Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 276

Thread: The moderators and their judgements

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Rep Power
    42

    The moderators and their judgements

    Just a suggestion but when a moderator is involved in a conversation that gets heated, it’s not really a great look when that moderator infarcts or band the opposing view point for engaging in the exact behavior that the moderator himself is engaging in.

    To have an open discussion you can’t people playing by different rules. You have a moderator here infractions people for “hyper partisan” comments. In the same breath he posts that the president is a Russian agent and compares him to Charlie Manson. Completely fair if he believes that but that is hyper partisan.

    Seems to me the moderators allow much different behavior here if they agree with the posters views. Of course the moderator has views and is human and is flawed like everyone. But if the moderator can’t make a judgement about what’s inflammatory unless it offends them only maybe they shouldn’t moderate st all.

    Either let it be a free for all or referee it equally. To bring it back to hockey. All anybody wants is for the ref to call it the same for both teams. This place is sorely missing that objective.

    Might be a good idea to let another moderator make judgement of the political threads because bviously the moderator currently doing so is highly partisan and unfair. He also seems to use his position as a hammer when he can’t respond rationally himself. He incites like the rest of us and when things gets heated he infarcts and bans and removes people from threads. Yet he’s a constant variable.

    So is the China or America?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Rep Power
    42
    Oh and usually when I post something like this I get banned. I read somewhere on here that this is the place to bring this up. Hopefully I can get an actual discussion and not a banning but I guess we’ll see.

  3. #3
    day-to-day Midget Division
    fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Too far from MSG
    Posts
    4,956
    Rep Power
    103
    The moderators spend a lot of time running the website, including establishing policies, maintaining user accounts, and monitoring threads. I do think moderators are less likely to get infraction than a new user or a user with a track record for problems. But I also think that long-time users that have a good track record are likely to get the benefit of the doubt and a PM instead of an infraction for a single questionable post.

    IMO, from what I've seen, one questionable post gets deleted. 2 or 3 questionable posts in a thread is much more likely to lead to an infraction. And if you have been following a thread and see a user has been banned, I'm first bummed that that person will not be able to post. But if I see a series of heated posts, I'm not surprised if at least one post crossed the line.

    When I get pissed, I take a 24 hour break from the site. I'd rather have a self-imposed break than a forced one.

    If you prefer, their site, their rules. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
    "We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

    "How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

    "Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

  4. #4
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by fletch View Post
    The moderators spend a lot of time running the website, including establishing policies, maintaining user accounts, and monitoring threads. I do think moderators are less likely to get infraction than a new user or a user with a track record for problems. But I also think that long-time users that have a good track record are likely to get the benefit of the doubt and a PM instead of an infraction for a single questionable post.

    IMO, from what I've seen, one questionable post gets deleted. 2 or 3 questionable posts in a thread is much more likely to lead to an infraction. And if you have been following a thread and see a user has been banned, I'm first bummed that that person will not be able to post. But if I see a series of heated posts, I'm not surprised if at least one post crossed the line.

    When I get pissed, I take a 24 hour break from the site. I'd rather have a self-imposed break than a forced one.

    If you prefer, their site, their rules. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
    Good points. Good advice too

  5. #5
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    7,819
    Rep Power
    169
    I think there is too much a) whining about infractions and b)worrying about the infractions that others get. If you know a post is probably going to get you infract/banned, then it probably isn't worth posting.

  6. #6
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,881
    Rep Power
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Just a suggestion but when a moderator is involved in a conversation that gets heated, it’s not really a great look when that moderator infarcts or band the opposing view point for engaging in the exact behavior that the moderator himself is engaging in.
    Correct. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but I've long suggested to the Staff not to discipline their own arguments. It's not always possible given timing, who is online at the time, and severity of the infraction (among other things), but as a general rule of thumb, we do our best to handle disciplinary issues in this manner.

    To have an open discussion you can’t people playing by different rules. You have a moderator here infractions people for “hyper partisan” comments. In the same breath he posts that the president is a Russian agent and compares him to Charlie Manson. Completely fair if he believes that but that is hyper partisan.

    Seems to me the moderators allow much different behavior here if they agree with the posters views. Of course the moderator has views and is human and is flawed like everyone. But if the moderator can’t make a judgement about what’s inflammatory unless it offends them only maybe they shouldn’t moderate st all.

