Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

The moderators and their judgements


Fatfrancesa

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
I also report mod posts on the regular.

 

:thumbs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Puckhead is a gun toting Republican.

 

Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...