|
Harold Fjord posted:The problem is that aside from a few very specific posters who should already be topping the ignore lists anyway, no one can really agree on what deserves to be moderated and where lines are in debating the finer nuances of "the worst day in American history" or whatever thing it is unacceptable to disagree about. Worst X of Topic Y is catnip for posters who like to style on people. Its like whenever someone posts pic of a celebrity without a name- the ones who don't want to pipe up are not going to post.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Still not seeing where this is all poo poo posting and not just having a nuances take that you disagree with Are you arguing that the several posters you previously said should be at the top of everyone's ignore list just have nuanced takes you disagree with, then? Because right now I don't really understand what your take is on things or what you are actually arguing. Im not even sure I'm interpreting your sentence there correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you arguing that the several posters you previously said should be at the top of everyone's ignore list just have nuanced takes you disagree with, then? I edited to be clear I was responding directly to jarmak. The broader point is that one person's nuanced minutia is another person's Rubicon of acceptable differences of opinion, and that's a good example. Here a post from Maj breaking it down at the time. Majorian posted:Where we're disagreeing is, A, whether or not it had any chance of leading to Trumpian absolutist fascist rule over the U.S. (imo it didn't), and B, whether or not Trump whipping up the crowd is, "without question, the most evil, dangerous behavior exhibited by any American president in history," which was the original claim. (a claim that the person who made it backtracked soon afterwards). I don't think the latter part is something that that can end in anything but endless debate, as with all arguments rooted in personal value judgements, but it's not poo poo posting. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
if the current mod team can't handle uspol, either bring in more or different mods. majorian for god knows what reason actually reads and participates in uspol, bump them up to mod
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Most of the worst USPol posters actually agree with me about most of the things they make lovely posts about. Which is why I have been so opposed to any sort of ideological split, it would basically silo me in with a bunch of people whose posts I want to avoid reading. While some people here definitely seem to be taking a tack of "get rid of people who disagree with me about stuff" I don't think thats the sentiment of most folks. a real poll would get trashed instantly but I'd love to see if there is even one poster in D&D where someone disagrees with universal healthcare or tax increases for the rich or had a real preference for any politician but bernie sanders (or maybe warren). So much of the worst of the USpol thread and D&D in general is people just saying the most the most mean and vile stuff at people that hold near identical political positions but one guy has decided everyone on earth but them is a nazi chud lib.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
Can we not spend every moment of this thread doing public commentary and relitigation on yesterday's USPol arguments? Please? This thread is asking for feedback on systemic changes to be made to USPol. It's not here for slow-mo replays of your favorite recent slapfights, and it's certainly not here for you to yell at or dump on the posters you personally hate. If we're not going to get any more useful feedback on how to change the rules and systems, then this thread isn't accomplishing anything other than being a honeypot for people to act out exactly why USPol sucks so much. And since I know there's been some highly repeated ideas here, I'm gonna shoot from the hip and give my personal responses to them. Everything I say in this post is just my own stance, I haven't checked to see if it's the unified opinion of the mod team or not. Your systemic feedback is that we should give bigger punishments to more bad posters? Cool, PM the admins and tell them to let us bring back Guyovich's D&D purges where he'd pick a day and randomly ban everyone the mods thought were bad. Don't think that's a good idea? Well, that's essentially what you're asking for, because moderation is inherently subjective. It's impossible to totally remove the subjectivity, but by constraining it by a system and layers of oversight, it can at least be prevented from becoming Lowtax-style Calvinball. Your systemic feedback is that we need a lightly-moderated chat space with few rules? There's already a dedicated chat thread in D&D, and there's already an entire dedicated forum for lightly-moderated politics chat. Your systemic feedback is that the moderators should be around more often, see more posts, and make sure that no rule violation ever escapes moderation? Great! Unfortunately, there's a very limited number of people who are smart enough to be decent D&D posters yet also dumb enough to want to put that star-shaped bullseye on their back and deal with angry PMs all day, so I'd appreciate if you stop driving off our IKs with dumb bullshit. Yeah, I know, there's an IK or two that you absolutely hate the politics or posting style