-->
@Wylted
What. I never did this
Mod Issues
Posts
Total:
211
-->
@Vader
I will find it you son of a bitch
-->
@Vader
-->
@Mikal
Engage with me. Why is this done? I know you don't buy into this bullshit. Is it like a mod by mod thing where a certain mod can do what they want?
I support Ragnar's decision to lock that thread based on the rules of the site, to which moderation adheres. For the purposes of the election, certain carveouts for callout threads have been made to allow users to have their say about the candidates. Those don't extend to people who are no longer running.
We can argue about whether the existing rules regarding callout threads are doing more harm than good, but the decision of whether those rules should change rests with the site and not with the moderators. If there is interest enough in changing the rules, then I would be open to having a MEEP about it.
As for whether it is "a mod by mod thing where a certain mod can do what they want", we each have the ability to lock threads and can make calls on that front. We discuss these decisions as a group and decide whether those calls were appropriate and, if necessary, reverse them.
-->
@whiteflame
Let's meep baby
-->
@Mikal
The locking of the thread below is primarily what is wrong with this site and why there is no activity, it's also why airmax should be elected. When 2 people are engaging in a back and forth and participating in it, let it go on.
While there are many, many issues with Mod Policy, and lots of things wrong with its application, including policy on personal attacks - it’s purely laughable to think that this is the reason the site isn’t bigger and hasn’t taken off.
Kialo is has positively Nazi level enforcement of standards - and has taken off. CreateDebate; has almost no rules and has degenerated into an almost pathological hive of scum and villainy. With no meaningful debate and user-ship.
The success, or lack thereof of this site has nothing to do with its moderation and how it’s applied.
If you want to pretend that moderation is the issue, that simply turning down an objectively low level of moderation will make things better, that if only we didn’t lock threads of one guy calling another a c**t that this site would have a million users, you’re simply kidding yourself.
I mean come on, does anyone even believe this?
If airmax becomes president. Great, moderation will become more lassaiz fair, less interventions. The site will be just as dead in a year as it is now, with the 20 active users we have bitching about something completely different - with RM continuing to bitch about exactly the same thing.
This is not 2008 any more, and we shouldn’t pretend it is. We shouldn’t pretend that if we build it they will come. People aren’t going to find us; relying on Googles algorithms is no better.
The only tying that will make this site succeed is critical mass and marketing. Enough user base to drive content, to attract more, to raise rankings, to keep regulars coming back. I’ve donated hundreds of dollars to the upkeep of this site, and would keep sound so if it went towards ads, or marketing.
I mean ffs. We’re competing with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook as social platforms - we need to be pushing the debate aspect; using that as an USP, and building upon it; not haggling over how many week ban I should get if I called RM a histrionic chuff muncher.
I don’t come back as often as I did because the site is crammed with greyparrot acting like the new brontoraptor, Wylted polluting the forums with nutjobbery, and a whole shit ton of people who will block you when they can’t argue with you any more. There’s nothing engaging, no reason for and to keep responding, rarel decent debates, and I’m too lazy to think of my own.
You’re all arguing about niche issues of niche individuals complaining about people insulting them, when the real issue is the complete lack of user engagement, outreach, linking, proportion. We should be blitzing Twitter, parler, gab. We should be forcing down the throat of every argumentative asshole on the internet that this is the site where people are wrong in the internet. This site should be flooding the internet with argument tinder. Greyparrot random bullshit of the day, Wylted railing on Jews, flat earthers, creationists - rage inducing click bait.
But backed up with multiple thetts and Oromagis. Who can drill home points and keep people engaged.
This argument about the presidency is arguing about the best way of polishing the deckchairs on the titanic.
Only 29 people on the site care about the moderation, it’s not a barrier.
If we want to grow this site, If we want to see this site become as successful as ddo was even close to its prime - it’s not moderation - it’s going to take a lot of our efforts to market the site whilst figuring our ways to generate engaging content. Light the match, pour on the gas, build enough tinder.
If we want to grow this site, If we want to see this site become as successful as ddo was even close to its prime - it’s not moderation - it’s going to take a lot of our efforts to market the site whilst figuring our ways to generate engaging content. Light the match, pour on the gas, build enough tinder.
But if it is an anarchic wasteland of trolls, no amount of marketing will help unless this is to become a Chan-type site.
