Laissez-Faire Moderation Standards

Author: Tyrone

Posts

Total: 23
Topic's author
#1
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
It's clear that most of this site's users want more relaxed moderation standards. But I'm super libertarian, so I suspect that many wouldn't go as far as I would in relaxing those standards. In order to test that, I thought I'd put my ideal moderation standards out there. Feel free to share your thoughts!

There would be only three cases in which moderators would take action:

1. Harassment of a Specific User
  • "harassment" defined as persistent one-sided initiation of conflict
  • would not apply to flamewars in which both/all sides are equal participants
  • would not apply to insults or slurs in and of themselves
2. Violations of Privacy / Safety
  • includes doxxing, as well as serious threats of IRL harm
3. Spamming and Forum Pollution
  • might apply to a flamewar if it gets to the point where it's derailing multiple threads
  • would justify the creation of rules on where different types of content belong

#2
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,068
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Case in point for why lax moderation is good: has DART ever had as many active threads as it has now that there’s all this drama relating to the moderation? the truth is that internet communities thrive on e-drama 


#3
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,274
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
That's too loose for my taste. Both sides sharing equal guilt in a flamewar doesn't mean it's unnecessary for a mod to step in. I've never seen a one-sided flamewar, so that would in effect mean no flamewars are moderated. They're entertaining as hell, but they can really get out of control.
#4
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
The real problem here is not strict or lax moderation, but unfair and uneven moderation. Any moderation where the mods have no consequence for engaging in abusive behavior, can announce to the board that they trump the owner, and rise to the top of the debate chart, will have disgruntled members.

This isn't just members who think moderation has been too harsh, but who think moderation has been unfair.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5
Laissez-faire moderation is inherently unfair because it is social darwinism. This is proven by every single libertarian nation on earth being wracked with poverty and tyranny by the rich. All Afrcan nations that are not on the Socialist or Fascist end of the spectrum are proof of this.
#6
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
No. That's where you're wrong. Laissez-Faire helps super awkward users who need time to adjust. Under a more strict framework, they might quickly end up doing something that the mods find disagreeable and then vamoosh they're banned. I would not still be on DDO if not for the tremendous amount of patience (or apathy) that airmax showed me, and by extension I would not be here today.
There are others like me. With enough time 95℅ of bad nuts will turn straight.

And let me just add this: sites like this require a core of long-term dedicated users. Since nobody stays active on a website forever, you must be adding to this core with a regular infusion of fresh blood, and that'll be much harder to accomplish if you're not willing to give people a chance.
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Please stop kidding yourself with the Airmax apologist shit. Airmax was a dirt-tier mod who preyed on the socially vulnerable. What the fuck did he help you with? You are some super-optimistic past-alterer if you are trying to tell me Max was patient or kind with you. I know your history, I don't want to dox  you here and can't but stop fucking lying about who he sided with. The only reason he even remotely helped you with Bench is all the altering to him I did behind the scenes as I exposed a ton of shit he never realised Bench was doing to users in private.

I am an extremely experienced internet user and troll. I know what 4-Chan is and how societies like that operate. You want to tell me you're socially awkward that's fine, you'll indeed survive in an enraged state of everyone tell each other they're cocksucking sacks of shit that their mother should have swallowed instead of taking in her womb that night.

The kind of environment lax moderation enables is brutal to social outcasts and forces all social outcasts to become hostile as shit in return. I know you are lying even about your anecdotal shit and I know the only reason it was remotely positive with Max was me, myself and I and what I made Max see in flaws in how merciful he was being to users like Bench and their calculated prodding of users like you until you snapped. I had many alts and many long PM conversations with Max on and off-site on Hangouts. I know him on a level few here do other than ShabShoral and TheHammer.
Topic's author
#8
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
-->
@Castin
They're entertaining as hell, but they can really get out of control. 
What do you mean by "out of control"? Why does it matter if that happens?

#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Tyrone
The fact you even ask that is telling in itself of the mentality with which you have designed your justice system. Yes, it's always subjective when it's out of control, we know that. Justice never is actually objective.
Topic's author
#10
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
-->
@thett3
the truth is that internet communities thrive on e-drama 
Absolutely.
Topic's author
#11
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
RM, I could not care less what you think. You are worthless. Begone!
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Tyrone
^ This is the personality and way the person who is advocating 'better justice system' treats other users.
#13
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
If a mod should not be appointed by member votes, he should not be removed by member votes either. bsh1 has told us that he trumps even the owner, so even if the owner was among a %100 vote against bsh1, he would not be removable.

Bsh1's own behavior will be his undoing. More and more people will find out what he's doing in voting moderation, more and more people will post the PM's he thought would never see the light of day. More and more people will balk at the political correctness he's trying to force down their throats.

This thread is bogus.
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5
Bsh1 is the equivalent of our Mafia's underboss, not the consigliere. This is very crucial (research mafia hierarchy not the game, real mafia). He's not sacred, he's not immovable. He's an underboss to Mike, the godfather, and not a consigliere. People think he's an overbearing consigliere and Mike regards him as highly as one but in reality he's under Mike, who is the ultimate supreme authority and his connection to Mike is not one of 'here come, advise me' but rather one of 'you're directly under me, help me and do my dirty work but feel free to make others do some of that dirty work'.

