I have no problem with a bit more strict moderation in preparation for election night (I assume that's whats behind it) but some warning would have been nice.
I saw a couple of warnings for reasons that I didn't immediately see. reacted to a person and came back a few minutes later to see I had a warning. Only after reading the PM did I actually know that moderation was being more strict on low content posts.
And yes, the Nettles ban feels like Kwark settling a grudge rather then normal thread moderation and
the way i read oneofthem's post was more "on one hand we have people saying bill is going a bit nutty, but they also say he's some sort of criminal mastermind #lolwuthowdoesthatmakesense".
generally i'd have a minor quibble with some of the things getting warned, but if it's part of an overall effort to nudge the thread in a better direction that's fine. maybe put a note about "we srs now". the thread has gotten a bit worse in the last week or so, though.
On November 07 2016 03:41 tofucake wrote: There's a modnote stating rules will be enforced more strictly from page 5519 on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is already there.
Low content posts are ubiquitously actionable to the point that there are boilerplate warning messages for it.
yeah Sorry but a note made 400 pages and almost a full month ago and not acted upon since doesn't count as 'a warning'.
So as long as it's old, even though it specifically says what will happen, you're allowed to ignore it? I've updated it slightly, but it already said what needed to be said. That people chose to ignore it is obviously their own fault.
On November 07 2016 03:41 tofucake wrote: There's a modnote stating rules will be enforced more strictly from page 5519 on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is already there.
Low content posts are ubiquitously actionable to the point that there are boilerplate warning messages for it.
yeah Sorry but a note made 400 pages and almost a full month ago and not acted upon since doesn't count as 'a warning'.
Honestly though, "you didn't warn me that we would get warned more often for posting unpleasantly" is not really an argument. Warnings are mostly inconsequential ways to say "stop posting like this" that can be followed by bans if they aren't heeded.
i'd agree that the warning should've been more clearly updated if it's going to be truly enforced now. nettles has had it coming for a long time, though it should've been done by someone other than kwark. Kwark does need to be reined in, he's been going too far for awhile now.
I also believe that it's very mcuh better to have warnings/bans include explanations for them. otherwise you just see red text and some times no clear reason for it.
PS hahahaha, people just made a couple kinda bad posts right after tofu said in-thread they upping enforcement.
On November 07 2016 03:41 tofucake wrote: There's a modnote stating rules will be enforced more strictly from page 5519 on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is already there.
Low content posts are ubiquitously actionable to the point that there are boilerplate warning messages for it.
That was 400 pages ago. and the thread is six thousand pages long. The amount of moderation you're doling out obviously means you're doing something new and you ought to keep the community in on that if the goal is a better thread. If people are posting in a certain way, and you're not moderating them for it for thousands of pages, and then you start moderating them for it, they didn't ignore you, they thought what they were doing was okay and they were in the clear. These are accounts over half a decade old with thousands of posts. So if I had to make a prediction, eventually after you get tired of the surge of boilerplate low content warnings, the pendulum will swing back.
Edit: Low content also isn't part of the thread rules, it's site rules/common tradition.
Nettles has been repeatedly told to stop repeating whatever conspiracy theory he found most recently on his conspiracy theory websites without engaging his judgement. He's determined not to stop, and no amount of discrediting the stuff he posts seems to dissuade his conviction that whatever he's about to post next will be right. It's the same as his recession predictions. He makes a new one each month based upon whatever he read on zerohedge that tells him that it's definitely coming, a month later there is no recession but he reads a new article saying that actually it'll be in another month so he posts another prediction.
He is a source of nothing but misinformation and blaming his sources doesn't absolve him of the responsibility for choosing to rely upon those sources. We can handle 2 days without him.
Also xDaunt you have the same staff protection as I do.
Again, it's not really a question of whether or not Nettles posted something banworthy, but a question of whether or not your ban reason was a case of grudge-settling rather than moderation. In this case it seems like you just piggybacked on tofucake's initiative to hand out a ban to a poster you've made it clear you have no fondness of. That is what the problem here is, and the reason why the first few pages of this thread question whether or not you are setting the tone for the thread by being a mod while posting the way you do sometimes.
If there is no debate about whether the post he was banned for was banworthy then could we perhaps wait until I make a ban for which there is a debate before we have the discussion about whether I should have banned someone? Otherwise we end up with a strange class of users who have immunity from judgement because of concern over the optics of the situation, but not the reality. If I get a ban wrong, say so in feedback. If I get a ban right but you don't like that it was me who got it right, well, this isn't the RNC, feels < reals.