You and I actually agree but you just want to pretend you are against me. We agree so much on this topic in fact.
-->
@Mikal
I will follow this up with the fact that lassaiz faire - and through inaction airmax killed the politics forum on ddo.
There was engaging, consistent debate; vocal disagreements, name calling, etc: the. Brontoraptor spammed the fuck out of it with dozens of daily lazy posts, with outrageous right wing hyperbolae, links - etc, with no ability or willingness to engage on anything; and over the period of a several months drove almost every single last qualified user of that forum.
That’s exactly what happened to createdebate. Moderation moved out, and the crazies willing to bombard the site with non stop propoganda posting drove every rational person of that site.
The risk of too little moderation is so much more of a risk on a site with already relatively low activity than the other way around.
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree with Ramshutu. I come on here to read thett's and oro's and some choice few others' posts. The rest of these threads are an ugly bore.
@Ramshutu
You're a programmer, right? Why doesn't this site appear on google search? If you search "online debate website," DDO is there, Kialo is there, even edeb8 is there.
@RM
You’re a big part is the problem. If I was a genuine debate, wanting to try my hand at a first debate; then had you predating the debate, launching into the weird left field rambling debates that you do - i’d probably yeet myself out of this site and never come back. I can’t imagine how many new users you’ve drive off this site by being, well, you.
On the other hand you’re also essential. You’re the in-joke that all regular users get. The histrionic drama train wreck tyat everyone else wants to watch to. You generate drama, content and engagement - but only for people who are already power users of this site.
That also why I twice personally intervened to make sure you weren’t perma banned…
You’re not always wrong: but from everything I can see you’re too concerned with the wrong thing. The issue is content and engagement - not moderation.
So nice how you degrade me and try to make me feel shit. The biggest joke is actually you, you see you may dislike my left-field engaging arguments in debates but you just bombard them hardcore for a win and don't make it fun for them but you only used to.
The reason it's dead? You and users like you. You ditched it, didn't post a thing for years, didn't help the site at all and the most your activity does is bully any eccentric users away.
What you are is all talk. The coward who doesn't want to stand out in any way that points and laughs at somebody who does, even when agreeing with him. Everybody can ridicule a guy as an in-joke when they themselves are the stale wallpaper, it's like dissing some eccentric furniture in the room when you are? Yep, the wallpaper, I just said it.
-->
@badger
The answer is a combination of site rankings, usership, etc: Chicken and the egg.
But it’s the wrong question.
Even if we were top of that ranking, how many people would we attract if we were top? Not as much as you may think.
One viral retweet could generate as much initial traffic as being on top of that search for a year.
Our problems aren’t found to be solved by moderation - only a consistent period of marketing outreach and systematic effort of content creation to attract and maintain a user base is going to work.
-->
@Ramshutu
The question is not the why, but the how. How are we going to get more people to engage? How will we try to achieve the top of said bar to set
-->
@Ramshutu
The answer is a combination of site rankings, usership, etc: Chicken and the egg.But it’s the wrong question.
If edeb8 is appearing there, it's a freebie.
I arrived on DDO first day after googling something similar. People like to argue, they'll search it out. DDO had pretty considerable traffic and I don't remember much marketing.
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re all arguing about niche issues of niche individuals complaining about people insulting them, when the real issue is the complete lack of user engagement, outreach, linking, proportion. We should be blitzing Twitter, parler, gab. We should be forcing down the throat of every argumentative asshole on the internet that this is the site where people are wrong in the internet. This site should be flooding the internet with argument tinder. Greyparrot random bullshit of the day, Wylted railing on Jews, flat earthers, creationists - rage inducing click bait.
I agree that those would be good places to target, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing someone who haunts those corners of the internet to give this site a try while you have a hate speech rule on the books. Why invest in this site, which is much smaller than Parler and Gab, when we have the exact same sort of rules that can get you banned off of any other forum on the internet for, say, questioning transgenderism, with only the restraint of the mods preventing it from being applied in that way? Not many people will have a conniption over mods moderating spam or other things which make life universally unpleasant. But I know that, personally, the only thing that has me posting here is a lingering connection to DDO; those two words anywhere in a TOS are usually a deal-breaker because of how easily they can be abused and misapplied. I think the TOS should be retuned to specifically ban things like the Brontoraptor situation (spamming topics and derailing threads incessantly) while leaving zero wiggle room for mods when it comes to ideological content.
