Call for moderators (new and old)

[m741]

I hope all this is sorted out. Hate to see the things take a turn for the worse.

Just curious, I haven't seen legit spam on the new forum. Have I been slow refreshing the pages?

[Chad]

Alright, new rule...

All moderators, from now on only enforce the SPAM rule. I'll take care of the insults, off-topics, etc.

Not sure the amount of work this will be for you, but if it's a lot I don't think you need to do this. I don't think any real malice was intended by either side. A mistake was made and corrected. We all say things or do things we wish we could take back after the fact (thanks, Jenny). If this is the rate of mistakes we can expect from the moderators I can easily live with it.

[Felix]

My try at a constructive suggestion for self-policing:

When starting a political argument, open a different thread and link there in the original thread.

Something like

"This goes into my strongly held political views and I'd like to discuss this here"

I would suggest to consolidate these political off-topics to a single thread, otherwise this might spawn lots of threads and effectively spam the active topics page.

So maybe a "Keep the government out of my thread! - Off-topic political threadbreakers" thread in the politics forum would help.

OPs and moderators, and also other members could then tell people to just go there to talk about it and keep the thread clean.

Something like:

"Please guys, not again. Just discuss this here. "

It would go in line with Jacob's "no politics" suggestion, but given that we often talk economics here and that it is mixed with politics very often, this seems like an alternative to telling people to remain quiet, you just send them (us) to the politics sandbox.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Thanks Jacob. I notice others are concerned that this will increase your share of forum administrivia which I'm sure you don't want, but I'm under the impression that it will be the moderating style that will change to fit your more hands-off approach, not the other way around.

In other words, the default will be to leave stuff alone, not moderate--which is how it should be IMO--thus I don't think it would increase your work load.

But, if it turns out that you do find yourself doing more work, I agree with the others that we could keep the original policy you laid out for moderators. Better having posts wrongly deleted than you getting bored and closing the forum. I do, however, strongly second this:

I also suggest that any moderator being caught breaking whatever are the rules for the second time should automatically loose his powers.

[Chad]

I also suggest that any moderator being caught breaking whatever are the rules for the second time should automatically loose his powers.

I'm always leary of over punishing people. As a society (US), we seem to default on over punishing people (US with 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the prison population). I know the time I served on a jury really opened my eyes, it was extreme in a bad way (I do not want a jury deciding my fate).

I'm not really suggesting that Bigato's or S_W's idea of 2 strikes is only extreme, but it could be. If the 2 strikes occur over the span of a couple weeks removing the moderator's powers may be reasonable. However, if those 2 strikes occur over a 2 year time period...hey, shit happens.

[secretwealth]

There have been many, many cases of posts being deleted for being off-topic or going below the level of discourse that moderators feel is appropriate for the board. This has been the case for many months. I know because I have seen many posts get deleted (in the old forum layout, mods could easily see posts that were deleted; I don't think this is possible anymore). And let me make it absolutely clear: I wasn't the one deleting those posts (in fact, I remember two occasions where my posts were deleted, and I made no fuss about it whatsoever).

So don't think the mods have traditionally taken a laissez-faire approach to this board. They haven't.

If Jacob only wants mods to delete spam posts from now on, that's his call, but it is definitely a change from what we've had in the past. And we'll see how that affects the board going forward.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I'm always leary of over punishing people. As a society (US), we seem to default on over punishing people (US with 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the prison population). I know the time I served on a jury really opened my eyes, it was extreme in a bad way (I do not want a jury deciding my fate).

I'm not really suggesting that Bigato's or S_W's idea of 2 strikes is only extreme, but it could be. If the 2 strikes occur over the span of a couple weeks removing the moderator's powers may be reasonable. However, if those 2 strikes occur over a 2 year time period...hey, shit happens.

I think the more appropriate comparison is not the jailing of civilians so much as the removal of a police officer from duty. Not to over-dramatize, but moderating is a big responsibility, and IMO if you unholster the mod-gun and pull the trigger, you better be damn sure about it and willing to take the consequences if you screw up or act out of emotion.

It's not about punishing the cop so much as it is preventing further arbitrary punishment of civilians, due to the level of power said cop has over the civilians. Power is responsibility and should not be wielded in an unjust manner. If someone is not capable of using their power in accordance with the laws of the land/forum, they shouldn't have that power. Simple.

(FYI, I agree with you 100% regarding US prison policy... but my God, let's drop that line of conversation lest even this becomes a debate over the size of government. )

Not to mention, we're not children here, but mostly intelligent adults. If someone can't learn not to do something the first time, whether it's been 2 weeks or 2 years, if they do it again, they've kinda proven they can't be trusted to learn not to do it and therefore their capacity to do it should be removed.

[Chad]

Not to mention, we're not children here, but mostly intelligent adults. If someone can't learn not to do something the first time, whether it's been 2 weeks or 2 years, if they do it again, they've kinda proven they can't be trusted to learn not to do it and therefore their capacity to do it should be removed.

