|
On September 21 2019 03:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2019 00:01 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2019 23:37 farvacola wrote:There was a time when I would fight anyone. That time has passed  I think I would enjoy reading that, or maybe not if it was with me! Or maybe more if was with me? Life is complicated. Bruh back in my day all you had to worry about was to get frustrated with arguing about healthcare for the thousandth day in a row. Everyone got ground down to the point where we had a legitimately productive conversation about abortion that didn't end up in a shitfest.
I took all comers, shitposters included, to argue on the side of religious freedom for a Colorado baker that wouldn't do custom cakes for a gay wedding. Give everybody quoting my posts a response, regardless of how many different people had minor variations on the same sticking point. I was banned for five months from the thread for my troubles, as a sort of experiment (examined in this feedback thread).
I'm glad a certain type of poster invests in deeper looks at topics that have great agreement in left center-left and center-right circles, that exhibits an entirely different behavior with broader disagreement on more sensitive issues. The tradeoff is some homogeneity in opinions within the discussion, and related frustration or lazy excuses as to why the broader body politic isn't coming along so well.
|
How extraordinary of you, we thank you for your sacrifice.
And a very interesting perspective of the history of the thread.
|
Delusions can indeed be interesting
|
|
|
Will any thread moderator come into the thread and give a clear answer to Gorgonoth, Sermokala, and my questions? They were asked in the correct forum, in honest hopes of an answer, and the inattention is mind-boggling.
|
On September 21 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:
Will any thread moderator come into the thread and give a clear answer to Gorgonoth, Sermokala, and my questions? They were asked in the correct forum, in honest hopes of an answer, and the inattention is mind-boggling.
Nazis ruin everything.
|
On September 21 2019 06:54 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:
Will any thread moderator come into the thread and give a clear answer to Gorgonoth, Sermokala, and my questions? They were asked in the correct forum, in honest hopes of an answer, and the inattention is mind-boggling. Nazis ruin everything.
I don't know if I fully understand you, unless you mean that the discussion over fefil's ban took the focus off Gorgonoth's question. I don't really think the politics thread is well suited for discussions of whether Europeans are being "bred out" and comparative technological or scientific achievements of Europeans vs other ethnic or quasi-racial groups (if indeed that's a useful discussion to have on the internet in today's fractious age).
|
I can answer that for you, it is not a useful discussion to have in any age.
|
On September 21 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:
Will any thread moderator come into the thread and give a clear answer to Gorgonoth, Sermokala, and my questions? They were asked in the correct forum, in honest hopes of an answer, and the inattention is mind-boggling.
Just got a response back from a mod today, I believe its being looked into now.
|
United States35563 Posts
On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: Show nested quote +We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction?
With known posters a single post is very rarely the cause for a ban. The answer to "why was this post not treated like that post" is that the post in question is generally not a sole cause. It's not that the posts are held to a double standard, it's that moderation is more than a series of IF statements evaluating posts removed from all context. A simple example of this is that someone with a number of tempbans behind them may get a perm where another poster without that history would get a temp.
The moderation team concluded that they had had enough of xDaunt. As I recall the post in question reignited a fairly old discussion of what to do about him and his increasingly extreme views but it wasn't the post that got him, it was the existence of the discussion. In case you're interested there is no such discussion on you so you could probably get away with a similar post, just as Grumbels did. Mods act at their own discretion so I can't give you a free pass but I think I can confidently say that if you posted like xDaunt once and I permed you for it you'd get that reversed, despite the xDaunt precedent.
I'd have replied sooner but I don't recall reading the original post. My wife has a bad habit of using subscribed threads on my account and reading the new posts which flags them all as read.
|
On September 21 2019 08:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? With known posters a single post is very rarely the cause for a ban. The answer to "why was this post not treated like that post" is that the post in question is generally not a sole cause. It's not that the posts are held to a double standard, it's that moderation is more than a series of IF statements evaluating posts removed from all context. A simple example of this is that someone with a number of tempbans behind them may get a perm where another poster without that history would get a temp. The moderation team concluded that they had had enough of xDaunt. As I recall the post in question reignited a fairly old discussion of what to do about him and his increasingly extreme views but it wasn't the post that got him, it was the existence of the discussion. In case you're interested there is no such discussion on you so you could probably get away with a similar post, just as Grumbels did. Mods act at their own discretion so I can't give you a free pass but I think I can confidently say that if you posted like xDaunt once and I permed you for it you'd get that reversed, despite the xDaunt precedent. I'd have replied sooner but I don't recall reading the original post. My wife has a bad habit of using subscribed threads on my account and reading the new posts which flags them all as read.
Ok, Thank you for the clarification. I wish xDaunt wasn’t permabanned, but I understand the difference in the situations.