Frankily it is a tough decision to ask. I doubt that DART has the funding to launch a massive ad campaign on the internet to promote site activity. It isn't backed by a major company like Juggle was
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I believe you are referring to this section...
5. If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall:a) FIRST, request the user cease & desist such behavior.b) IF adequate time passes and A is ignored by the user, OR IF the user complied initially after A but again unapologetically engages in unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall issue a 30 day ban and repeat A.c) IF the user continues to defy moderation after the 30 day ban, moderation shall issue a 90 day ban and then repeat A.d) ALL additional infractions after C shall be met with bans according the formulay=6(x2)y=6(x^2)y=6(x2)where "y" equals ban time in months and "x" equals the number of infractions after C.
We are hosting soon after the election is over to reform this set of rules. Please do vote on it
@rm
I have been the primary financial contributor to this site over the last 3 years - including over the period where I have been less active due to primarily to the birth of a child, primarily because I believe that this site could be successful, and don’t want it to fail simply because it’s too costly for mike - because we all need a place where we can come and call Ragnar an asshole.
I degrade you because you have no sense of humour and have a pathological inability to either laugh at yourself or accept criticism, and I find poking that bear to be more than hilarious.
Like I said; I appreciate your value and have talked the mods down from perma banning you because of it: because of that value to this site
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
If you're not Skep who the hell are you lol.
And where's Skep.
-->
@Vader
The question is not the why, but the how. How are we going to get more people to engage? How will we try to achieve the top of said bar to set
Now that is the right question. The first time the right question has been asked.
But I know that, personally, the only thing that has me posting here is a lingering connection to DDO;
It's all over.
-->
@Ramshutu
I think on balance I agree with most of this. Airmax already has ideas for targeted marketing and how to hit the google algorithm. Almost everything you just typed, he is familiar with and has ideas on how to implement it. Moderation being over zealous though, actually does cause harm and it's a large portion of why the site is the way it is. Why was DDO active because it had a massive core user base who loved to engage each other, debate, argue, fight, troll etc. The generic content that was created by having such an active core drove the site. Why are those people not here now? Some came over, and a lot left because of how overly moderated the site is. A lot of those core members contributed to DDO being successful because of the content, topics, and debates they were doing. Same issue applies with new people. Who is going to want to join a site if when they get into an argument, its almost asap thread locked if they get heated. Like face book comment sections are worse than the stuff that gets locked here
I do agree with everything you posted though, with the extension that once you get those people thoroughly advertising and marketing you need a culture that keeps them around. I told whiteflame this earlier, but I think moderation would be better off if it was arbitrary and based off his choices and what he thought was appropriate as head moderator. You can't always draw a line and enforce it objectively, each case is different and has aspects as to how it should be handled. Moderation needs to work on when to apply and not apply bans and lock topics and it's an easy fix
but yes everything you said is accurate past that.
-->
@Lunatic
@Mikal
Responding to the first few posts...
The election is new, and various rules will likely have to be refined. That said, two things I hope we can keep:
- "Criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
- "Moderation reserves the rights to: Interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized."
There is currently rule against callout threads. It's not one that gets enforced when they are aimed at staff members, and due to the reasonable person standard I don't think we need to expand it for precise stipulations. If you're on staff, or petitioning to be, you painted the target on your chest; so should seek to show the necessary qualification of thick skin... I will add that there are limitations to how much crap staff should put up with.
To me callout threads while problematic in it of themselves, are a major red flag for other issues. Thankfully they are easy to deter without taking sides in whatever dispute. Further, locking them keeps the main forum from looking like a darkest timeline version of the personal forum.
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
I support Ragnar's decision to lock that thread based on the rules of the site, to which moderation adheres. For the purposes of the election, certain carveouts for callout threads have been made to allow users to have their say about the candidates. Those don't extend to people who are no longer running.We can argue about whether the existing rules regarding callout threads are doing more harm than good, but the decision of whether those rules should change rests with the site and not with the moderators. If there is interest enough in changing the rules, then I would be open to having a MEEP about it.As for whether it is "a mod by mod thing where a certain mod can do what they want", we each have the ability to lock threads and can make calls on that front. We discuss these decisions as a group and decide whether those calls were appropriate and, if necessary, reverse them.