of. Unfortunately, it's impossible to find candidates who'll please everyone. It's even harder than that to find candidates who are level-headed and want to put up with people's crap all day without just probing them. It's even harder than that to find someone who's deeply involved in the D&D community yet also curates their online presence heavily enough to avoid being doxxed (something that's been a quiet but consistent problem in the politics forums). And the cliquishness in D&D is so bad that literally anyone we pick will be perceived by some clique as being part of a rival clique and relentlessly targeted. If you think you can square these circles, then I encourage you to PM the admins (particularly Athanatos) your ideas on good IK/mod candidates. Sorry if I'm getting a little too heated right now! I'm actually quite frustrated lately at the fact that USPol seems to absolutely demand and require 24/7 mod coverage, usually over the absolute pettiest poo poo. Who the gently caress thinks that's reasonable? I'm a janitor, not a babysitter. The role of a mod should be to clean up occasional messes and give threads the occasional prod, not to hover over your shoulders all day making sure you don't choke yourselves or each other with your own toys. In the first place, there aren't any toddlers on this site. Everyone here should be perfectly capable of being reasonable adults toward each other, people are just utterly refusing to. I'm devoting hours of my day to breaking up assholes' drunken screaming matches, and it's not exactly giving me the feeling of being part of a wonderful and enjoyable community.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
I'm curious if the mod tools have some sort of graphs for probes/reports in threads and what the numbers look like pre/post GE thread closing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I'm curious if the mod tools have some sort of graphs for probes/reports in threads and what the numbers look like pre/post GE thread closing. The mod tools are almost capable of displaying a reported post and report reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:With the general election over it now generates easily 90% of both the reports and probations in the subforum, I'm curious about something regarding the reports: What is the ratio of legitimately bad posts vs eye rolling attempts at involving mods into slapfights in there? Would measures that improve that signal-to-noise ratio help somewhat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Stress words So, firstly, maybe if you're so aggro to the user base of D&D, it's time you step back for your own wellness. That said, maybe more IKs isn't a solution, but it can be part of it: IK Jury Duty. If you want to post in the USPol thread, you enter your name into the biweekly IK drawing. You're name comes up, your IK for two weeks. Reduce burnout, and create IKs that are accountable to the thread because when they're to weeks are up, they lose there buttons and become a nobody poster like everyone else in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Can we not spend every moment of this thread doing public commentary and relitigation on yesterday's USPol arguments? Please? This thread is asking for feedback on systemic changes to be made to USPol. It's not here for slow-mo replays of your favorite recent slapfights, and it's certainly not here for you to yell at or dump on the posters you personally hate. If we're not going to get any more useful feedback on how to change the rules and systems, then this thread isn't accomplishing anything other than being a honeypot for people to act out exactly why USPol sucks so much. It's been doing that for 19 pages. At this point most people have put their opinions out there on what they think the systemic issues are so there's not much else to talk about other then argue about whose take on what the systemic issues are is correct so what do you expect other than people finding examples from the thread to back up their arguments. If all you want out of this thread is novel ideas detached from specific controversies I think this thread has run it's productive course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Can we not spend every moment of this thread doing public commentary and relitigation on yesterday's USPol arguments? Please? This thread is asking for feedback on systemic changes to be made to USPol. It's not here for slow-mo replays of your favorite recent slapfights, and it's certainly not here for you to yell at or dump on the posters you personally hate. If we're not going to get any more useful feedback on how to change the rules and systems, then this thread isn't accomplishing anything other than being a honeypot for people to act out exactly why USPol sucks so much. The argument is that you would lighten your own workload if, instead of just being reactive and handing out endless 6ers that have no effect on the underlying problem, you would proactively identify the minority of dickheads instigating most of the reports you have to respond to and just threadban/ban/perma the dumb fucks already. Just spitballing here, if I had the same dickhead's name keep popping up in my workflow every goddamn day, I would want to make them gently caress off forever just in my own selfish self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:if the current mod team can't handle uspol, either bring in more or different mods. imo having a mod heavily involved in the activity of a thread they ostensibly moderate is not a great idea, especially when it's a politics subforum it's going to be difficult for anyone to remain a neutral and unbiased arbiter of discussion in a thread where they're knee-deep in the discussion