    Either let it be a free for all or referee it equally. To bring it back to hockey. All anybody wants is for the ref to call it the same for both teams. This place is sorely missing that objective.
    Nah. No one plays by different rules. This is a timeless trope of the internet — especially on forums — whenever a user gets in trouble. It's like the default position for the majority of internet users to take because despite the utter lack of evidence, saying so paints them in a more advantageous light. Break a rule, get an infraction. Staff members seldom break rules, which is why they are on Staff. If and when they become problematic, they're no longer retained as Staff members (this is not to say that ever ex-Moderator was "fired" for this, however).

    Might be a good idea to let another moderator make judgement of the political threads because bviously the moderator currently doing so is highly partisan and unfair. He also seems to use his position as a hammer when he can’t respond rationally himself. He incites like the rest of us and when things gets heated he infarcts and bans and removes people from threads. Yet he’s a constant variable.
    I have a name, you know. You can use it. And like I seemingly ask every single day, if you feel a post violates a rule, report it. This gets it in front of the eyes of the entire Staff. Not just me. We often make decisions via committee. It's the best advice I can give so long as you don't correlate reporting a post with validating the veracity of your complaint. In other words, just because you report it or are offended doesn't mean you're actually right. But we appreciate the heads up regardless. Every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Oh and usually when I post something like this I get banned. I read somewhere on here that this is the place to bring this up. Hopefully I can get an actual discussion and not a banning but I guess we’ll see.
    Nah, you get infracted when you ignore Staff requests, like arguing about the process in the political section when you're asked to voice concerns privately or in the Feedback section, as you've done here. So long as you can maintain a sense of decorum and refrain from calling everyone Deep State cucks, pompous shills, or anything of the sort, we'll get on just fine.

    Any other questions?
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  7. #7
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Correct. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but I've long suggested to the Staff not to discipline their own arguments. It's not always possible given timing, who is online at the time, and severity of the infraction (among other things), but as a general rule of thumb, we do our best to handle disciplinary issues in this manner.



    Nah. No one plays by different rules. This is a timeless trope of the internet — especially on forums — whenever a user gets in trouble. It's like the default position for the majority of internet users to take because despite the utter lack of evidence, saying so paints them in a more advantageous light. Break a rule, get an infraction. Staff members seldom break rules, which is why they are on Staff. If and when they become problematic, they're no longer retained as Staff members (this is not to say that ever ex-Moderator was "fired" for this, however).



    I have a name, you know. You can use it. And like I seemingly ask every single day, if you feel a post violates a rule, report it. This gets it in front of the eyes of the entire Staff. Not just me. We often make decisions via committee. It's the best advice I can give so long as you don't correlate reporting a post with validating the veracity of your complaint. In other words, just because you report it or are offended doesn't mean you're actually right. But we appreciate the heads up regardless. Every time.



    Nah, you get infracted when you ignore Staff requests, like arguing about the process in the political section when you're asked to voice concerns privately or in the Feedback section, as you've done here. So long as you can maintain a sense of decorum and refrain from calling everyone Deep State cucks, pompous shills, or anything of the sort, we'll get on just fine.

    Any other questions?
    Yes. You refer to trump as a Russian agent. Compare him to Charlie Manson. Is that not hyper partisan?

    Also me using the word pompous to describe a post directed at me with a definition from a dictionary is exactly correct.

  8. #8
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,881
    Rep Power
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Yes. You refer to trump as a Russian agent. Compare him to Charlie Manson. Is that not hyper partisan?
    I suppose it might be. I'd need to see it in context. It would depend on the manner in which I used it, but feel free to report those exact posts and I'll happily step aside to let the Staff come to a conclusion. If they determine guilt, I'll be infracted for it.

    Also me using the word pompous to describe a post directed at me with a definition from a dictionary is exactly correct.
    1. This is a subjective exercise, not an objective one. You feel you are correct. You are not definitionally correct.
    2. Calling another user pompous violates our flaming rules, which is why you were infracted for it.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  9. #9
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,633
    Rep Power
    579
    Personally, I needed some explanations on why I got some infractions because they weren't provided by the staff. When I had it explained, fine, it is what it is.

    I think the insight I got from that is that there's an inconsistency on what's an infraction and what's not depending on what section your in. The rules are tighter in the political section. I didn't know that.

    I got infracted for basically telling another user they weren't particularly smart in the hockey section. I deserved it.
    I got infracted for posting "trollolol" in the political section. Surface level says that's not equitable and makes no sense. But when you realize they police the politicla forum, it's different.

