|
United States43117 Posts
re:razyda
https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5223#104444
On September 13 2025 02:50 GoShox (summarized after the Kirk murder):
Online radicalization of these shooters needs to be taken seriously by the government. On September 13 2025 02:58 KwarK (flippantly speaking on behalf of a fascist government that is unashamedly exploiting the murder to raise the temperature):
Best I can do is ramp up the partisan rhetoric against the enemy.
Dunno really what to say here. You made an attempt with the toolkit available to you.
|
I'd side with Wombat personally, we could use a little more moderation. Behaviors like that of JimmiC we can tolerate, it's possible, but really we shouldn't be asked to.
|
Northern Ireland25863 Posts
On October 11 2025 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd side with Wombat personally, we could use a little more moderation. Behaviors like that of JimmiC we can tolerate, it's possible, but really we shouldn't be asked to.
Personally I’d prefer to be told to fuck off and that I’m an idiot than get called an anti-Semite, but perhaps that’s just me.
|
On October 11 2025 00:39 KwarK wrote:https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5223#104444Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 02:50 GoShox (summarized after the Kirk murder):
Online radicalization of these shooters needs to be taken seriously by the government. Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 02:58 KwarK (flippantly speaking on behalf of a fascist government that is unashamedly exploiting the murder to raise the temperature):
Best I can do is ramp up the partisan rhetoric against the enemy. Dunno really what to say here. You made an attempt with the toolkit available to you.
Fair enough, admittedly it would've helped if in the original post quote or @ were used.
|
United Kingdom13778 Posts
Having had this discussion out, I do think there is near-universal consensus that any average person posting the way Kwark does would have been actioned at least occasionally. Credit to Mr. Powers on compiling the list he did of problematic posts a few pages back - it's a very good one, and clearly it struck a chord with quite a few people here.
Where things seem to diverge is in how to handle this reality. I would say that there seem to be roughly three camps that people fall into:
1. The moderation team should do something about this posting.
2. Posting standards are altogether too strict and should generally be relaxed.
3. Kwark's posts are more problematic than average, but I like the guy so I'm fine with the leeway he gets.
I'd like to ask the staff that actually monitors this thread: which camp do you, as a moderation team, fall into?
If the answer is (1), then one would reasonably expect something to be done about it. Perhaps that would involve removing Kwark's moderator status, and issuing warnings and bans as appropriate for posts that cross the line. Or, alternatively, maintaining that moderator status, but having the appropriate discussions behind closed doors that lead to a real, visible, and lasting improvement in behavior. Most moderators, including those that participate in politics discussions, do act quite professionally, so perhaps it'd make sense to make sure they all do? I'm sure that either approach would satisfy the core complaint.
If the answer is (2), then perhaps there could be some steps taken to reflect an overall relaxation in the rules as applied to politics. Unban people like xDaunt, Danglars, Doodsmack, and so on - the many folks who, over the years, had been banned for posts they made within the politics threads. Make it clear that, although Kwark is free to make comments such as this closing one-liner, that others are free to hurl insults in kind right back at him. Generally make it clear that aggressive and hostile posting is allowed not conditionally, but universally, within the politics threads. I think a lot of people wouldn't be too fond of this, but I know a "free-for-all" approach has its fans.
If the answer is (3), then that's on its face playing favorites and a double standard. But at the same time, it's pretty much the status quo.
I would like to add that I really hope that the status quo nature of (3) is more so the result of inaction than a deliberate decision by the TL staff to permit misbehavior amongst their ranks. In just about every other context, said staff is very clear about how much they value their own professionalism, and it seems odd to make an exception here. For example, although the discussions in the Brood War forums occasionally managed to get quite heated, I cannot remember any moderator whose posting was as problematic as Kwark's politics posts, nor do I expect such a moderator would remain a moderator for very long. I suspect the same would be true for the boards for SC2 or any of the other games, but I have very little direct experience with those.
Despite the flimsy argument to the contrary, it's quite clear that the status of "staff" provides significant immunity from being moderated - it was made clear that a big motivation for removing the staff status of xDaunt and StealthBlue was desire to be able to freely moderate them in the future. Further, moderators are both able to ban individuals and be involved in overall moderation decision-making. Despite claims of being "not involved in politics moderation," Kwark enjoys the standard staff immunity from being moderated, occasionally hands out bans in the politics threads as part of settling a grudge, and very clearly involves himself in at least some of the larger-scale moderation decision-making behind the scenes. There simply is no credible case that his moderator status is irrelevant here.