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The argument is that you would lighten your own workload if, instead of just being reactive and handing out endless 6ers that have no effect on the underlying problem, you would proactively identify the minority of dickheads instigating most of the reports you have to respond to and just threadban/ban/perma the dumb fucks already. This. I really can't comprehend MP's post that our choices are either (1) the current status quo or (2) guyovich-style random purges (which, i'd note, accomplished nothing but giving $10 to lowtax -- they weren't permas and nearly everyone reregged immediately). Stop the bad posters from posting via a consistent policy of ramping that escalates into threadbans and forum bans where necessary, rather than giving them yet another sixer. This does not require purge because the minority of people doing this are constantly doing it and you can stop them by merely dealing with them as they inevitably do awful posts again. eke out fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Slow mode for USPol still seems to be almost all upside if the intended purpose is to be a news aggregator loosely tied to U.S. politics with discussion from the community here. There are very few instances where having to wait 10 minutes between posts will hurt that goal. We can always make a TVIV-style thread about a specific large event or temporarily disable slow mode when it seems useful to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
part of my problem in approaching this thread is that i've never been a moderator and have no sense of what goes on under the hood and what is feasible. i can appreciate that moderating D&D is hard but anytime one of these threads arises, posters will bring out the same grievances (e.g. people posting too much twitter; people posting lots of TVIV-style reactions; and threads moving too fast), the moderator reaction seems to be "yeah, it sucks but addressing it would take too many resources" or "yeah, but some people like it like that." i can dismiss the latter argument but responding to the former requires insight into the mechanics of this forum that i do not have. the result is that im fumbling around in the dark, unaware of what has been tried and what will always be infeasible. edit: as a complete outsider, though, i find it difficult to imagine that cracking down on tweets and lovely cheerleading posts is wholly beyond the capabilities of the mod team. it seems like a dramatic expansion of the mod team would help some of these issues if they are so enormous, even if these new mods lack all the credentials of the board's current leaders. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The argument is that you would lighten your own workload if, instead of just being reactive and handing out endless 6ers that have no effect on the underlying problem, you would proactively identify the minority of dickheads instigating most of the reports you have to respond to and just threadban/ban/perma the dumb fucks already. Would it? Part of the issue is that moderation standards and expectations have changed in 2021 SA - people just care more about what happens on this website and are way angrier about it. If MP did another purge it’s be the start of a six month QCS inquisition because some trolls had to pay a $10 posting tax. Yes it’s kind of lovely to acknowledge that some solutions that would help in the long term aren’t worth the emotional effort in the short term, but that’s also what happens when you have a forum where the default emotion seems to be rage and an unpaid moderation staff whose size is constrained by constant threats of doxxing and harassment. I think they should keep ramping bad posters - and maybe do a better job - but solitons which are “ban people with bad ideas or who are stupid” are never going to happen. That’s not what you’re saying but that’s what some people are saying. And I still think just splitting the thread in two would help. It would create fewer opportunities for people who never agree to keep tilting at windmills. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If all you want out of this thread is novel ideas detached from specific controversies I think this thread has run it's productive course. I agree with this. This thread has been pretty bad for a while and most of the actual, constructive feedback was on the first handful of pages (and occasionally sprinkled throughout), IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Aramis posted:I'm curious about something regarding the reports: What is the ratio of legitimately bad posts vs eye rolling attempts at involving mods into slapfights in there? Would measures that improve that signal-to-noise ratio help somewhat? The majority of report aren't really actionable but generally, in non-USpol threads, a bunch of reports from a thread at least tell us that the thread needs attention and we can go read the last couple pages of it. In USPOL, there are literally always bunches of reports. A happy, slow USpol generates probably five report an hour, 10-15 is more common, during big blow ups we've gotten as many as 50. Part of the scaling problem with additional mods is that it's hard for multiple mods to really split up that work; each mod has to go try to work out context and deal with the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The majority of report aren't really actionable but generally, in non-USpol threads, a bunch of reports from a thread at least tell us that the thread needs attention and we can go read the last couple pages of it. In USPOL, there are literally always bunches of reports. A happy, slow USpol generates probably five report an hour, 10-15 is more common, during big blow ups we've gotten as many as 50. From a technical standpoint, is there any way to make the thread go into slow mode automatically if it crosses a certain threshold of posts/minute?