Is this supposed to be a joke?

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 120
#31
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You also have to empathize with Speedrace in this. First thing is first

1) His first day on the job, he dealt with the Chief Moderator doing some vile and the man who appointed him stepping down and resigning from the website entirely

2) His first legit day, he was bogged down by reports of that forum

3) He is 16, we have a life too. He has done a fantastic job at moderating overall, and fmpov has made the right decisions
#32
AvoidDeath
AvoidDeath's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 327
0
3
8
AvoidDeath's avatar
AvoidDeath
0
3
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I have to agree with you. It is an abuse of power, but my  main goal of the forum post was not for anything to happen like that. 

#33
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@AvoidDeath
The thing is it was not an abuse of power. There were cases were things were getting heated and it was in best interest to prevent a situation from happening by locking the thread. Death threats were made and taken into action of this
#34
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,922
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
This was not an abuse of power. If I were in charge things would be more clinical. Lock, discipline, reform or ban. Finished. You talk with respect or that's it.
#35
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Thank you RM. 
#36
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,922
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
You wouldn't be discord liaison under my regime.

#37
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Well I am not under your regime...and you probably perma ban me for no reason tbh

#38
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,922
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Then don't thank me for fake things.

I would not just permaban people, I would reform them. Tame them. They would love each other or perish. We would be a happy family and community.
#39
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I thanked you because you were right about this thread

A debate site is not about living in a happy harmony. It is about debating things in a respectful manner
#40
AvoidDeath
AvoidDeath's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 327
0
3
8
AvoidDeath's avatar
AvoidDeath
0
3
8
-->
@Vader
whoops, nvm. I didn't read the entire thread.
#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,922
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
No. You debate in harmony. War is left to the formal debating arena. If you want to go ham and attack someone's psyche, intellect, body, worth as a person etc... Well, let's just say the threat of mod action is a CoC rule I can't proceed this speech without violating.

#42
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@oromagi
There is nothing cool or useful about raging at a guy at his first day on the job. 
Appreciated :)
#43
AvoidDeath
AvoidDeath's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 327
0
3
8
AvoidDeath's avatar
AvoidDeath
0
3
8
-->
@Speedrace
Yayy
you'll always remember me as you're first forum post locked!!!


#44
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@AvoidDeath
Hah
#45
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@AvoidDeath
Lol
#46
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Speedrace
Honest question: why not ban the people who are raving like lunatics instead of locking the thread? They're just going to rave like lunatics in another thread.

#47
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Hasn't happened yet...
#48
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Speedrace
Honest question: why not ban the people who are raving like lunatics instead of locking the thread? They're just going to rave like lunatics in another thread.
Hasn't happened yet...
Ummmm.... *opens first page of this thread*
#49
Annie_ESocialBookworm
Annie_ESocialBookworm's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 96
0
0
8
Annie_ESocialBookworm's avatar
Annie_ESocialBookworm
0
0
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I didn't report you. If you said something wrong, I would've called you out. 

If you'd like to discuss the bsh issue, you could always DM people if they're willing to talk. But honestly, this isn't as bad as bsh DELETING my comments the other day. 

#50
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Speedrace
You, and whoever else was involved in the decision to lock that thread, are out of line.  

I know you are new at this and so I won't write a full explanation of why that decision was wrong -- but this is a mistake I highly recommend you learn from. 

Principally, there seems to be some confusion on your part and others (not obvious you were alone in making this incorrect judgement) as to what a "personal attack" is.  

A personal attack is not, and will never be, discussion of factual information.  A personal attack -- unlike what occurred in that thread -- might involve name calling, insults, and the like.  I make this point to you because the fact that you subjectively disagree with something is not a basis to lock a thread.  I agree that some members (TUF) were out of line, and however preposterous his opinions may have been, that thread was an appropriate place to share them.  Same for everyone else.  

There is a further practical consideration to this as well: you do not have the power to, nor will you or any other moderator, ever be able to "end" a conversation on a salient topic of community interest by merely locking a thread.  Either the conversation moves to another thread (as in part it has here), or it moves somewhere else (i.e., Facebook) where you have no ability to do anything.  Here, at least what is said **can be seen** whereas on Facebook or elsewhere, you don't see what is said unless you belong to the groups that have formed independently of this site -- and neither you nor any member of moderation here is a member of them.  

There is an additional point of consideration, too:  member complaints do not equate to inappropriate conduct.  Whenever someone's feelings get hurt, including because someone disagreed with their opinion (see Drafterman's prior comments on hurt "fee fees"), they are inclined to report things.  This does not mean that you need to do something.  In fact, it means often that you need to AVOID doing something, and let whatever fire is burning run its course.  Doing otherwise is going to create a lot more problems for you and the so called community down the line.
#51
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nothing about my comment was inappropriate.  There were some members who were engaged in unbecoming activities, but discussion of factual information has never been, is not now, and will never rise to the level of a "personal attack" by any lucid interpretation of that phrase.  Suggesting otherwise would reflect some intellectual deficit, or nefarious motive. 

#52
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@coal
Firstly, you sound mad. Calm down, it's not that deep. Secondly, it wasn't even my decision. I participated, but it wasn't my idea and I wasn't the biggest advocate for it.

