Moderation Policy: Finalized Changes

Author: bsh1 ,

Topic's posts

Read-only
Posts in total: 16
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Following from the public discussion that I initiated, which itself followed from various suggestion box threads, I am posting this list of finalized changes to moderation policy. Those policies with a clear consensus of support were adopted. Two-thirds of the suggested changes will be implemented.

    1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
    2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient 
    3. Whenever a vote is removed, explain--briefly--how the voter could improve 
    4. No longer post detailed analysis in notices on non-removed votes 
    5. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
    6. Lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights
    7. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 10
    8. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
    9. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a mandatory 2-day public comment period
    Those proposals that were not adopted, except for the proposal allowing only voters and debates to report votes on a debate, met with mixed feedback in the discussion, with at least 2 objectors each. I am still willing to adopt the "mixed feedback" proposals if and when a clear consensus in favor of them emerges. That is to say, they are not permanently off the table. Ultimately, however, 2/3rds of the proposed changes will be implemented. The new policies will come into effect tomorrow if they have not already. If you have any questions or concerns about these finalized changes, please feel free to comment.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,943
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    thank you bishy
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Kaiser bsh1 reigns once again.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,943
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @RationalMadman
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Greyparrot
    Firstly, lazy modding isn't good modding. Secondly, that's bullshit controlled opposition by Illuminati. The network won't last and all you post there will be used against you potentially.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,547
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @bsh1
    Based on this, anonymity is not being restored?
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @drafterman
    Based on this, anonymity is not being restored?
    Correct. Ethang and RM dissented. I would need more than 5-6 "yes" votes to determine that a clear consensus in favor of that proposal existed. However, the issue is open to future debate and if, at some point, a consensus does emerge after a public discussion, I would be willing to implement that proposal. 

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,547
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    Utterly ridiculous. Anonymity was stripped and abused without so much as a whisper yet you're going to require unanimity to give it back (despite a supermajority agreeing to restore it.) The reasonable thing to do would be restore the status quo unless a consensus agrees with it's removal.
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @bsh1
    Perhaps creating a seperate thread to poll people about the proposals would make establishing a consensus easier.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @blamonkey
    Everyone wants to be anonymous until the guy/girl harassing them is anonymous. Same with reports and same with anything in life.

    If you want real anonymity, don't make an account for a website and don't participate in any community as a persona at all. You can hide behind IPs all you want, your persona itself is a way to catch you. You want to report? You want to spam them? Want to inaccurately report them? Then you'd want anonymity. Why else would you be concerned about anonymity?

    Something I found (and believe me I've hung out with both folk in my online life) is that the crew on the side of privacy is usually filled with both extremes; highly naive/kind and highly paranoid/sinister. The crew that say 'meh, privacy isn't that needed' 'we only need to hide sometimes when it comes to oppressive governments etc' are usually very balanced individuals who likely have not necessarily got as high IQ as the former group but much higher EQ and long-term strategy to their plan.


  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    The more that you demand anonymity, the more you force the controlling group, be it Illuminati in the real world or Mike and bsh1 here, to hide thigns from you. The more you allow them to admit they spy, the better the world and this site become in terms of transparency and relaxation between the leaders and the led.

    The reason Illuminati are so corrupt and conniving is we force them to be.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,547
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @blamonkey
    We did that.
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 28
    Forum posts: 10,199
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    Happy with all changes

    However number 7 would cause us to remove a badge because it is 15 votes in 24hrs
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,547
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @SupaDudz
    That's a limit on vote reports, not votes themselves.
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 28
    Forum posts: 10,199
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    --> @drafterman
    Misread
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @blamonkey
    That was already done. The thread where people were offered an opportunity to weigh in was linked in the OP.