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:From a technical standpoint, is there any way to make the thread go into slow mode automatically if it crosses a certain threshold of posts/minute? There isn't an existing one and my understanding is that currently Astral is working through a bunch of critical technical debt before implementing new features.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
I am confident that there is a range of moderation activity between the current ambivalence and randomly dated purges. DnD already has a set of rules; they go generally unenforced. The depth of abuse and "need" for the latter activity are both the result of a lack of more standard moderation, probation and banning; abusive users have learned that they can avoid punishment and gain control of the space by making moderation as painful as possible. They then use this gap to leverage further control over what is allowed to be discussed (or promote themselves or allies for moderation roles). Main Paineframe posted:Sorry if I'm getting a little too heated right now! I'm actually quite frustrated lately at the fact that USPol seems to absolutely demand and require 24/7 mod coverage, usually over the absolute pettiest poo poo. Who the gently caress thinks that's reasonable? I'm a janitor, not a babysitter. The role of a mod should be to clean up occasional messes and give threads the occasional prod, not to hover over your shoulders all day making sure you don't choke yourselves or each other with your own toys. In the first place, there aren't any toddlers on this site. Everyone here should be perfectly capable of being reasonable adults toward each other, people are just utterly refusing to. I'm devoting hours of my day to breaking up assholes' drunken screaming matches, and it's not exactly giving me the feeling of being part of a wonderful and enjoyable community. Moderation cannot exclusively function as a reactive activity of "cleaning up messes". You need to have a positive understanding of what the space is supposed to be, and work toward forming that space with rules, practices and statements that help create that space. You have the power and social status that lets you dictate part of what the space is, and set the standard of what the discourse should look like. Not exercising that power also sends a message. If you think of moderation as taking out the garbage, it's going to be miserable because you're letting the subforum become a dumping site. If you're flinching every time you open your inbox, it's because people are targeting you with abuse- and conveniently you have their username and examples of the issue. Ban the users sending you abusive PMs. They are doing it to make you not want to mod, and to color your understanding of what moderation involves. They are trying to maximize the "emotional effort" Aruan references because they know it gives them more power. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I'm curious if the mod tools have some sort of graphs for probes/reports in threads and what the numbers look like pre/post GE thread closing. Nope. The report forum is literally just a forum, where a bot posts threads with the report info and a link to the reported post. SA's mod tools are very rudimentary. sean10mm posted:The argument is that you would lighten your own workload if, instead of just being reactive and handing out endless 6ers that have no effect on the underlying problem, you would proactively identify the minority of dickheads instigating most of the reports you have to respond to and just threadban/ban/perma the dumb fucks already. The current state of mod affairs on SA is very heavily geared toward second chances, third chances, fourth chances, fifth chances, and so on. So I'm very limited in my ability to quickly remove the people that I consider to be troublemakers - which may not necessarily be the same people you consider to be troublemakers, which is exactly why it's important to have systems and oversight rather than just letting me run people up the stairs to the big punishments all on my own. I've been making a point of watching the sixers go out and trying to make sure the appropriate ramps are enforced lately, but skipping steps or jumping straight to more severe punishments usually ends in a big mess so it's slow going. fool of sound posted:The majority of report aren't really actionable but generally, in non-USpol threads, a bunch of reports from a thread at least tell us that the thread needs attention and we can go read the last couple pages of it. In USPOL, there are literally always bunches of reports. A happy, slow USpol generates probably five report an hour, 10-15 is more common, during big blow ups we've gotten as many as 50. just as a point of comparison here, a lot of other forums on this site literally go days between reports