This and this
Responding to the first few posts...The election is new, and various rules will likely have to be refined. That said, two things I hope we can keep:
- "Criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
- "Moderation reserves the rights to: Interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized."
There is currently rule against callout threads. It's not one that gets enforced when they are aimed at staff members, and due to the reasonable person standard I don't think we need to expand it for precise stipulations. If you're on staff, or petitioning to be, you painted the target on your chest; so should seek to show the necessary qualification of thick skin... I will add that there are limitations to how much crap staff should put up with.To me callout threads while problematic in it of themselves, are a major red flag for other issues. Thankfully they are easy to deter without taking sides in whatever dispute. Further, locking them keeps the main forum from looking like a darkest timeline version of the personal forum.
Both of these seem to being saying a similar thing, in that what was done was "right" because of a technicality that was arbitrarily decided by moderation, that call out threads should get locked regardless of context and other call out threads don't get locked because you also arbitrarily decided that political candidates can take it more than others can. Considering the call out thread in question was a former political candidate himself, it seems he gets off on a pass, or a technicality.
Thing is I don't want airmax's call out thread banned either, the purpose of me calling it out isn't to say "This person should get equal treatment" (though not neccesarily a goal mods shouldn't be trying to attain), but "We are all adults here and can decide what goes to far without having to refer to the official rulebook to see if we are semantically justified".
"Moderation reserves the rights to: Interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized."
Ragnar uses this example, but in the opposite way it should be used. There is too much blurry lines and grey area when you arbitrarily decide to enforce the rules in some cases and not the other. Wouldn't it be simpler to use this discretionary modding privelege in a way that makes your job easier? The way that makes your job easier is simply not locking the thread at all. If you really feel the thread needs to be looked at, then look at the context first and always moderate in the way of "less action" over "more action".
If people are spamming and abusing site functions like the "report" feature, you don't glorify the reporter by getting vexxed and just taking his word for it. If you need to remove privileges to report than do it, but don't punish the person they are accusing of if you aren't aware of the context. Ragnar admitted to me in DM's he was only aware of 10-20% percent of the context, and he likes it that way because whiteflame is now the head guy in charge. But whiteflame didn't lock the thread. RAGNAR did. See the issue?
And sorry to keep on the "calling ragnar out" train, (try to look at this as advice, not me being a dick please), but another thing ragnar asked me in my DM's was to edit a post that accused me of doxxing. I logically pointed out to ragnar how that post wasn't actually doxing, he agreed with me about that, but still asked that I edit the post just to save the drama. It's not that I am not willing to help do something that takes 2 minutes, it's that I shouldn't have to. You guys are valuing the reporters actions instead of viewing the context of the situation. I am suggesting to make your job easier and ignore dumb reports from people like RM in general especially if you agree with me that the nature of the report was bogus. What kind of backwards ass logic is it to make the guy who was falslely accused of doxxing edit a post when the post doesn't harm anyone to begin with?
I know you guys have the best intentions. I really do. I know moderation is not an easy job, and it's a pain in the ass. I am suggesting you use discretionary practice in rule enforcement as much as possible, because as ragnar just admitted in this thread, you guys have the ability to. No need for MEEP's or any of that bull crap. You guys can literally do it right now.
Again: "Moderation reserves the rights to: Interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized."