In short, the current reality is that we have an individual who maintains the privileges associated with moderator status, without fulfilling the responsibility of general professionalism that every other moderator seems to have no trouble with. There is a split consensus on how bad Kwark's posting is, and yet there is general consensus that no average person would be allowed to post the same way with no consequences. My personal opinion is that, although I find much of his posting unpleasant, there have been other individuals whose posting is worse. But it is precisely the double standard created by his moderator status that causes this to be so contentious.
Maintaining the status quo of (3) means that we'll continue to have this problem indefinitely. There are several ways to solve this, as highlighted above, not all of which necessitate removing moderator status. Quite a few people would appreciate if, rather than just pretending the problem doesn't exist, the moderation staff would one way or another handle the problem.
|
I don’t think your (1), (2) and (3) are very honest summaries of the viewpoints on this issue. Notably excluded is anybody whose opinion is “I don’t think Kwark would be actioned if he were just a veteran poster who wasn’t a mod,” which is kinda pre-assuming your conclusion imo. That would be my position, unless we interpret “actioned” broadly enough to include “informal warnings from staff asking you to try to post better” which he’s arguably received, in this very thread!
Edit: I’m in favor of bringing back Danglars though, if he’s still interested. xDaunt I assume is in some public office by now and doesn’t have time to troll us any more, and Doodsmack has already come back to troll us under alt IDs a bunch of times, hasn’t he?
|
I mean even in LL's argumentation, as many problems as it has, hes still offering logical support to kwarks mod status being a good thing in the thread by making people not respond to him as they would respond to others. Theres no argument made about, nor even hinted at, other people posting worse beacuse of Kwarks mod status. What the argument that LL makes is to encourage people to make the thread worse by hurling even more incendiary language at each other. Even he doesn't make any argument towards a real double standard, only that there is a perceived double standard because people like him don't feel free to insult Kwark the way they want to.
If you're going to construct an argument based on doing a thing, and you want that thing to happen, you need to make an argument how that would improve anything. It just comes off as holding a petty grudge that you've now come back thinking you can take advantage of a conversation.
|
Norway28696 Posts
Good moderation is preferable to no moderation but no moderation is preferable to bad moderation, and good moderation (perceived as such by nearly everybody) is very hard because: You need to be free of personal and political bias to be a just and fair arbiter, but you also need to have observed the tendencies of various posters over a multitude of posts, and you need to be quite intimately familiar with american politics to be able to discern whether people are, for example, arguing in good faith. Yeah you can make and enforce some basic rules like don't insult people but then I happen to agree with Neb that people being angry is actually preferable over them being apathetic and sometimes, insults are warranted, especially in today's political climate. If this were the 'Norwegian politics megathread', the standard of posting would have to be different as maintaining decorum to avoid increased polarization would be a priority, but in the US, decorum is dead because the president is one of the world's biggest cunts and that's just how it is. The fact is, US politics, Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine are all topics where anger is justified and to be expected. The EU and UK megathreads are much more civil - and this isn't because the moderation is any different, it's because the topics are.
Essentially, to moderate fairly, you need to, somehow, read these threads, be informed, yet impartial. My experience is that nobody who is informed regarding US politics, the russian invasion of Ukraine, or Israel/Gaza is impartial, and thus, we're largely choosing between bad moderation or no moderation (aside from stuff like cleaning up spam or slurs which can be done without intimate knowledge). I don't really have the time or energy to make an effort tbh, so atm I'm leaning no moderation, but I guess maybe a course correction will happen at some point - if no moderation has left the place so bad that bad moderation is preferable. Amusingly enough I guess that's kind of a relevant political parallel - is unfair police better or worse than no police (where the answer largely depends on how prevalent crime is), but oh well, I digress. Maybe AI could do a decent enough job if we gave highly specific instructions. 
In the context of Kwark there's no question he occasionally/frequently (seems to go in phases, tbh) steps over the line - the main problem isn't the insults, but the repeated needling - but my opinion is also that his quality posts are amazing and while it'd be preferable if he could keep those up without the trashy ones I also don't want to neuter him.
|
United States43117 Posts
I'm not sure who I am occasionally banning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
