you Danglars."
Really, though, there's only a certain amount of times you can go ahead and deny writing a post or writing of something they did not do before the other side just explodes in annoyance, and the fact that you are usually unreluctant about this, though not in this particular case, is probably one of the contributing factors that got you banned in the first place.
|
On May 14 2018 21:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 04:50 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2018 03:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I really don't see a problem with actioning people who routinely write posts with a "shitty tone". In other parts of the forum, the normal procedure appears to be to warn them first, then give progressive bans. In danglars case, it appeared to be to tolerate him for a really long time, till he became so emboldened that every post was shitty then "temp" ban him from the thread. In GH case, it was to just temp ban him for seemingly no real reason other than to see if the thread will be improved.
In any case misrepresentation isn't a problem, as it should be fairly easy for the misrepresented poster to rectify by either clarification or explanation. What is becoming a problem is not arguing against a position per se but to argue against a postion that the poster himself has neither written or alluded towards, but as a general attack against a political viewpoint, which then the offended poster who posted was used as a sounding board feels aggrieved to defend against. In nearly every case, I matched or exceeded the tone in which I was addressed or which the debatable news/ideology topic was addressed. That's why people have such a trying time finding examples. Whereas, others are quite easy. So, when you assume the "normal procedure" was abandoned after some kind of emboldening influence, I contend that I consciously refrained from initiating the practice of personal insults/berating that others practiced and thus did not win the same warns/temp bans as them. Really, the new subjective standards bring in force a new de-facto standard of self-censorship (See Drone's Post on some pros of it) when the argument is becoming repetitive and the emotional responses gain in tenor. Well dont, you've ctfl-F "danglars" in searching my posts. Something that I didn't think of to care or do. Unfortunately, I for you, I stand by them. Including, "The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true. You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there. I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted. The bad faith is all you Danglars." Really, though, there's only a certain amount of times you can go ahead and deny writing a post or writing of something they did not do before the other side just explodes in annoyance, and the fact that you are usually unreluctant about this, though not in this particular case, is probably one of the contributing factors that got you banned in the first place.
I wasn't asking if you still stand by them. I'm referring to how you and others select my posting for being exceptional for shitty tone. I'm willing to look at examples that back up your assertion. Otherwise, it's hard to know if this is all sour grapes and whining at your political enemies. I cited examples to show what you could cite from me of snark that wasn't as response to another, but was invented and injected in polite discussion.
I posit that I matched or exceeded the previous thread's standards for replies to me and snarkiness of posts on a topic. I furthermore think that conservative posts generally get noticed more in a low-quality thread because of how many people think it's dead wrong. Maybe an average poster sees liberal shitposts and dislike their tone, but when they see a different one that both has wrong tone and wrong ideology, that one is remembered. Years later, the thread average tone/quality is whitewashed and your recollection is that this or that conservative poster was abnormally ill-mannered or whatnot. I really think this whole topic arises from more from memory bias than cold analysis.
|
If anything the last few posts of inane pedantry have surely proven one person brought up for a go at moderation should be kept as far away as possible.
|
On May 15 2018 21:39 Seeker wrote:
Reminder that we want to keep things civil as possible in this thread. If you support genocide and ethnic cleansing then please keep it to yourself. Discussing these subjects is okay but do not derail the thread with your own personal beliefs. If the thread gets worse then we will have to lock it down temporarily. Everyone, please be advised that this thread is being monitored closely.
Banning people advocating for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is always an option too. Just saying.
|
They’d be lucky to have xDaunt on the team. But I think if moderation staff were amenable to having someone from across the political aisle help out, they’d have already done it long ago.
|
Hyrule19013 Posts
xDaunt was removed from the team on purpose.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The best bet at this point is zlefin, who has proven to be a very devoted and consistent candidate for the role. His contribution would certainly shake things up and give the thread a new face. Given its current sorry state it might be the best approach available.
|
On May 15 2018 23:17 tofucake wrote:
xDaunt was removed from the team on purpose.
I was only aware that he was part of the writing team. I’m talking about political diversity of the politics moderation team/moderators in general.
|
With the exception of Kwark, I couldn’t tell you the political viewpoints of most of the moderation staff. Maybe Danglars is just way more informed about the political demographics of the moderation staff.
|
The observation that conservatives had a second style of moderation is well documented by conservatives in these 142 pages. Reread it at your leisure. I favor the explanation that the political biases of the moderation staff really come into play. But more to your point, is there a mod that would post like Kwark or micronesia about Trump/Trump voters? (those darn Trump voters that should've rejected him based on tweeting behavior!). The few mods and few times the moderation team posted something highly politically partisan (btw the low frequency in general is laudable), it was from the left's point of view.
But, again, that's mostly besides the point. I'm using inference from the kind of posts that didn't get actioned in the prior thread, as well as the political opinions that you just don't hear from moderators/writers/long time TLers.
|
The viewpoint of political biases in the moderation staff is a preferable to someone that believes they did nothing and never will do something wrong. I can see the appeal.
|
I genuinely can't understand your point.
|
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