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Isn't the bolded part going to be probeable already? It shouldn't matter whether a poster's knowledge comes from formal education or not. Effort should meet effort. As I said before, the credentials aren't the issue. If you know what you're talking about, it will become clear form your posts. I have personally won arguments with people who have graduate degrees in the fields they were arguing with me in, who just didn't know as much as me in a specific area. It's very much about the effort being met with no effort. My problem is the shitposters, not asking for posters to be credentialed. And yes that's already probeable but it's not frequently enforced. There's not some sort of league of scared economists huddling in the wings, but they're the most egregious example of people deciding that an entire branch of academics is fake because they just heard about the Chicago Boys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Nope. The report forum is literally just a forum, where a bot posts threads with the report info and a link to the reported post. SA's mod tools are very rudimentary. I think that at this point these sort of endeavors need to be given their time to (hopefully) have their desired effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The majority of report aren't really actionable but generally, in non-USpol threads, a bunch of reports from a thread at least tell us that the thread needs attention and we can go read the last couple pages of it. In USPOL, there are literally always bunches of reports. A happy, slow USpol generates probably five report an hour, 10-15 is more common, during big blow ups we've gotten as many as 50. Sounds to me like this fairly critical piece of the moderation toolbox is serving too many purposes all at once. I'm guessing there's an understandable reluctance to making filing egregiously bad reports punishable, but maybe an exception could be made for USPol? I get that having a mechanism for a general "the thread needs attention" is useful, but I suspect that just monitoring the volume of posts could serve the exact same role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:From a technical standpoint, is there any way to make the thread go into slow mode automatically if it crosses a certain threshold of posts/minute? I would say the opposite is better. The thread is generally okay when events are coming on for people to react to. It's when it slows down and there is room for one guy to dominate pages with "what is the exact definition of a coup" that it gets unreadable. Slow it down the slower the posts are. go into fast mode when lots of people start posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Would having some sort of shared Google Doc or Spreadsheet where you can note down things for all the Mods/IKs to know like "Poster X keeps getting weird about Age of Consent" or "Posters Y and Z seem incapable of not slap-fighting any time one posts about cheese" or "Poster A is on a three-week ramp, don't start ramp over at 6 hours when they return in 3 weeks" help any?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I would say the opposite is better. The thread is generally okay when events are coming on for people to react to. It's when it slows down and there is room for one guy to dominate pages with "what is the exact definition of a coup" that it gets unreadable. Slow it down the slower the posts are. go into fast mode when lots of people start posting. The thought had more to do with limiting throughput to stay within the mod's capacity to mod. A slow thread in a lovely slapfight might generate far more reports/post, but there is still the same amount to read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
It sounds to me like one of the issues is that the mods need better forum tools, which is something that could actually be worked on without inviting a forum war. Beyond that, I'd suggest implementing USPol-specific restrictions that encourage people to take their shitposting elsewhere: for example resuming slow mode, only allowing blue check Tweets, prohibiting IKs from moderating discussions that they're participating in, increasing the duration of USPol probations, etc. The purpose would be not only to improve the level of posting, but also to make the thread itself more manageable to moderate. I know that some users would hate all that, but that seems like the only way to actually improve the thread rather than simply accepting it will be a terrible angrychat thread. Apart from all that, it seems like the current mod team is getting a bit burnt out, and it may be worthwhile to regularly rotate in new groups into that role. If doxxing and harassment is a concern, then perhaps create anonymous moderator accounts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Isn't part of the reason modding USPol is so hard is just the sheer number of posts? Like, I just read USPol around 10:30. It's now 11:45, and there were 109 posts within the past hour and 15 minutes. I mean, it's great that the thread is active, and so many people want to post, but how do you even keep up with a thread that has that rate of posting, as a mod, or even as a poster?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