-->
@Ramshutu
While there are many, many issues with Mod Policy, and lots of things wrong with its application, including policy on personal attacks - it’s purely laughable to think that this is the reason the site isn’t bigger and hasn’t taken off.Kialo is has positively Nazi level enforcement of standards - and has taken off. CreateDebate; has almost no rules and has degenerated into an almost pathological hive of scum and villainy. With no meaningful debate and user-ship.The success, or lack thereof of this site has nothing to do with its moderation and how it’s applied.If you want to pretend that moderation is the issue, that simply turning down an objectively low level of moderation will make things better, that if only we didn’t lock threads of one guy calling another a c**t that this site would have a million users, you’re simply kidding yourself.I mean come on, does anyone even believe this?If airmax becomes president. Great, moderation will become more lassaiz fair, less interventions. The site will be just as dead in a year as it is now, with the 20 active users we have bitching about something completely different - with RM continuing to bitch about exactly the same thing.This is not 2008 any more, and we shouldn’t pretend it is. We shouldn’t pretend that if we build it they will come. People aren’t going to find us; relying on Googles algorithms is no better.The only tying that will make this site succeed is critical mass and marketing. Enough user base to drive content, to attract more, to raise rankings, to keep regulars coming back. I’ve donated hundreds of dollars to the upkeep of this site, and would keep sound so if it went towards ads, or marketing.I mean ffs. We’re competing with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook as social platforms - we need to be pushing the debate aspect; using that as an USP, and building upon it; not haggling over how many week ban I should get if I called RM a histrionic chuff muncher.I don’t come back as often as I did because the site is crammed with greyparrot acting like the new brontoraptor, Wylted polluting the forums with nutjobbery, and a whole shit ton of people who will block you when they can’t argue with you any more. There’s nothing engaging, no reason for and to keep responding, rarel decent debates, and I’m too lazy to think of my own.You’re all arguing about niche issues of niche individuals complaining about people insulting them, when the real issue is the complete lack of user engagement, outreach, linking, proportion. We should be blitzing Twitter, parler, gab. We should be forcing down the throat of every argumentative asshole on the internet that this is the site where people are wrong in the internet. This site should be flooding the internet with argument tinder. Greyparrot random bullshit of the day, Wylted railing on Jews, flat earthers, creationists - rage inducing click bait.But backed up with multiple thetts and Oromagis. Who can drill home points and keep people engaged.This argument about the presidency is arguing about the best way of polishing the deckchairs on the titanic.Only 29 people on the site care about the moderation, it’s not a barrier.If we want to grow this site, If we want to see this site become as successful as ddo was even close to its prime - it’s not moderation - it’s going to take a lot of our efforts to market the site whilst figuring our ways to generate engaging content. Light the match, pour on the gas, build enough tinder.
I both agree and dis-agree with you on some of this stuff.
I agree that the path to more activity doesn't rely on fixing moderation alone, that is purely a baseline. Marketing, making this site more appealing, developments, all that stuff is awesome and will help bring activity. There is obviously a limited amount we can actually do to influence those factors. You have donated a lot to the site it sounds like, and still we see the website is stagnated. The reason I am not pouring a bunch of money into the website myself anymore, is because the developer pretty much said that it doesn't help influence the speed of updates. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6401-patreon-and-useful-updates
"But bluntly put, Patreon money will never be enough to hire an additional developer, for example. I could change the priorities of the features according to the donations, and most likely the extra money would go into advertising the site. "
The lack of updates and marketing are due mostly to a lack of his own free time. Which is why I say we focus on what we can focus on.
I like your example of "polishing the deck on the titanic", but I would say maybe we are "greasing the engine" instead. Fixing moderation won't fix the ship entirely but maybe it will help to bring in more members.
I can speak for myself and mikal, maybe a few other DDO vets that no longer play here but still join for mafia in saying that I don't want to spend my time in a community where I feel like I can't actually engage in debate. You seem to agree based on issues like being blocked because you tried to have an intelligent converation with RM. Blocking feature on a debate site is kind of stupid, though, especially if it's not an end all be all for moderation. If people can block each other already why do we really need to do any sort of moderating right?
But one thing that encourages more people is to already have at least some people. The people who take issues with moderation regularly don't really post or engage on the site because it isn't actually a debate site. I for example would feel much more inclined to post debates, advertise the site to friends and family, participate in community events, etc if moderation were to take a back seat to basically every issue that doesn't encourage doxxing. Because that already isn't a thing, we are isolating half of an already dead community, since a good portion of the members here come from DDO, a site where you were able to do all that.
So no, fixing moderation issues isn't going to make this website bring in the numbers of other social media platforms like facebook and twitter. But debate is a pretty niche hobby interest, so I wouldn't set expectations for something that grande anyway. I would be perfectly happy with a small comfortable, yet active community. By small, I mean at least 10x the activity of the current community here. If we were able to get more than that, that would be cool too.
But we have to focus on what we can control, and threads like this help to do that. Getting moderation to become more laissez faire will increase activity, I guarantee you. Users have to feel like they can freely say what they want, no matter how controversial their take is. Ironically on DDO, people with controversial opinions were often shut down argumentatively by the users, the community even bonded in many situations by using our free speech to point out how wrong these people are. Moderation shouldn't have to have anything to do with that.
So I guess if your standards are "we need to be as big as facebook" fixing moderation issues won't solve that. But if you want a free thinking community thats even twice as active as our current one is, then "Greasing the engine" here through presidential elections and threads encouraging responsible moderation are a very good start.
