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).
100%
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.
This is stiill a better outlook on it then I've seen from the other mods so far so I will take it. But to take it to another level, even in situations where you described I think mod intervention isn't neccesarily, especially with the addition of the blocking feature. I think it's on the onus of the party to just ignore the other person at that point. That particular example doesn't apply to this situation however as it seems you agree.
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.
Thankyou. Any chance you can unlock that thread in light of this?
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.
Thankyou.
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.
In regards to trying to figure out a line and where to draw it, I think less is better. I would focus attention probably only on serious stuff, like doxxing (real doxxing, not what RM thinks is doxxing), and abuse of site functions like forum spam, vote bombing etc. Saves you a lot of unneccary controversy when making decisions like this, and opens more avenues for users to debate and prove why they are right instead of having mods intervene for them.
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.
I am not calling out ragnar just for the sake of calling him out, I have been dm'ing him on discord and talking about this professionally with him. There is no animosity between he and I, we go way back and I consider him a friend. I was asked to be a mod a couple years ago, and I said no specifically because I didn't want to refrain from being able to post how I want. I can be very professional and stone faced when neccesary but it kind of ruins the fun of a site like this for me, I found out when I was president. Anyways, I was invited to that discord to be an advisor, so that's all I am trying to do is advice. My critique of ragnar is and always has been that he is very well meaning, very hard working, but sometimes makes decisions without entirely thinking them through, such as what happened here. I am only suggesting more caution when taking moderation action in the future, especially since both of you have seemed to agree with me that this dispute isn't as one sided as RM keeps attempting to spin it.
Thanks for your response whiteflame, I have nothing but respect for you.
