-->
@drafterman
I've been prevented from adding more insights to the dark awards thread. Or indeed continuing discussions on any thread that has been blocked.
Moderation AMA
Posts
Total:
122
-->
@Manik
Why should people who are legitimately engaged in discussion have to be punished for a few people who can't control themselves?
Don't make threads intended to mock and ridicule other threads. Don't make threads where the only legitimate reply to the thread's OP would result in degrading other members and/or their contributions to the website.
Who is the one who can't control themselves, the creator of such thread or the ones who shut it down?
-->
@Manik
I've been prevented from adding more insights to the dark awards thread. Or indeed continuing discussions on any thread that has been blocked.
Those aren't punishments.
-->
@RationalMadman
"Who is the one who can't control themselves, the creator of such thread or the ones who shut it down?"
Neither. I was referring to the members who would be unable to resist responding to the thread with insults against other users. The thread was blocked to prevent them.
-->
@drafterman
Why not?
-->
@Manik
Because it doesn't impact you in any negative way or restrict your rights or privileges here in any way.
-->
@drafterman
Yes it did. If the thread had stayed up, an interesting discussion might have developed. Now it won't.
-->
@Manik
An interesting discussion can still develop. Just not in that thread. Whether or not an interesting discussion develops is entirely at your discretion and no action taken by a moderator has inhibited your ability to do so in any way.
-->
@Manik
I know who you were referring to. I changed your loaded dynamic and made it more loaded.
-->
@drafterman
That's simply untrue. The thread was shut down because of the way the discussion was framed. That means discussions of that type are forbidden here. Yes, of course, I could have a different kind of approved discussion, I suppose.
-->
@drafterman
Unless a few trolls jump in and start insulting people and then the approved discussion would get blocked too.
-->
@Manik
That's simply untrue.
Which part, specifically is untrue:
- An interesting discussion can still develop. Just not in that thread;
- Whether or not an interesting discussion develops is entirely at your discretion;
- No action taken by a moderator has inhibited your ability to [have an interesting discussion] in any way;
The thread was shut down because of the way the discussion was framed.
I would say that the thread was shut down because how the discussion prompt was framed.
That means discussions of that type are forbidden here.
Incorrect. It means that solicitations that are likely to result in violations of the CoC will be locked down. It doesn't not mean you cannot have discussions that do not involve violations of the CoC.
Yes, of course, I could have a different kind of approved discussion, I suppose.
You don't need to suppose. You are always allowed to have any kind of discussion that doesn't violation the CoC.
-->
@Manik
You have not been blocked from having any kind of approved discussion in any way. In fact, we're having one right now.
-->
@drafterman
Coal's thread didn't violate the CoC, and nor did my response to it. So it's simply untrue that you are always allowed to have a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC.
Discussions aren't equivalent. So it's not enough to say that if coal is censored, I'm fine to go have a discussion on a similar topic with someone a bit less confrontational. Those are two separate discussions.
-->
@Wylted
I will also say that politically my favorite politician was John McCain. My favorite author is Orson Scott Card.Dude don't try to get conservative points by saying you like McCain. Dude is evil. Even just before his death he had the chance to do the right thing but decided that he would rather piss on America and side with the people who attend Bilderburg meetings rather than do the right thing and back up Trump. I thought on his death bed he would start acting ethical, but no he still said "Fuck you america, I am siding with washington elitests
That you believe a war hero was evil for not supporting someone as divisive as Trump, is your opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, your standard for evil also declares that more than half of Americas are automatically evil for merely disapproving Trump's leadership; but you have the right to your opinion.
-->
@Manik
Coal's thread didn't violate the CoC, and nor did my response to it. So it's simply untrue that you are always allowed to have a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC.
There is nothing preventing you or coal from having a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC.
Discussions aren't equivalent. So it's not enough to say that if coal is censored, I'm fine to go have a discussion on a similar topic with someone a bit less confrontational. Those are two separate discussions.
Yes, I would agree that a discussion that includes a prompt likely to result in violations of the CoC and a discussion that doesn't include said prompt would be different discussions. But unfortunately, moderators do not have the ability to partially lock a thread.
Anyone that wishes to continue allowed discussions are allowed to do so, and are encouraged to do so without prompts likely to result in violations of the CoC. I think it's patently obvious how general prompt for people to come in and label users as "least valuable", "infamous", "cursed", "least funny", "dumbass", or the "worst forum post." is likely to result in many violations of the CoC.
-->
@Barney
I would put around 50% as evil and another 54% is stupid and just don't know what they are doing. I feel like a 1% non evil non stupid number may be high as well
-->
@Barney
I would put around 50% as evil and another 54% is stupid and just don't know what they are doing. I feel like a 1% non evil non stupid number may be high as well
-->
@Barney
Answer why McCain was a part of the washington elite and the country still sucks
-->
@drafterman
"There is nothing preventing you or coal from having a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC"
We were having a discussion that didn't violate the CoC, but then the thread was locked which prevented us from continuing the discussion.