<3
-->
@Mikal
Just read your post, we seem to have said much of the same thing. "One thing you brought up that I didn't is this: once you get those people through advertising and marketing you need a culture that keeps them around."
That is a great point as well. Getting the members is one thing, keeping them around is another. I agree that a less restrictive environment is more likely to keep these users around.
-->
@Lunatic
look at the context first and always moderate in the way of "less action" over "more action".
Generally agreed.
Ragnar admitted to me in DM's he was only aware of 10-20% percent of the context, ...
100% true to this context... I really felt the need to say that before it gets taken out of context.
...and he likes it that way because whiteflame is now the head guy in charge. But whiteflame didn't lock the thread. RAGNAR did. See the issue?
I don't believe understanding the full context for why someone makes a callout thread is essential when we have a SOP for them. If misapplied, another moderator can unlock it with a single click.
asked me in my DM's was to edit a post that accused me of doxxing. ... What kind of backwards ass logic is it to make the guy who was falslely accused of doxxing edit a post when the post doesn't harm anyone to begin with?
I'll stand by the request (and yes, it's just a request). I don't think you would be put through any significant trouble to quickly clean it up, and it decreases the worry (valid or not) of the guy.
No need for MEEP's or any of that bull crap.
While referendums can and should be simplified down, there's still great utility in opening things up for discussion with the greater community in the general referendum process.
I will add that to the theme of what you're saying, not all rules get enforced, such as the old "no insults" rule, which was present in an earlier CoC, but to my knowledge was absolutely never enforced. On this, I'll repeat your "less action" over "more action" pitch; while not always cracking down on every technical CoC violation is very much to the benefit of the site, it would be harmful to ban people over things not present (nor implied) in the CoC.
-->
@Barney
...and he likes it that way because whiteflame is now the head guy in charge. But whiteflame didn't lock the thread. RAGNAR did. See the issue?I don't believe understanding the full context for why someone makes a callout thread is essential when we have a SOP for them. If misapplied, another moderator can unlock it with a single click.
Again, SOP goes out the window when you admit moderation gets to arbitrarily decide how to make exceptions to that rule, case in point, RM's callout thread for airmax. The typical response given about "This is already in the rules" is therefor not a good enough response, considering you have shown that you can use discretion. A better response is to explain in great detail why this is such an important rule to upkeep in general. "An expectation for less thick skin" is not a valid response, as the member in the thread was previously a candidate himself. You are arguing a technicality if you bring up he is no longer a presidential candidate, and there for are not making a very good case for why call out threads should be banned in general.
Whiteflame agreed in the discord that RM was starting the "conflict" up again each time and also stuck to his guns about the the SOP argument you just applied. To get to the bottom of this we need a clear understanding of how my thread was overall more harmful than his thread against airmax. Or you could admit the wiser option was to just let the thread be.
asked me in my DM's was to edit a post that accused me of doxxing. ... What kind of backwards ass logic is it to make the guy who was falslely accused of doxxing edit a post when the post doesn't harm anyone to begin with?I'll stand by the request (and yes, it's just a request). I don't think you would be put through any significant trouble to quickly clean it up, and it decreases the worry (valid or not) of the guy.
Standing by your request (I respectfully decline btw) doesn't address my point in the slightest. You agreed that the doxxing request is bullsh1t, so why go through the unnessecary steps of having me edit them in the first place? "Decreasing the worry of the guy" does not explain why reducing his worry is the most important value here. It seems moderation could have stayed out of this situation completely. Requesting I change a post, while not requiring it, is still mod intervention. Publicly warning me about ettique is mod intervention. Just because I am not banned as a result of any of this doesn't make a difference. You are setting a standard that the reporter is automatically the victim while maintaining you do not read context. You see how harmful a precedent this sets?
No need for MEEP's or any of that bull crap.While referendums can and should be simplified down, there's still great utility in opening things up for discussion with the greater community in the general referendum process.I will add that to the theme of what you're saying, not all rules get enforced, such as the old "no insults" rule, which was present in an earlier CoC, but to my knowledge was absolutely never enforced. On this, I'll repeat your "less action" over "more action" pitch; while not always cracking down on every technical CoC violation is very much to the benefit of the site, it would be harmful to ban people over things not present (nor implied) in the CoC.
