Moderation AMA

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,888

5

9

10

10.31.2019 04:35PM

5

9

10

10.31.2019 04:35PM

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

@Everyone

Why should conservative or traditionalist members trust a forum mod team composed entirely of progressives to be ideologically neutral?

One of the first day internal discussions we had was measures to increase transparency, and in such efforts getting the check and balance of at least one conservative member involved in moderation in at least an advisory capacity (I will not say who the top of our lists were).

So I need to ask (this particularly pertains to conservative members), which conservatives here do you respect the most?

...

I will also say that politically my favorite politician was John McCain. My favorite author is Orson Scott Card.

I do of course hate political extremists on all sides. I've been decried as a "baby killer" for literally saving the lives of children in Iraq (I was a combat medic in the US Army); and similarly that I've apparently committed treason for suggesting a president honor the campaign promise of closing his Twitter (which if you didn't know, is literally the same thing as saying he should be publicly executed... And no, I do not understand this either).

#32

ResurgetExFavilla

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

ResurgetExFavilla

11.01.2019 01:25AM

3

2

7

11.01.2019 01:25AM

-->

@Barney

I respect Thett3 and Triangle to be consistent representatives of conservative thought. Just don't know if either of them would have time, so I cannot volunteer them.

I consider myself an extremist, but I don't think that you need to be an asshole to random people to be one.

#33

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,888

5

9

10

11.01.2019 05:28PM

5

9

10

11.01.2019 05:28PM

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

I respect Thett3 and Triangle

I have not interacted with Thett3 in a long time due to me mainly being active in the debates section of the site, but he's a good choice. Ironically, he is someone who just pointed out how we may have too many moderators right now.

Would you mind giving me a link to Triangle's user page?

I consider myself an extremist, but I don't think that you need to be an asshole to random people to be one.

We may define extremist differently... Generally if I picture the word in my head, you are not the type of person who would come to mind on account of the not being "an asshole to random people" thing.

#34

Castin

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

3

2

7

Castin

11.01.2019 09:49PM

3

2

7

11.01.2019 09:49PM

-->

@David

I don't have a question, but I want to say good luck. It's the start of a new era, one you get to define.

Don't let yourself or your team get too discouraged by criticism or toxic drama. It's easy to criticize, and hard to lead.

Again, good luck.

Topic's author

#35

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.01.2019 10:07PM

4

7

10

11.01.2019 10:07PM

-->

@Castin

Thank you, castin. It’ll take some time getting used to my new role and for the site to get used to my new team. I appreciate the work you did with bsh and myself.

#36

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

11.02.2019 09:13PM

4

9

11

11.02.2019 09:13PM

-->

@David

What rules were broken in this thread that resulted in the thread being locked?

Can you also state if the reason stated above was used prior to this?

If this was answered just send me give me the number of the post.

Topic's author

#37

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.02.2019 09:21PM

4

7

10

11.02.2019 09:21PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

What rules were broken in this thread that resulted in the thread being locked?

Can you also state if the reason stated above was used prior to this?

If this was answered just send me give me the number of the post.

The thread began to become toxic and quite a few posts have been reported. That said, we locked it as a way for members to cool down. I have now unlocked the thread.

#38

Speedrace

Debates: 63

Posts: 6,283

4

9

11

Speedrace

11.02.2019 09:54PM

4

9

11

11.02.2019 09:54PM

-->

@David

I don't think I could have picked a better person for the forums than Speedrace

<3

#39

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

11.02.2019 10:04PM

4

9

11

11.02.2019 10:04PM

-->

@David

The thread began to become toxic and quite a few posts have been reported. That said, we locked it as a way for members to cool down. I have now unlocked the thread.

Let me clarify,

What rule was broken?

Is this the first time this has been done excluding spam threads, moderators threads and callout threads?

Why didn't you just suspend the accounts that were toxic instead of locking it?