I stepped away from the USPol thread for the last few months, but it seemed at the time like a lot of what was getting probed or people were really insisting for mod action on weren't things that were rule violations or bad for the community, but things that disagreed with w/e politics the petitioner has. I don't know how to foster a culture where people no longer believe that the report tools are a valid part of debate and discussion. You can't do like a reversal of fortune thing, because how can you actually know that that is why somebody made that kind of report? Is it possible to make people stop believing that they actually have posting rivals to vanquish here? These aren't foerums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am confident that there is a range of moderation activity between the current ambivalence and randomly dated purges. DnD already has a set of rules; they go generally unenforced. The depth of abuse and "need" for the latter activity are both the result of a lack of more standard moderation, probation and banning; abusive users have learned that they can avoid punishment and gain control of the space by making moderation as painful as possible. They then use this gap to leverage further control over what is allowed to be discussed (or promote themselves or allies for moderation roles). Said it better than I could. The bolded part especially. It's very troubling that MP made the comparison of babysitter vs janitor, because neither of those should be viewed as the appropriate framework or mindset for a moderator. In any case, perhaps Jeffrey or whoever else has access to the database needs to (if they haven't already) run some reports for the mod team that show things like number of USPol reports per user, which users are the subjects of most reports, the percentage of each user's reports that ends up being acted on, etc. The goal would be to identify not just awful posters, but also posters who frivolously report others. The numbers themselves wouldn't be actionable, but they would provide additional insight into the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The problem is that aside from a few very specific posters who should already be topping the ignore lists anyway, no one can really agree on what deserves to be moderated and where lines are in debating the finer nuances of "the worst day in American history" or whatever thing it is unacceptable to disagree about. Yeah, the thing here is, there is no "everyone is happy we solved all the problems!" solution here. No matter what, some amount of people will not like the changes, and the ones that don't will be the vocal ones claiming the thread doesn't work now. I think there are a handful of good ideas to try, stricter probations, more thread reboots, and some of the other stuff that has been discussed. Epicurius posted:Isn't part of the reason modding USPol is so hard is just the sheer number of posts? Like, I just read USPol around 10:30. It's now 11:45, and there were 109 posts within the past hour and 15 minutes. I mean, it's great that the thread is active, and so many people want to post, but how do you even keep up with a thread that has that rate of posting, as a mod, or even as a poster? Which is why one of the ideas was some sort of thread split. A way for topics to be pushed into their own threads, but that felt like it got a lot of backlash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If you think of moderation as taking out the garbage, it's going to be miserable because you're letting the subforum become a dumping site. If you're flinching every time you open your inbox, it's because people are targeting you with abuse- and conveniently you have their username and examples of the issue. Ban the users sending you abusive PMs. They are doing it to make you not want to mod, and to color your understanding of what moderation involves. They are trying to maximize the "emotional effort" Aruan references because they know it gives them more power. Yeah I don't understand why abusive PMs aren't immediate grounds for a ban. QCS exists to address issues with moderation. If posters have legitimate grievances, take it to QCS where other mods and admins can have a look at mod behavior and actually take action. The only purpose (and indeed the goal) of rage PMs is to fatigue or scare off mods. Modding can't be effective if abuse of mods is tolerated. I don't know to what extent it's tolerated or how bad the abuse is, but it sounds like it's significant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
I do not believe a LESS moderated area is the answer here. I know people brought that up because they feel like no mods can be subjective, but we have an entire forum for "less moderated politics." Maybe a giant warning in the OP: "By posting in this thread you understand it will be modded by a human who may or may not have their own biases. Humans are not perfect." That does not mean the mods are free to poo poo on you because they don't agree with you, but at some point they are going to have to make a decision if something adds to the thread. It's why there are multiple mods on staff, so they can ask each other "what do you think here" and they can discuss it away from bias. It happens very often. Main Paineframe is right: Threads should not require monitoring 24 hours a day to be viable. Yes, some poking every now and then is to be expected, and using the report system to find, not