Bsh1 can be demoted, promoted and fired by Mike. He is not a sacred, super-trusted advisor almost beyond hierarchy in the way a consigliere is. On the other hand, Airmax who began as an underboss with Ore-Ele as his 'favourite Capo' ended up a supreme Consigliere to Juggle and this is the key difference and why Airmax was far more immovable.     
#15
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
While I cannot know everything that transpired under the metaphorical iceberg during the time of the events aforementioned, I suspect that you're definitely overplaying your role in such. If I recall correctly, by the time that I joined DDO you'd already been permabanned. You sporadically created new accounts for various purposes, sometimes to troll and other times to debate. But airmax's policy, as far as I know, was to close any that you made once such came to his attention. I doubt you would've had any sort of clout with him (not to that extent, anyways), seeing as how his objective was to do away with you for good.
Having joined in October 2013, I can attest that I was never banned. Not even once. If I had two accounts open then he'd close one, but that was it.  If you know my history, as you say, then you can attest to how amazing that is, going by how most sites are moderated. He did get irritated with me at times, but I do not recall him ever having said anything to me that, in my opinion, crossed a line. He has always conducted himself professionally to the extent that I have been able to observe. I don't know how he's treated you, but I can attest to my own experiences, of which I am recalling to the best of my ability. I value honesty, be it intellectual or otherwise.

As for Imabench (he's active here so I might not be able to voice everything fully), I can't deny that I did plenty to exacerbate the situation. If I recall, I was sort of the one who started it: first I made a thread putting him "on trial" and then I made an Alt that pretty much parodied him (or his username, at least). Before he did squat to me. Our last flare-up was two and a half years ago, but before that the only person besides airmax who I recall ever helping me deal with him was ESocialBookworm.

I don't know to what extent you are socially "awkward", but it's painfully obvious to everyone here that you have a difficult time getting along with people in general, so I would say that you and I are not far removed.
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
You just don't get it, Airmax was actually scared of Juggle back then and of losing his position. He was so terrified he told me 'I'm sorry please dont' admit you're RM and don't be too abrasive with the popular members' every single time I made an account. He let me be there for as long as I gave 0 hints I was special or weird. He knew who I was and Juggle told him to get rid of me as I was a nuisance and actually due to a vendetta I developed and have never truly overcome psychologically, I was a nuisance at first. I matured over time and don't really care what you say, your anecdotal evidence is complete and utter... Well, let's say self-deceit on the entire matter of laissez-faire moderation.

Airmax was a pick-and-choose moderator. He would be a complete tyrant if the situation suited it and flip into absentee ghetto daddy when it suited him too. He was just a whim-pushed spirit much like the jack sparrow that bench saw himself as. He had little strategy beyond maintaining his position and little morality beyond caring deeply about hurting the socially prominent members of the site. He isn't even a proper example of laissez-faire moderation. Head over to createdebate and see what laissez-faire moderation is right now.
#17
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Tyrone
I personally think the only thing that should be moderated is if and when a person reports someone else. Then, to take the things you said in consideration of that report. If it's not one of the three things you mentioned, he leaves it alone and tells the person that reported it to calm down. 

If what i am saying is too much, then i agree with your three suggestions. 
#18
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
At this point... i hope this site knows we can always go back to DDO. And leave the children that are so scared of some bad words to play by themselves. It sucks bc in one hand it is good that they are moderating so people like Hari will get banned quickly, but on the other hand moderating people that say "fuck off" "you're an idiot" "that was dumb" etc... is really getting on my nerves.
#19
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
Airmax was a pick-and-choose moderator.
It's always the cowards who bad mouth those who aren't here to defend themselves.

#20
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2

I am an extremely experienced internet user and troll.
The latter I would agree wholeheartedly, but why anyone would want to wear that as a badge of honor is baffling and most likely due to the fact they are incapable of rising above it.

Extremely experienced internet user = no life in parents basement?

#21
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,274
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Tyrone
They're entertaining as hell, but they can really get out of control. 
What do you mean by "out of control"? Why does it matter if that happens?
A limitless flamewar can give destructive hate limitless stage time. So I'll interpret this as asking "what does it matter if you give destructive hate limitless stage time"?

  • It spills over into the rest of the forum, like, always. Anytime the two people involved in the flamewar cross paths in any setting, explosion.
  • In extreme cases, it can inflame global controversies which divide the forum into warring cliques that toxify the atmosphere of the site. More stable personalities start saying "ugh, these clique wars have ruined the site" and leaving.
  • When people get pushed to extremes of rage by an endless escalation of hostility, they are way more likely to break rules, start fires, and reject reason in general. Letting a flamewar get out of control is like passing out PCP to your users.
  • Finally people will start getting banned that I really don't want to see banned -- you know the type. Fun as hell to be around, but a knack for getting into trouble, and when they get in a scrap they hold friggin' nothing back. So naturally one of the first to be booted as an agitator. If they fuck up bad enough or persistently enough they wind up permabanned, and now great, the site just got a bit less fun.
Now we all know flamewars are guilty pleasures and they attract attention the same way a car crash does, but you really need to ask what price you're willing to pay for that pleasure and whether it's gonna leave you with more to gain than lose in the long run. Every flamewar, if left unattended, reaches a peak of enjoyment and then bottoms out, and after that point it just ain't fun anymore. But make no mistake -- it will still continue on, both sides locked in a never ending addictive hate loop.
Topic's author
#22
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
-->
@Castin
I share a lot of your concerns, which is why I included that caveat under "Spamming and Forum Pollution." If a flamewar starts derailing numerous threads and poisoning the general atmosphere of the site, then it would warrant moderator intervention. But unless it rises to that level, I just don't see any reason why a moderator needs to get involved. We're all adults here.

#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Tyrone
Actually not everyone here is an adult, we have to set examples but that aside the idea is to contain it before it explodes.