A personal attack is not, and will never be, discussion of factual information.
No one said that it is? So I'm confused why you're saying this.

There is a further practical consideration to this as well: you do not have the power to, nor will you or any other moderator, ever be able to "end" a conversation on a salient topic of community interest by merely locking a thread.
Did we say we wanted to end the conversation? NO. Literally no one cares about that conversation. It's purely about the multiple reports that we received specifically from that thread. It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread; you could make a thread titled "Chocolate is amazing," and if we got multiple reports from it, we would probably consider locking it. Is that because we hate chocolate? Of course not! I love it. But we can't just ignore the reports.

You seem to be taking this as a personal attack against you. It's not that deep. 

There is an additional point of consideration, too:  member complaints do not equate to inappropriate conduct.
I've never said that it did.
#53
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
There are no personal attacks though, except against me. >:(
#54
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Speedrace
When someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are "mad."  While I grant you that tone does not always carry through by way of text, and that interpreting tone is perhaps a difficult thing to do, there is nothing in my comment to you which would suggest or imply that I was "mad."

You ignored every salient point in my post so I presume you aren't paying attention, as well.  Re-read it, and take it to heart.  You, and whoever was involved in locking that thread, was out of line.

I presume that the reason bsh1 selected you as a moderator is because of the fact that you are a child and would be disinclined to challenge him.  Someone like, for example, Wylted or Drafterman who are widely known and respected in the community (much less OreEle or Airmax) would obviously have thoughts of their own, thoughts which bsh1 would have been disinclined to have to contend with.  But, with someone in your situation, you're going to defer to him.  That is not good.

There are certain principals you will realize, with experience, matter, when it comes to moderating posts.  Among them is maintaining legitimacy.  I see what has happened here as a situation in which a predictably unwelcome decision was made by someone else, and you were the cat's paw who made the announcement.  This was not good on the part of the others who currently esteem themselves as moderators.   You get the flack, for a decision they made.   That largely isn't fair to you.

But you still made the post, and locking that thread was out of line, for the reasons I stated.  If you make a habit of locking threads that involve discussion of salient community topics, including bsh1's absconding/banning/whatever happened from the site, it is *your* legitimacy that will be called into question.  Some people who perceive you as cow-towing to their complaints will like you, but most will resent you -- and you don't want that to be the case. 
#55
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@coal
The amount of dedication you're putting into an issue that is so small tells me that you're mad. You can't just assume I said that because you disagreed with me.

You ignored every salient point in my post so I presume you aren't paying attention, as well.
Actually I didn't, but if you're so adamant, outline them as bullet points. I definitely didn't ignore anything though.

I presume that the reason bsh1 selected you as a moderator is because of the fact that you are a child and would be disinclined to challenge him.
Lol, and you said you're not mad?

Some people who perceive you as cow-towing to their complaints will like you, but most will resent you -- and you don't want that to be the case. 
I really don't care. It's a website. I have no stakes in it. Anyone who attacks me for a decision that isn't mine is clearly ignorant, so I have no reason to care about their opinion.
#56
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Speedrace
Your conduct is exceptionally out of line.
#57
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Studying the interaction between this forum and the moderation might shed light into the insanity of politics.

#58
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Mopac
Perhaps, though speedrace has just disqualified himself from holding that title.  Of course he will likely not be removed despite the fact that this site needs at most two mods, but his attitude here is going to create many problems for moderation in the future. 
#59
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I refrain from giving opinions
#60
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@coal
 Someone like, for example, Wylted or Drafterman who are widely known and respected in the community (much less OreEle or Airmax) would obviously have thoughts of their own, thoughts which bsh1 would have been disinclined to have to contend with.  But, with someone in your situation, you're going to defer to him.  That is not good.
Frankly, I don't have an issue with the locking and agree with it. The style of moderation I am most familiar is reddit-style, and locking threads getting out of hand and off topic is a matter of course.

The Free Speech issues are, of course, nonsensical: no one's free speech has been hampered (not that you have free speech on a private web site anyway). Free Speech doesn't mean speech free from consequences, nor does it mean freedom to speak in specific places of one's choosing. If a thread is getting close to getting out of hand, with multiple violations of the CoC looming on the horizon, then locking the thread and splashing a bit of cold water on things is certainly preferable than just idly waiting until people actually do commit violations of the CoC and earn bannings.

I think it's frankly very weird that people are suggesting that there should have been actual bannings instead of locking a thread, as if banning is somehow less of a reaction. Bannings are actual punishments against specific people. Locking a thread isn't even a punishment against anyone.

And yeah, people can pick up and carry on the conversation elsewhere, but who cares? If it's on a different site, go for it. Nothing that happens outside this site (and discord) should matter here, so that's not a factor. If someone wants to create a new thread (in the appropriate forum; I heavily endorse the use of locking and moving threads to keep various fora on topic) and continue a conversation, they can.

And yet, that hasn't happened. Which I think is telling. If a specific conversation was so important, then certainly people would have continued it elsewhere, but they haven't. I think this indicates that it was simply people's tempers getting out of hand and once the momentum of the conversation was interrupted and all the hot air let out, there was nothing of substance to keep it afloat.