This fucking site.

Author: drafterman

Posts

Total: 175
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
-->
@Castin
@drafterman
If they disapproved of it, they should have deleted it.
Completely agree. I voiced the same opinion over here.



If you delete it, you destroy evidence.
If you really care about that (and that isn't the argument bsh1 gave), then implement a moderator tool to "censor" posts which violate the rules. The general public would be restricted from seeing the inappropriate content, while moderators would still retain access to said content and could use it as "evidence" later if needed.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,219
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@drafterman
Do you think it's a good policy to destroy evidence that justifies moderator action?

When the mods delete posts it tends to inflame accusations of oppression and conspiracy.

Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@Mharman
100 post threads are just mini-self celebrations.
They've been posted on a "public" forum so they are public celebrations. If they were "self" celebrations, you would be celebrating by your"self".
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Castin
Do you think it's a good policy to destroy evidence that justifies moderator action?
I think it is a necessary policy to delete posts and threads that violate the CoC.

When the mods delete posts it tends to inflame accusations of oppression and conspiracy. 
This should not be a component of moderator decisions.

It is abundantly clear that not only does the mod team have no experience moderating, they have no conception of it, either.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@Mharman
I wouldn't call it bullying, although it'd be pretty rude.
Excellent, we are pretty close to both agreeing that what you said to me coupled with what I didn't say to you, but would have been the appropriate response, were both rude but not bullying.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,219
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Raltar
If you delete it, you destroy evidence.
If you really care about that (and that isn't the argument bsh1 gave), then implement a moderator tool to "censor" posts which violate the rules. The general public would be restricted from seeing the inappropriate content, while moderators would still retain access to said content and could use it as "evidence" later if needed.
Maybe a feature could be added that just red flags a post to show it has been found to be in violation of the CoC.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Castin
IT SHOULD BE REMOVED.

If it was illegal content, or pornographic content, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The idea that the mods will deliberately leave harassing and offensive, rule violating material for... reasons... is stupid.
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
If it was illegal content, or pornographic content, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Frankly, this is a pretty good point. If posts that are illegal, threatening or pornographic can be deleted without needing to preserve "evidence" of the post, then there really isn't much of a case to be made that we need an eternal record of someone using a naughty word.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,381
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I want drafterman to become my spokesperson for my run for head mod. Thanks.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Drafter, if you recall very early back in my modship, many users protested at my removing posts which violated the COC, insisting that doing so was overkill. This desire was seemingly confirmed when the community voted to lock call out threads rather than simply deleting them. Moderation no longer deletes posts in less they include links to adult content, doxxing information, or credible threats of violence or doxxing.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Drafter, if you recall very early back in my modship, many users protested at my removing posts which violated the COC,
Tough shit. What do you want to do, please people, or mod? You volunteered to mod. SO MOD.

insisting that doing so was overkill. This desire was seemingly confirmed when the community voted to lock call out threads rather than simply deleting them.
Which has exactly ZILCH to do with what we're talking about here, which is directed harassment of another user.

Moderation no longer deletes posts in less they include links to adult content, doxxing information, or credible threats of violence or doxxing.
Which is stupid. It's a moderation policy to not perform moderation.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I think it is a necessary policy to delete posts and threads that violate the CoC.
That's an interesting change of opinion. When given the option to vote on whether moderation should "lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them" you replied "ambivalent." 
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Tough shit. What do you want to do, please people, or mod? You volunteered to mod. SO MOD.
Again, this strikes me as a reversal of opinion. When I deleted posts in the past that contained words like tranny and faggot--both considered slurs, and one used to insult another user--you responded by mocking moderation for going overboard and being too heavy handed. Where was the concern for deleting "directed harassment" then?

Tbh, this just feels like you bitching just to bitch. I am happy to start a MEEP process about it after Christmas if you would like (since three people have now raised the issue)--there are a slate of questions that need to be posed at that time--but color me skeptical about the genuineness of these complaints.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
The scope of the question in the first link was more than just CoC violating posts, at least by how I interpreted the wording.