Your police example isn't bad, though I would hesitate to compare deleting a comment to using lethal force. I think we will have to disagree on this.

Yeah, no intention of a prison discussion, just an example to help illustrate my point.

[Spartan_Warrior]

There have been many, many cases of posts being deleted for being off-topic or going below the level of discourse that moderators feel is appropriate for the board... If Jacob only wants mods to delete spam posts from now on, that's his call, but it is definitely a change from what we've had in the past. And we'll see how that affects the board going forward.

If this is the case (and it's not the impression I get from JennyPenny or m741 or other mods), and if the post you deleted from sshawnn was representative of the kind of things that have been deleted in the past, then I would say the effect on the board by changing this policy could only be positive.

Your police example isn't bad, though I would hesitate to compare deleting a comment to using lethal force. I think we will have to disagree on this.

LOL, indeed. Deleting my posts is more like tasing me (bro). The ban-hammer would be the lethal force.

[secretwealth]

Yes, it is the case, whether you believe me or not. So, don't worry--in the future, you can post analogies comparing the internet to police, guns, nuclear weapons, Nazis, and zombies, and it'll all stay.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Yes, it is the case, whether you believe me or not. So, don't worry--in the future, you can post analogies comparing the internet to police, guns, nuclear weapons, Nazis, and zombies, and it'll all stay.

The really laughable thing is, what you just said to me is about as "incredibly insulting" as what sshawnn said to you. Do you see the problem yet?

[secretwealth]

Hey, we're playing by the new rules, aren't we?

[Ego]

IMO Secretwealth is an extremely provocative member here. Sometimes he pisses me off. Sometimes he makes me think. Either way, I wouldn't want to lose that because a dead horse got beaten.

[secretwealth]

Thank you, Ego. Very kind of you.

Likewise, this forum has enriched me in more ways than I could ever have expected. I'd hate to see it devolve into a ideological melee.

[jennypenny]

I prefer to leave all of the posts alone and hash things out in public. Sometimes posts can be worded poorly or insultingly but the underlying thought was worth noting. Sometimes hashing it out can clear the air or help people understand each other better. Case in point...

The benefit of this system is that OPs have control over their topics. Some don't mind off-topic political rants infiltrating the threads. Some do. By flagging their own posts this way, they can control their posts instead of mods coming in to assert control. Mods, then, become enforcers of the OP's will rather than an authoritarian.

I have never thought of any thread I started as mine or something I needed to control. It never occurred to me that someone might view threads as "theirs" (except for personal journals). I've always thought of them like wind-up toys. When I put them on the floor I have a direction in mind, but it doesn't always go in the direction I anticipated. I can see how if you think of them that way (as secretwealth does), you might get pissed when the topic veers off on a tangent. I still think it's a public forum, and while I hope the OP's always get their questions answered, tangents are to be expected. OTOH, I can understand better now why someone would feel their threads were being hijacked and get upset.

I wouldn't have learned that if we hadn't had this unpleasant but useful discussion. I'd rather have these discussions than stunt them.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Hey, we're playing by the new rules, aren't we?

Yeah, I'm sure you would've deleted your own post under the old rules. More likely, my post calling you out on it would be deleted. Right?

For the record, as of right now, I officially change my position: I do think you should be removed from the moderation team. Or step down voluntarily. You could have simply apologized for deleting a post in a fit of emotion. Instead you continue to make petty and insulting comments of your own, which of course us poor sheep have no power to stop with threats of or actual deletion! Again, do you seriously not see the problem here?

I agree with Ego that you are an extremely provocative but valuable member of the forum. But as of this thread, I do think you are unfit to moderate. I am following your earlier advice and making that opinion explicit.

[sshawnn]

IMO Secretwealth is an extremely provocative member here. Sometimes he pisses me off. Sometimes he makes me think. Either way, I wouldn't want to lose that because a dead horse got beaten.

Although this is the proper place to beat said dead horse, Lets do keep within this thread. I hope what I said previously is taken in the same light as what Ego said above.

Please don't let the NEW RULES lower the standards of the intelligent TWO SIDED conversations.

[secretwealth]

Hey, we're playing by the new rules, aren't we?

Yeah, I'm sure you would've deleted your own post under the old rules. More likely, my post calling you out on it would be deleted. Right?

Nope--I've never deleted one of your posts, even when I've thought it devolves the level of discourse to below the forum standard. Which has happened several times in the past. Instead, I chose to ignore the posts (which I remember irked you too).

[Spartan_Warrior]

I don't see the harm in being irked. The problem for me is when one of the irked parties has the power to delete the other person's posts merely because they were irked. That's when it becomes not okay for me.

[jacob]

I rarely delete antagonizing posts. I remember doing it in one instance this year.