#40

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,624

5

8

11

11.02.2019 10:21PM

5

8

11

11.02.2019 10:21PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

bsh1 did the same thing for the HoF when personal attacks where put into the mix during the HoF Nomination and then re opened it. If you want to compare the moderation to this for some reason, then there is literally no difference. We locked a post because it had multiple personal attacks, a violation the CoC and other things

#41

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,624

5

8

11

11.02.2019 10:23PM

5

8

11

11.02.2019 10:23PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

And you seem to have a glaring issue with Speed. I don't think you are causing this unneeded drama because of the good of the site, I think you are doing this for the reason you simply do not like Speed

#42

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,624

5

8

11

11.02.2019 10:26PM

5

8

11

11.02.2019 10:26PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Why would we suspend an account for this? This is not the way we want to deal with situations like these

#43

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

11.03.2019 12:25AM

4

9

11

11.03.2019 12:25AM

-->

@Vader

Care to clarify who I wanted to respond to my comment?

I am not going to play try to make you understand a comment was not directed at you.

#44

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,624

5

8

11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soiw4Bh6lig

11.03.2019 12:51AM

5

8

11

11.03.2019 12:51AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

#45

A-R-O-S-E

Debates: 0

Posts: 682

2

6

A-R-O-S-E

11.03.2019 05:35AM

2

6

11.03.2019 05:35AM

-->

@David

Can there be some sort of inspector moderator for big decisions?

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.03.2019 05:43AM

4

7

10

11.03.2019 05:43AM

-->

@A-R-O-S-E

This is something that we have been discussing behind the scenes.

#47

RationalMadman

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,930

10

11

RationalMadman

11.03.2019 06:12AM

10

11

11.03.2019 06:12AM

-->

@A-R-O-S-E

The problem they have is that Virtuoso knows deep down that I would be the most skilled investigative moderator but that my means would be much more CIA than FBI style and that's hard for him to tame or justify to the public. He also won't trust me with personal info about people (IP etc) because I am unpredictable to him. Little does he realise that Ragnar is not quite the angel that he thinks, but I trust that Virtuoso is only selectively letting Ragnar access such data.

Topic's author

#48

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:24AM

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:24AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Just to be clear, no moderator can see your actual IP address and we can’t access your email address either. Only Mike can do that.

#49

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

3

9

11.03.2019 06:10PM

3

9

11.03.2019 06:10PM

Why have you failed to address RM breaking rules to the effect of threatening to "report content to moderation" as being a violation of the code of conduct in and of itself?

Locking a thread while you "review" content is nonsense. You continue to moderate with too heavy a hand.

Topic's author

#50

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:13PM

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:13PM

-->

@coal

Why have you failed to address RM breaking rules to the effect of threatening to "report content to moderation" as being a violation of the code of conduct in and of itself?

Locking a thread while you "review" content is nonsense. You continue to moderate with too heavy a hand.

1) It's not the business of the public to know what action we may or may not take when dealing with a report.
2) The moderation team determined that the dark awards are in violation of the rules as it is a call-out thread. We don't want to facilitate a culture where users call others the "least valuable member."

3) We will be loosening up the moderation standards and revising our policies in the coming weeks.

#51

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

3

9

11.03.2019 06:15PM

3

9

11.03.2019 06:15PM

-->

@David

You're out of control with this. The thread was obviously meant to be satire.

Topic's author

#52

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:17PM

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:17PM

-->

@coal

This is still not an acceptable satire. The COC is quite clear:

The abusive, insulting, or derogatory nature of a comment will be judged based on how a reasonable individual would interpret it. It is not based upon the intentions of speaker, unless those intentions were stated clearly and explicitly prior to the offending remark. Reasonableness is interpreted solely by the mods. The "just kidding" argument is not a valid excuse for actions which can reasonably be interpreted as personal attacks.

This covers any satirical awards like that.

#53

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

3

9

11.03.2019 06:23PM

3

9

11.03.2019 06:23PM

-->

@David

If DDO returns, as it should, this site will likely lose membership if you continue to be a tight-assed moderator.

I put myself under the first category, as you obviously saw. The fact that you disagree with the joke doesn't mean that it's gone too far. If this is too far, then nearly everything is too far -- which is why you're out of control.

Topic's author

#54

Debates: 92

Posts: 1,218

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:29PM

4

7

10

11.03.2019 06:29PM

-->

@coal

If DDO returns, as it should, this site will likely lose membership if you continue to be a tight-assed moderator.

I put myself under the first category, as you obviously saw. The fact that you disagree with the joke doesn't mean that it's gone too far. If this is too far, then nearly everything is too far -- which is why you're out of control.