Correct which is again why I am only suggesting you use discretion for less, not more, moderation.
-->
@Lunatic
As I pointed out in the Discord chat, I do think that circumstances with regards to the election do require moderation to make judgement calls, so to the extent that we're talking about what moderation could have done in this instance, we're agreed that it was within our capacities to act without involving a MEEP. I think a MEEP would address broader issues of how the site, and therefore we as moderation, should view callout threads that would help standardize our responses to them, but within the context of the election at least, I can see why mods must have increased discretion (given that the election process is new to the site and not all the rules were solidly established).
With regards to whether we should have locked this particular thread, I'll make my opinion clear. Personally, I think that instances like this where each side has instigated a back and forth that has persisted in some form over the course of several days, I couldn't view it as harassment, even if RM does. The policy regarding callout threads is there to prevent harassment, and in instances where they are one-sided (i.e. one side has consistently instigated and makes the callout thread, despite repeated requests to stop from the other party and a lack of engagement from them), I think locks on callout threads are warranted. It's a whole lot harder to justify in an instance where interactions are two-sided, largely because it's just an extension of what has been going on in other threads bubbling over into a new thread. That can be a bit spammy at times, but I don't think it necessarily warrants locking the thread, and I wouldn't say that this rose to the level of spam.
Creating less work for ourselves isn't a priority, though I wouldn't say that this was tremendously involved. Rather than a question of how much work it creates for us, though, it seems that your point is that we shouldn't be putting the onus of one user's behavior on others. To that end, I agree that we shouldn't value the reporter over the context of what's being reported. We don't just take the reporter's word for it that a given response is warranted, though I'll fully admit that we don't always come to a decision having become fully aware of the context. So, when it comes to this decision, I respect that there were good reasons to let the thread stand as it was. I also find it somewhat difficult to know where we as moderation should draw the line with regards to what is appropriate within the election period as compared with what is appropriate in general, which becomes more difficult to know when the target of criticism is no longer a candidate. It was simple for us to establish a carve out for existing candidates and agree that it was appropriate for them to be the target of callout threads. We had not established a similar carve out for active participants in the election who are not (or are no longer) candidates. This is something we should have discussed, especially given the blurred lines you mentioned. And I respect as well that, in the face of uncertainty, it may have been better not to intervene. We employ that standard in other areas of moderation, so this wouldn't have been the first time.
That being said, we are trying to balance discretion pertinent to the election with adherence to the standards as they exist. Though this thread is only pertinent within the context of the election, if a similar thread existed outside of the election period, its context wouldn't affect our decision with regards to locking it. Applying that type of decision-making here may not have been the best move, but we're new to leading this process ourselves and learning from it. I don't say this to excuse our call - and for all that people are making this Ragnar's responsibility, it is our call, Ragnar just acted on it - but just to give some insight into what we've been considering before and after we made that call. If it leads to bigger changes (both to how and where moderation acts) that improve the site far beyond this election, all the better for it.
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@airmax1227
@Mikal
You made the right call, I have been continually harassed by him and if you think I'm the insigator, you're not thinking back far enough in the past couple weeks.
I can show you an instance in the past day alone, after that incident, where he replies to Ramshutu insulting me and provoking me to defend myself.
He enjoys spreading shit about others and acting like he's the only one who can. I still want an RO between us.
In Lunatic's opinion if you are 'aggressive' in any way, he is able to be as rude and as nasty as he pleases to 'defend' against you which in his brain equals winning the argument as to him the aggression behind his post equals strength of argument made and if he gets the last word in a thread (which he confuses semantically to be last word cross-site in all exchanges) he thinks he therefore is the ultimate 'winner' of all arguments you've been having as he's 'broken' you mentally.
What kind of person do you exactly think this is and how positive will they be for the website in the long run? This is a person who has just explicitly, for the umpteenth time, promised that unless his chosen candidate wins, he'll throw a strop (threatening a tantrum) and cry about the website and leave us.
I'm pretty fucking tired of this attitude Airmax and these 2 have, like ohhhh big bad Airmax if we don't vote him we're such ungrateful brats for the guy who didn't do jack shit for us the past few years ohhhh we will give you the win so you are appeased. You aren't special anymore, you're a background character. I'm only supporting their tantrum-based bargaining because I want the site to get popular and no other candidate gives that as a hard campaign promise.