I think the wording (or my interpretation of it) of the initial ban notice by (KadaverBb?) made it seem like his post alone was objectionable and worthy of ban. iirc, “We no longer feel comfortable with someone who believes x”; so when Grumbles post had wording that was extremely similar it looked like an inconsistent standard.
|
The mods have great discretion. Many mods won't second guess a decision by another mod. Those things combine to necessitate a clear statement to how the rules are being interpreted. Kwark does not actively moderate the US Politics thread; he previously posted that it's something of a trade-off to arguing within the thread. That's why I'm still asking for a thread mod to comment on the original topic. Should a post like that merit a warning, such that the user knows continuing to post in that way will accrue strikes and an eventual ban? The communication aspect is a key thing, as in my own case I didn't have a single warning or any mod whisper prior to a threadban of five months.
Failure to communicate on the standards, be they through neglect or bias, encourage others to not constrain their behavior and encourage regular users to stop reporting the behavior.
I suppose maybe Gorgonoth will receive a response to his PM and let me know, but I am still hoping a regular thread moderator gives insight as to what's beyond the line in wishing ill on major swaths on the American voting population (Totally acceptable discourse, discourse that would be warned if it were a pattern, warnable, bannable etc).
For any mods reading the Website Feedback forum:
My previous post on the matter
Sermokala's angle and "social attacks based on political opinions"
It's been two weeks already, so I hope a friendly mod, perhaps the mod that nonactioned whoever reported it, could answer to the content of the post and whether posts advocating turning Trump supporters/supporters of the modern GOP into "social pariah[s] who can't go outside without being harassed" should even be reported in the future.
If it takes another two weeks to get some kind of consensus with mods talking behind closed forums, that would still be useful. I say this even if the answer is something to the kind of "Trump's an exceptional president doing so much damage to the country and calling for his supporters to be harassed whenever they go outside, shunned and mocked, passes for an acceptable response."
|
Trump voters is a broad group, but spurning vociferous Trump supporters for endorsing anti-scientific, racist buffoonery seems justified.
Facing social pushback for having despicable ideas seems like a totally reasonable response.
And yes, "despicable ideas" is subjective, but so is "social pushback". People will push back with force proportional to how despicable they find the ideas.
|
Didn't Kwark literally just answer this for everyone? What more is there to discuss?
|
On September 21 2019 15:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Didn't Kwark literally just answer this for everyone? What more is there to discuss?
It's probably a little confusing because of the Nazi thing but Kwark isn't generally considered a mod when it comes to the US politics thread.
|
The mods reading this are totally capable of endorsing the subjectivity defense. The easy example would be describing xDaunt's error to be omitting the case as to why AOC & the squad deserved to suffer the social pushback. (And maybe even then some future post would bring up his posting history to argue against leniency)
What can't be sustained is nonactioning a post calling for harassment whenever a supporter of the modern GOP goes outside ... Trump supporters shunned and mocked ... to let him/her plead his case, and stop some equally motivated right-winger call for lefties to be berated, insulted to their face, and excluded from polite society for racist, anti-Semitic, and fascistic goals and tactics. Either both sides get to go full milkshake-the-bastards and share their justification, or it's universally warnable/bannable/permable. I'll repeat just to be perfectly clear that I'm referring to what posts should be reported for violating thread rules, not to what comparative punishment is doled out to specific users based on their posting history. The degree also matters. I'm referring specifically to the relatively extreme prescriptions like the bolded, and not something suggesting that Maga Billy might miss out on the invite to Friday night festivities.
|
It can easily be sustained, because TL is not a democracy and this is their house, so if the moderators all decide "Hmm, fuck Trump and his supporters tbh," then there will always be a double standard. Even if they DON'T all agree to this, it seems pretty clear what the currently active/relevant mods' inclinations are. In other words, arguing against any hypothetical double standard is pointless even if it is present.
|
Any individual response can easily be chalked up to discretion. Because X reviewed the report, it was given a warning. But if it had been Y, the report would have been nonactioned.
Mods talking among themselves at what constitutes an egregious example sets the standard. This kind of post will earn you a warn or temp, and you should expect that. This user knows from what has earned others bans/warns that he will get worse and worse outcomes, not that he got unlucky with the particular mod that applied unique, subjective standards. I think it’s high time for a response to generate more consistency—something the team are comfortable holding themselves to no matter whose ox is being gored.
|
I think it also important to remember that xDaunt said he was not willing to change and they may as well perma ban him. I enjoyed his posts and his willingness to be direct on what he thought and was sad he got permad. But if the people in control say if you want to post here you have to do this and your response is "no perma me" then that is really their only choice. Id even hazard a guess that with his veteran status he could have said fine just give me a thread ban and he could still use else where. He chose to get permanently banned over his principles of not changing the way he posted. I choose to respect his decision.
I also wish jerubals pod cast had lasted a little longer maybe monthly or something because I still enjoyed hearing his take because I think he spoke for a lot of Americans that I dont understand how they think and cant think that way myself.
|
Thinking that an individual poster speaks on behalf of a group is a mistake on both sides of the aisle
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