specific posts (well, sometimes), but general areas blowing up to drop in and say "clean it up" is perfect. MP is also right that the thread can get really far up it's own rear end about mod actions: Like the Mod or IK woke up and decided to specifically ruin the thread today. I have PM'd with a lot of you about specific Mod/IK actions. (And I still have one to look into, sorry who is waiting on that) A lot of the time I understand where you are coming from, but sometimes we don't really agree on intent. Not that is has NEVER happened, I've given plenty of "This probe is probably a little much" and had discussions about putting themselves in the middle of slapfights with people, but 99% of the time a mod is not out to get anyone. That's another thing. Sometimes probations are not "You are a bad person for this idea," sometimes it's more of a "chill out a while, go outside, go do something you enjoy, walk away and come back." It can seem like some personal attack, but there are points when you are deep in a discussion and it's getting out of hand, that sometimes it's best to take a break. I've used probations as that plenty of times. It doesn't mean your point wasn't valid or that you can't contribute, it just means at that point in time it was getting a bit much. The world does not end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Anybody with a persecution complex about a 6er should get ramped to a month IMO
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The majority of report aren't really actionable but generally, in non-USpol threads, a bunch of reports from a thread at least tell us that the thread needs attention and we can go read the last couple pages of it. In USPOL, there are literally always bunches of reports. A happy, slow USpol generates probably five report an hour, 10-15 is more common, during big blow ups we've gotten as many as 50. I think a more heavy hand of making discussions split off into different threads would help. It would give you some way to split up the load and it would make sure you could at least get the background to that specific discussion instead of wading through a million posts about a thousand topics at once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
For the curious, here's the kind PM that a fairly innocuous probation can generate. In this particular case the user was objecting to a probation for cheering on someone's suidicde.quote:So I guess you didn't even read what I said, nor I guess did you see that ***** only claimed to want to kill himself after beating his wife and getting cops called like a coward. You know who else did that poo poo? My dad. gently caress you for such a bullshit probe. I won't feel bad for a guy that might as well be the rear end in a top hat father that terrorized me and my family for most of my life. And you're a dickless rear end in a top hat for such a weak rear end probe when so many others were positively lustful at the prospect of **** dying. I guess you just felt you needed to swing the big mod dick around but I'm not impressed. We haven't really interacted directly but this probe alone shows me what and who you are. I'm not impressed. Eat poo poo. And gently caress ********. I don't care whose feelings that hurts. gently caress wife beaters and weak rear end SA mods who work for and defend them. My response was to explain that encouraging suicide and suicidal thoughts is heavily discouraged regardless of the target because fostering that mind of discourse can contribute to other goons deciding to harm themselves. I was rewarded with an equally thoughtful reaponse. Frankly this doesn't bother me much and wading through this crap is just part of the job. However, this should serve as an example of why even a very straight forward enforcement of a clearly stated rule (don't cheer for suicide) can be time consuming and also requires a bunch of attention to deal with, especially when unhappy users immediately resort to accusing you of covering for abuse because you took away their posting privileges. Now extrapolate that to situations where the rule being broken is more ambiguous or where both sides of an argument have each been a bit lovely and you actually have to try and get at least a general feel for how the conversation played out and who started what, etc. This isn't always as easy to coherently reconstruct as you might think. None of this is meant to be an excuse for not trying new things. I think there is some clear room for improvement. However, it's important for regular users to understand that even a relatively clear cut enforcement of rules can require a fair amount of communication and discretion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
KillHour posted:I think a more heavy hand of making discussions split off into different threads would help. It would give you some way to split up the load and it would make sure you could at least get the background to that specific discussion instead of wading through a million posts about a thousand topics at once. i would agree here. force USPOL to divide into threads targeted at specific, ongoing issues/news items instead of being a catch-all thread for everything US politics. lock threads when they begin to encompass too many disparate issues and conversations. obviously a lot of this will depend on mod discretion but imperfect implementation is still better than the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 19:01
|
|