Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
It’s overtly misogynistic to ask if a woman is on her period when she displays any form of emotion- or in this case moderation.
This is exactly what the American people voted for. EXACTLY. Trump did the exact same thing with respect to some female moderator on FoxNews (I think it was Fox) years ago.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but it is reality. This is now the world in which we live. Luciom and those of his ilk are now the majority and have the power. Buckle up, folks.
(I voted against all of this. I tried. I lost. But to be fair as an educated, upper-middle class white male, I’ll be just fine. Good luck to any of you in the margins though. Yuck.)
that's not was cross said he wrote. and so it's possible (and this might be overly generous) that nate was goofing on who was banned given the exact words.
as I wrote, idc about her decision, but it's probably in everyone's interest if the person who is banned is quoted correctly. esp by the mod who dropped the hammer
I realise "following the conversation" is not really your thing, but I'm curious, when you posted this question, what odds did you assign to the answer being "yes"?
I am sorry but I do not see a direct post by Lucion saying the comment to her. I see him questioning in a Mod thread why Nate was banned . Is that what a Mod thread is for to discuss Mod issues.
It sure seems like its all the right wing folks getting vacations and posted that they are on vacation
Lets be clear CN wants certain individuals and their opinions gone so me included must tread lightly while someone like you can fire insults non stop
I am sorry but I do not see a direct post by Lucion saying the comment to her. I see him questioning in a Mod thread why Nate was banned . Is that what a Mod thread is for to discuss Mod issues.
It sure seems like its all the right wing folks getting vacations and posted that they are on vacation
Lets be clear CN wants certain individuals and their opinions gone so me included must tread lightly while someone like you can fire insults non stop
It’s a good thing this isn’t real life, just an internet forum that one can simply walk away from.
It’s only ugly if you look at it.
I am sorry but I do not see a direct post by Lucion saying the comment to her. I see him questioning in a Mod thread why Nate was banned . Is that what a Mod thread is for to discuss Mod issues.
It sure seems like its all the right wing folks getting vacations and posted that they are on vacation
Lets be clear CN wants certain individuals and their opinions gone so me included must tread lightly while someone like you can fire insults non stop
What made you think that Luciom was banned for the "time of the month" comment? Was that something you imagined? It's not something a single person ITT has said.
Moderation decisions would be easier to understand if everyone accepted the idea of a catch-all prohibition against overtly assholic behavior.
Moderation decisions would be easier to understand if everyone accepted the idea of a catch-all prohibition against overtly assholic behavior.
Determining what qualifies as “overtly assholic behavior” in a world where a majority voted for a man who contends that, as a result of his socioeconomic status, he gets to grab women by the pussy without reprisal, is going to be tough sledding.
Moderation decisions would be easier to understand if everyone accepted the idea of a catch-all prohibition against overtly assholic behavior.
Might also be nice if they stopped pretending that it's too hard to understand that two users who got banned in close chronological proximity to one another for posts arising from the same original discussion did in fact get banned for different things.
it is reasonable to ask that the mod accurately quote the guy they banned for the words that lead to the infraction
What are you talking about? What was innacurate?
Maybe it’s a language barrier, but if a man sarcastically asks me if it’s “that time of the month”, he’s going to eat a ban until I feel like seeing his dumbass screen name again, and I’ll have zero qualms about it.
Like, seriously, wtf are you talking about? She quoted him verbatim. If you want to argue that his post can somehow reasonably be interpreted as something other than what it plainly is on its face, you do you, but I suspect you're in a group of one.
It's not verbatim
look at it again. slowly
You're going to have to explain it to me, probably slowly, since I am stone cold sober and I am capable of comparing two sentences containing 5 identical words.
Oh you mean because he missed "the"? Lol. Ok, I didn't notice that before. That's really your argument here?
I don't see the issue. CN cited the words that nate used and put those words in quotes. Yes, she omitted the word "the," but that was probably inadvertent and doesn't change the meaning in any way that I can discern. She also described the words as a question directed to her, but that seems like a reasonable inferference given that nate quoted two of CN's posts and then used a question mark in his post.
hint: nate's sentence has 4 words
I don't see the issue. CN cited the exact words that nate used and put those words in quotes. Yes, CNshe described the words as a question directed to her, but that seems like a reasonable inferference given that nate quoted two of CN's posts and then used a question mark in his post.
He missed "the". That changes everything (apparently).
What are you talking about? What was innacurate?
Like, seriously, wtf are you talking about? She quoted him verbatim. If you want to argue that his post can somehow reasonably be interpreted as something other than what it plainly is on its face, you do you, but I suspect you're in a group of one.
Group of one? Have you ever met PlayBig? He can misinterpret anything.