As I mentioned, I will be loosening up my grip. I am sorry you feel that I have been too heavy. I believe we were quite reasonable with the locked thread.

#55

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

6

9

10

11.03.2019 06:49PM

6

9

10

11.03.2019 06:49PM

-->

@coal

I’m not entirely sure I see your point.

Could you explain why you feel a thread where the premise is to purposefully encourage multiple responses that are derogatory or insulting to other users should be deemed acceptable and be left?

Or are you suggesting that moderation let the thread continue, and simply issue warnings to the users who inevitably post, then start issuing bans when the thread inevitably deteriorates the same way as call out threads and “fighting words” inevitably do?

#56

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

3

9

11.03.2019 07:08PM

3

9

11.03.2019 07:08PM

-->

@Ramshutu

I think the fact that you have framed what you think is a question in the way that you have implies both that (1) your only real purpose here is to make some post hoc argument that locking the thread was appropriate, and (2) that you want to appear to be more clever than you are in trying to make that argument.

I don't think you understand what fighting words are, either. Even if you did, you would likewise understand why a concept like that has no real application in this thread or in relation to this issue.

I further think that both you and Virt lack the sensibility to moderate with a sufficiently light touch not to alienate members here.

As you know I don't contribute much to this site, largely because I disagreed with the actions which went unaddressed from bsh1 and others for a very long time, and for other reasons; but now that leadership (if you could call it that) has changed, it seems that rather than any form of palpable improvement, you're just trading one set of issues for another set of issues.

If you want to engage with me in good faith then fine, I'll be happy to have that conversation. But when you write something so deliberately false, dishonest, disingenuous, and provocative as you have (see "premise is to purposefully encourage multiple responses that are derogatory or insulting to other users"), it is beyond obvious to me that you have no intention here in doing anything than trying to deliberately mischaracterize facts to justify the conclusion to which you and the other supposed moderator have already come to.

On another note, were you the top mind who thought that sending Speedrace to lock the other thread would be a good idea?

#57

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

3

9

11.03.2019 07:13PM

3

9

11.03.2019 07:13PM

And this goes to the heart of the problem:

Moderation here already has no legitimacy because you allowed bsh1 to go on as he did for so long, and now that things have changed there isn't any real improvement either.

I seriously question whether any of you have the foresight to even be able to write, much less implement, a code of conduct that is fair and understandable.

My suspicion of your collective bad faith is amplified by how Ram deliberately mischaracterized objective facts to suit his own absurd ends above. Like if you're going to do that, then you're already proven yourself incapable of not acting in bad faith and moderating from the perspective of 'have emotional reaction, silence thread' nonsense.

Keep that up and you'll drive people off the site. Some will stick around, but the only people who will will be those who are willing to put up with a level of regementation akin to that of a middle school hall monitor -- which is what all of you essentially are.

#58

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

6

9

10

11.03.2019 07:30PM

6

9

10

11.03.2019 07:30PM

-->

@coal

Please elaborate how I mischaracterized the thread? Whether it was a joke or not: Its a thread that basically encouraged other users to be needlessly derogatory to other users. No?

What replies were you expecting to see that weren’t basically pointing out the implicit stupidity or worthlessness of other users?

Your last reply appears more explicitly dedicated to simply trashing the decision and the decision makers, and to tell us how we don’t understand how to apply the currently in force code of conduct rather than any attempt to explain why you feel the decision was incorrect as per the in force rules of this site.

I’m trying to understand exactly what about the decision you take issue with? You obviously don’t agree with the decision, so I’m explicitly stating what I think is reasonable to conclude would happen to the thread if it were left up, and asking whether you feel it would have been acceptable.

Is your issue that the thread would not have inherently ended up as a set of users engaging or inciting personal attacks?

Is your issue that the thread should have been left up even though it seemed clearly intended to encourage users to be derogatory to other users?

Is your issue that personal attacks should be allowed?

#59

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

3

9

11.03.2019 08:00PM

3

9

11.03.2019 08:00PM

-->

@Ramshutu

So now you ask a question that I have already answered, and expect me to respond again?

This is a waste of time. You clearly did not even read my post.

#60

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

6

9

10