    The only other point I have is that the OP of this thread gets away with posts in the politcal section that no one else would, so I don't see why he's complaining. There's unsourced claims, gaslighting, blanket flaming attacks at one party....All of that is against the rules but they gave you a wide berth. You should be grateful, honestly.

    Oh, and maybe use the thread ban option more, rather than a whole board ban.

    Das it.

  10. #10
    Keep your fkin head up BSBH Veteran
    Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    30,124
    Rep Power
    342
    Solution: Let me moderate political discussion.
    Why? : Cause I don’t give a fuck about politics, and have never voted in my life.
    Problem solved.
    Hidden Content
    $1080 and counting

  11. #11
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,881
    Rep Power
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Personally, I needed some explanations on why I got some infractions because they weren't provided by the staff. When I had it explained, fine, it is what it is.

    I think the insight I got from that is that there's an inconsistency on what's an infraction and what's not depending on what section your in. The rules are tighter in the political section. I didn't know that.

    I got infracted for basically telling another user they weren't particularly smart in the hockey section. I deserved it.
    I got infracted for posting "trollolol" in the political section. Surface level says that's not equitable and makes no sense. But when you realize they police the politicla forum, it's different.

    The only other point I have is that the OP of this thread gets away with posts in the politcal section that no one else would, so I don't see why he's complaining. There's unsourced claims, gaslighting, blanket flaming attacks at one party....All of that is against the rules but they gave you a wide berth. You should be grateful, honestly.

    Oh, and maybe use the thread ban option more, rather than a whole board ban.

    Das it.
    We do use the thread ban, but right now the rules are inversed — we go infractions first, then thread banning. Maybe that needs to reverse, I'm not sure. I'd certainly be open to having a conversation about why that would be of greater value and moreover why it wouldn't just increase the work load of the Staff.

    But yeah, we set out with significantly harsher rules specifically for politics a bit ago. It's the only section of the forum where "different rules" apply. They're not so much different, either, as simply far more iron-fisted.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  12. #12
    Very Large Member BSBH Prospect
    Vodka Drunkenski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    15,666
    Rep Power
    156
    Do mods have the ability to report a post like a standard user? Maybe they use that feature when they are the one in a heated discussion with another user, taking themselves out of the particular equation.
    Hidden Content

    Let's Go Rangers!

  13. #13
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,881
    Rep Power
    485
    Yes. We report them all the time. Especially if it's to open a quick conversation about where a thread is going, or whether or not to discipline a specific post.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  14. #14
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    7,819
    Rep Power
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Yes. We report them all the time. Especially if it's to open a quick conversation about where a thread is going, or whether or not to discipline a specific post.
    +1

    This is fairly constant.

  15. #15
    Very Large Member BSBH Prospect
    Vodka Drunkenski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    15,666
    Rep Power
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Yes. We report them all the time. Especially if it's to open a quick conversation about where a thread is going, or whether or not to discipline a specific post.
    Got it, thanks
    Hidden Content

    Let's Go Rangers!

  16. #16
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    17,514
    Rep Power
    189
    Assuming you all still use the same process, the enforcement activity that took place by our moderation team was HIGHLY collaborative and almost never a unilateral thing.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  17. #17
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,881
    Rep Power
    485
    Still the same.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  18. #18
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    29,008
    Rep Power
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    Assuming you all still use the same process, the enforcement activity that took place by our moderation team was HIGHLY collaborative and almost never a unilateral thing.
    Yes, but youre allllllll the same. Like its a requirement to be a mod. And ruling over those with opposing views. Gee, I dont think we'll ever see issues...
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  19. #19
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,881
    Rep Power
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    Yes, but youre allllllll the same. Like its a requirement to be a mod. And ruling over those with opposing views. Gee, I dont think we'll ever see issues...
    Translation: "you're all left of center," which is mostly true, and a factor I routinely take into account when adding to Staff. This is why AmericanJesus (as centrist as they come) and RodrigueGabriel (as calm as they come) were specifically tasked with spearheading the Political section.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  20. #20
    Banned Junior Division
    Albatross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    5,793
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Translation: "you're all left of center," which is mostly true, and a factor I routinely take into account when adding to Staff. This is why AmericanJesus (as centrist as they come) and RodrigueGabriel (as calm as they come) were specifically tasked with spearheading the Political section.
    suddenly I don't feel welcome around here

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •