Moderation Questions

Havent stepped foot in the ukraine thread all but only 2 times and postd in it twice to gather info on the topic.

but it is by far one of the better threads because it keeps all the cesspool and that type of posting ontained in one thread. its become the low content type thread in here and its been super useful keeping that 80% of all that in that single thread

as for Victor, I am in suport of him even though his posts are dogshit, 1) he belevs what he says, 2) IIRC he suported another user who was strongly unfarly modded at another subforum here and he legit saw through all the bs the mds were spewing and while he didnt liek that suer he did stand ihs neck out for that user once or twice to voice his opinion and thats respectful.

should only ban halocaust deniers and thelike and people making weird type personal attacks. there is one user here who i wont name but comes in every once in awhile and post in legit bad faith, legit trolls in each post and does not post what he believes and literaly brings nothing up in his posts just to stur ****. he doesnt come here frequently, not a regualr here so its fine. but thats the only user should be on the watch list afaik

How can I watch for them if I have no idea as to whom you’re referring?

Seems super ironic when a mod tells someone they are ok being questioned and then proceeds to tell a poster to GTFO if the forum, calls them a baby and threatens to ban them. It is nut low moderating and I’ll agree with you for the dozenth time that the forum has devolved into little but garbage posts once the decent posters left or were banned. Like I have Vic and Luciom on ignore and they are like half the post volume. Roccoco seems to be the only one with rationale thought left and even he doesn’t tread into the cesspool that is the IP thread.

I don’t want to put words in BGP’s mouth, but I think that is his point (which I agree with). When terrible moderation leads to rationale posters leaving, being banned etc - you are left with posters who just want to bandy about insults, posts from other SM, disinformation etc. I with there was a solve at this point, but I don’t think just removing the current mod is going to bring people and content back to the site.

There is no particular moderation style that appeals to all rational posters. BGP, microbet, d2, Inso0, and many others are all fundamentally rational, whether I agree with them or not. But they certainly don't want the same type of moderation.

D2, jalfrezi me dunyan and rickroll kinda agree on how we would like moderation to be, and from different cultural directions.

I think Elrazor would be on board as well and probably others, maybe microbet

Is that true? I want zero moderation apart from bans for obvious spam and death threats etc. Maybe a small number of exceptions for very egregious **** that doesn't abate, not sure.

People should grow up and learn to scroll. There are several regs here I rarely bother reading because their content is so bad, and it's no big deal to scroll past them.

Yes I do as well, only moderate content which is illegal and regulate common space (so regulate spam and so on).

And I think the other listed people want the same.

I'm pretty laid back about moderation, but I agree that ideally there would be less of it, and in particular less moderating of which opinions and topics of discussion are acceptable (I wouldn't go as far as Luciom and say that the only standard for acceptability ITF should be legality, however). My main thing though is that I just think personal insults should be allowed, but that's a site wide rule that has little to do with individual mods. Although well named basically ignored it and that was fun too.

Also, I'm not convinced that my contributions to this forum are such that my opinion on moderation should really matter. The majority of my stuff is pretty low content.

The most important things is a level playing field so everyone feels they're being modded fairly, which becomes less possible the sterner the moderation because more decisions means more mod errors means more grievances.

I don't know if you are correct, but even if you are, there are plenty of rational people who want a different type of moderation.

In a perfect world, I actually think this would be a little bit situational. If you and some other person with similar sensibilities were insulting each other in a funny way, and neither of you seemed to object to the banter, I could see a mod letting it go. (I'm sure I let such things go from time to time.)

On the other hand, if a person who wasn't insulting others made it clear that they didn't appreciate being called a dumb **** repeatedly, and didn't think tolerating such things should be the price of admission, I would have a fair bit of sympathy for that position.

Yeah I suppose that's fair. I'm thinking more along the lines of Trumpers who like to show up from time to time with the sole purpose of trolling to own the libs. They should be fair game whether they like it or not. Or regulars who just lie and obviously post in bad faith repeatedly. Them too. But it's obviously quite hard to craft a "no calling people dickheads unless they really are dickheads" rule.

In the old days when you know who modded, personal attacks weren't allowed but the stuanchly defended claim was that it couldn't be a personal attack if he thought it was true

T'was a surreal place.

I'm not sure all of those calling for no moderation would be so keen when they get outnumbered by trumpers etc.

Do you think the current mod regime is keeping Trumpers away?

Trolling is the hardest behavior to moderate. We are all trolls from time to time. A ban for trolling almost inevitably is a reward for a persistent pattern of conduct that continued after multiple requests to knock it off. But the ban can easily be characterized as an overreaction if you focus only on the poster's last few comments rather than the poster's overall pattern of trying to trainwreck every discussion.

I also would add that some people are just much better at living with limited rules than other people are. Luckbox is a good example. He believes some truly crazy stuff. I don't agree with him on much. But if he is told that a particular topic or behavior is off limits, he generally attempts to live with the decision, whether he agrees with it or not.

Again, it depends a little bit. If you call Poster A a worthless asswipe because he believes that the ACA should be repealed, then I wouldn't be too impressed by a defense that began with "I actually believe he is a worthless asswipe."

On the other hand, if you go on for pages and pages about how women are constitutionally incapable of making tough decisions, and then people begin to call you a sexist, it would be absurd for you to ask that those people be banned on the grounds that they have personally insulted you by calling you a sexist. What did you think would happen?

Probably and now he will be president again it will be a lot worse.

I think they're a misconeption that if people can say anything however racist/etc without modding then those calling them names will dominate. It's very unlikely to be like that.

This, especially the bolded is how I see it. But I'd also add a daily word count limit for each poster.

I've no problem with the later. The surreal fun came in from trying to claim it wasn't a personal attack and personal attacks weren't allowed. Edit I'm not ok with the person saying that about women but that wasn't the question.

(I've no problem with the former either if it's allowed. It's terrible for politcal discussion but I enjoyed unchained for most of the time.)

users here are a tad bit less circle jerky than it was in 2011-2017. it was a bigger Eco chamber than ever back then. it actually got better inthat regard albeit slowly

Hello, my is Sammy and I'm from Denmark. I just wanted to say that i like this CrossNerd mod-person's style.

Beers