I brought up the fact he obviously found it on Drudge because you explicitly said he invented it in the ban reason. Do you mean he's been told that by people in their capacity as mods, or by people like you in the thread?
On November 07 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote: If there is no debate about whether the post he was banned for was banworthy then could we perhaps wait until I make a ban for which there is a debate before we have the discussion about whether I should have banned someone? Otherwise we end up with a strange class of users who have immunity from judgement because of concern over the optics of the situation, but not the reality. If I get a ban wrong, say so in feedback. If I get a ban right but you don't like that it was me who got it right, well, this isn't the RNC, feels < reals.
The problem, as always, is not one of banworthiness but one of selectivity. Why was it Nettles of all people who got singled out to get a ban? One would not be misguided to assume that it's because Kwark has a personal grudge against him.
On November 07 2016 05:19 oBlade wrote: I brought up the fact he obviously found it on Drudge because you explicitly said he invented it in the ban reason. Do you mean he's been told that by people in their capacity as mods, or by people like you in the thread?
I'll look into whether a mod has explicitly told him to stop it with the conspiracy theories for you.
Looks like another government organised inside job hoping to galvanise a movement to ban guns in the US so they can institute a martial law/police state easier when the economy collapses in the near future.They did a similar thing here in Australia back in 96' , a retard with an IQ in the mid 60s shot 35 people mostly via headshots shooting from the hip with a high powered semi-automatic.Forget about the fact that witnessess saw two men dressed in SAS uniforms and the cafe was mysteriously burnt down soon after in order to destroy the evidence.Soon after that they brought in laws banning semi autos , autos along with stricter gun laws.Criminals can still get their hands on guns of course just like they can still get their hands on illegal drugs but hey-ho.
NEVER give up your guns and if the government tries to enter and forcibly take them then shoot back , do not allow your nation to become a police state you are still in a far better shape than the UK , Australia or any other western country with the exception of Switzerland.
Keep the conspiracy craziness off TL, thanks.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, vGl-CoW
(Do not reply to this message. No one will receive it.)</td></tr></table>
On September 19 2016 22:00 TL.net Bot wrote: The following Auto-Warning was sent to this user by Seeker
From: TL.net Bot Subject: Warning!
<table class='warnedpost'><tr><td>This is a Warning!
Strange Clinton video doing the rounds of a speech in North Carolina. Why is Clinton and the podium glitching out but the flag background is unaffected? Why does Clinton wave to audience members behind the flag at the end of the video? This is very peculiar.Watch the video especially the last 3 minutes.
We are cracking down much harder on conspiracy theory posts from now on. Please be more careful in the future.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Seeker
(Do not reply to this message. No one will receive it.)</td></tr></table>
He's been told enough times at this point that before he simply repeats what he hears on conspiracy theory websites verbatim he should attempt to fact check it. I stand by my ban. Incidentally Nettles is a "Obama did Sandy Hook" believer.
Seems counterproductive to not warn posting undeniably shitty sources, especially long videos with no notes from the literal propaganda team of an authoritarian country, when you warn people that ridicule said sources. You'd think it's eliminating the former that would solve the problem, rather than expecting someone to waste an hour to consume that garbage and write a point by point dissertation on what is wrong with it, I don't think anyone values their time that little. You're only treating the symptom if you train people to leave it there unaddressed, smellier than ever, which is what this does.
kwark -> the concern is not an issue of impropriety, but of the appearance of impropriety. The appearance of impropriety degrades trust in an institution, thus, while it is of substantially lesser concern than actual impropriety, it is still something worth trying to cut down on. The better the administration of a justice system, the more its rules will be accepted.
On November 07 2016 06:42 zlefin wrote: kwark -> the concern is not an issue of impropriety, but of the appearance of impropriety. The appearance of impropriety degrades trust in an institution, thus, while it is of substantially lesser concern than actual impropriety, it is still something worth trying to cut down on. The better the administration of a justice system, the more its rules will be accepted.
The post above yours already said what needed to be said and kwark did the right thing here. Can't warn 5 people for responding that nettles was posting shit for saying so, without also doing something about the actual shit in the first place.
Athough i guess the warnings are justified if the "new" modnote at the top is finally being enforced for reals.
Anyway, I think kwark acted just fine, and there's no appearance of impropriety here. If kwark were actually abusing his power, he'd ban oBlade or someone else he argues with a lot. Not somebody who has been on the edge of getting banhammered for posting crap for quite a while now.
A quick read of history would suggest that there is absolutely an appearance of impropriety for Kwark to deviate from his long-held tradition of not moderating the thread to ban someone he clearly has a grudge against.
EPT