As far as the second link, it was an easy shot to make. I disagree with laissez faire, but my disagreement doesn't preclude me from making fun of someone that fails to adhere by it when they've established it as a guiding motivation for their actions. I agree with the deletion of those posts. But that's not inline with the moderation stance you said you'd take. Which makes you either short sighted, a liar, or a hypocrite, any of which are acceptable reasons to take said pot shots.

You don't need a MEEP process to start moderating. You just need to start fucking doing it.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,219
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
Would be interested to see a thread called "Should posts that violate the CoC be deleted?"
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Castin
Why? The entire point of moderation on any site is to do just that. It isn't up for question. That is one of the primary reasons moderation exists, anywhere. It's like asking: "should moderation moderate?" If anyone on the mod team needs to seriously ask the users to answer this question for them, they should step down immediately.

And the MEEP process is an abomination.
Raltar
Raltar's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 155
0
5
8
Raltar's avatar
Raltar
0
5
8
I keep hearing this tall tale about how at some point in the undisclosed past, there was some great revolt of users who rebelled against the moderators for deleting offensive posts.

However, the best examples the mods have provided of this supposed rebellion seem to be little more than a few trolls complaining that their troll posts got the axe. Some of said trolls don't even seem to use this site anymore.

I'm not convinced. Trolls who get what they deserve are expected to complain. But this is a debate website, not 4chan. The argument should go to the intelligent users who have the capability to behave in a mature fashion, not trolls who whine loudly enough to make the mods feel bad.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,381
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Raltar
I wish I could heart a post right now.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
You don't need a MEEP process to start moderating. You just need to start fucking doing it.
Doing what you ask here would constitute a change in current moderation policy, which would necessitate a MEEP. This condition of changing policy was something you strongly advocated for several times, including in that first link.

The scope of the question in the first link was more than just CoC violating posts, at least by how I interpreted the wording.
Then you could have easily cast a qualified vote, as some others did. Plus, it's impossible to believe that that was your actual interpretation of the question. If you really believed the scope was wider, you would have read that question as "should moderation lock or delete posts it dislikes," in which case you would have thrown a bitchfest over that dichotomy, which you didn't. Instead you were "ambivalent."

As far as the second link, it was an easy shot to make
Yeah, we all know you're just here to take cheap shots.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
There will, given the interest in this topic, be a MEEP process on this question of thread deletion and post deletion. 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,219
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
It's interesting that one of the most heated complaints from members is that mods are heavy-handed and oppressive tyrants, but another of the most heated complaints is that mods are too democratic and not strict enough.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,381
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Castin
Because they are both depending how popular the abuser and victim are.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Doing what you ask here would constitute a change in current moderation policy, which would necessitate a moderation policy. This condition of changing policy was something you strongly advocated for several times, including in that first link.

The only official policy is the written CoC, which says your job is to enforce the rules. Can you link to the thread where this was changed?

Then you could have easily cast a qualified vote, as some others did. Plus, it's impossible to believe that that was your actual interpretation of the question. If you really believed the scope was wider, you would have read that question as "should moderation lock or delete posts it dislikes," in which case you would have thrown a bitchfest over that dichotomy, which you didn't. Instead you were ambivalent.
If you're just going to assume my answers to your questions, then just eliminate the middleman and don't fucking ask me.

There will, given the interest in this topic, be a MEEP process on this question of thread deletion and post deletion. 
Translation: Nothing will fucking change because the MEEP process is an abomination.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Castin
It's interesting that one of the most heated complaints from members is that mods are heavy-handed and oppressive tyrants, but another of the most heated complaints is that mods are too democratic and not strict enough. 
It's almost as if this shouldn't be a factor!

Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I don't get it. What's wrong with cunt

Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Castin
No one will ever be happy with a bunch of hard headed people on one site
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,219
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
What do you mean, Rash?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,381
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Castin
Want me to give case study examples or actually you don't get what I mean?
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
This forum is simply over reacting to "cunt." There is no reason to get so annoyed at moderation here for seeing no wrong in the post.

If the post said. "Your a fucking cunt face shit mcgee," then you can say it's bannable, but one word alone will never be enough to ban someone beside words like the n-word or a homophobic term
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Castin
To a mild degree, he has a point. When someone big wants a leniency in modding, the community slowly trends to favor the leaning or whatever side the popular is on