As I said before, there are lots of topics that are likely to result in other members violating the CoC. It's absurd that anybody should have to tiptoe around for fear of what other members might or might not do.
The CoC is clear. If the SOLE intent of a comment is to encourage insults etc. then it counts as "fighting words". But that was not the case for Coal's thread.
-->
@Manik
"There is nothing preventing you or coal from having a discussion that doesn't violate the CoC"We were having a discussion that didn't violate the CoC, but then the thread was locked which prevented us from continuing the discussion.
Not entirely correct. It prevented you from having that conversation in that thread. You are free to continue it elsewhere.
As I said before, there are lots of topics that are likely to result in other members violating the CoC. It's absurd that anybody should have to tiptoe around for fear of what other members might or might not do.
The phrasing of this statement implies that violations of the CoC in light of that topic would merely be incidental. This is not a correct representation. Rather it was a direct and explicit call upon the entire user base to label other members in a derogatory fashion.
The CoC is clear. If the SOLE intent of a comment is to encourage insults etc. then it counts as "fighting words". But that was not the case for Coal's thread.
I'm not sure what fighting words has to say about anything but a personal attack is "any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse."
Inviting everyone to come in and label users as "least valuable", "infamous", "cursed", "least funny", "dumbass", or the "worst forum poster." Is textbook. The thread itself falls within the definition of a call-out thread (threads in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another users).
-->
@drafterman
"It prevented you from having that conversation in that thread. You are free to continue it elsewhere."
We are free to have a different discussion elsewhere. If we tried to have the same one again it would be locked again.
"Rather it was a direct and explicit call upon the entire user base to label other members in a derogatory fashion."
It was clearly mocking the standard awards threads. It was light hearted. And before you say that joking is no excuse for insults, the opening post did not contain any insults.
It was like a game. Responding without insulting required some thought and care, but was possible.
"The thread itself falls within the definition of a call-out thread"
I can't see where call out thread is in the CoC, but anyway no. A call out thread requires calling someone out, naming someone.
-->
@Manik
We are free to have a different discussion elsewhere. If we tried to have the same one again it would be locked again.
I would say, yes, if you repeat your actions verbatim it is likely to result in the same response. I would suggest you have the allowed parts of the discussion without the disallowed parts.
It was clearly mocking the standard awards threads. It was light hearted. And before you say that joking is no excuse for insults, the opening post did not contain any insults.
If I break the law in a light hearted, mocking, manner, I have still broken the law.
It was like a game. Responding without insulting required some thought and care, but was possible.
And you are free to talk about users without insulting them. Nothing is stopping you. You are not free to invite the entire userbase to come into a thread to insult users.
I can't see where call out thread is in the CoC, but anyway no. A call out thread requires calling someone out, naming someone.
That is incorrect.
"Call-out threads (threads in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another users) are severe examples of direct attacks."
-->
@drafterman
Ok well the purpose of thread was not to attack other users. It was satire, and I thought it was funny.
But yeah. You used to be a champion for free speech, drafterman. So if even you are backing this, I guess there's not much hope.
-->
@Manik
Ok well the purpose of thread was not to attack other users. It was satire, and I thought it was funny.
If I break the law satircally, I have still broken the law.
But yeah. You used to be a champion for free speech, drafterman. So if even you are backing this, I guess there's not much hope.
There was a lot of animus toward bsh that came from a lot of different idealogical camps. It's a natural tenancy to think that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and I think that has resulted in a lot of other people who were anti-bsh thinking I was in line with them ideologically.
As it stands, your Free Speech hasn't been infringed. You are free to continue any appropriate discussion that you would like.
I find it really odd that you are arguing this point. You and I can test it, right here, right now. Pick an approved conversation you think this mods are preventing, and let's have it. You and I. If I agree that it doesn't violate the CoC and the mods nix it, I'll take up the cause.
-->
@drafterman
I think i mixed you up with someone else.
-->
@David
Why is everyone making a big deal about what political ideas the mods have?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The thread began to become toxic and quite a few posts have been reported. That said, we locked it as a way for members to cool down. I have now unlocked the thread.Let me clarify,What rule was broken?Is this the first time this has been done excluding spam threads, moderators threads and callout threads?Why didn't you just suspend the accounts that were toxic instead of locking it?
Sorry, I got a bit busy
1) There were quite a few direct personal attacks in the thread. We decided a cool down period would be helpful. That being said, we will not be using this in the future.
2) I believe so
3) We believed that a ban would be too harsh, especially since there were already complaints about moderation being too heavy. A ban was not appropriate.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Why is everyone making a big deal about what political ideas the mods have?
IDK.
-->
@David
If the same users decide to do this again will you ban them?
Have you privately or publicly messaged the people involved to tell them what they did and what would happen if they continue?