|
Jizz Festival posted:I like the direction things are going, but I think moderators should either stay out of discussions or make it extremely clear when they're acting as a moderator and when they aren't. For example, commiegir recently posted this in response to petercat: Yeah this one was very much "This is going to be a poo poo argument" more than threatening mod action. I at least try to bold the statement or tell people to back off if there will be mod action. But yeah, there's been concerns I'm not very clear, and trying to do better there. some plague rats posted:feel like LALD raises a reasonable concern, and commie proceeds to escalate things in a way that would have got literally anyone else in d&d hit with a stiff probe- imagine if one of us had told him to "gently caress off with that poo poo"- and throw his weight around. It's lovely moderation from someone who seems consistently unwilling to post by the rules he enforces on everyone else, especially when the other mods now seem to be sticking so strenuously to the Koos Model. I mean...if you feel its probe worth: Report it. Mods are fair game, and I've been hit before as a mod. But in no way did I use probes as a way to shut down arguments I was involved with in that example. So I guess: What's the problem? I have no doubt Koos will freely probate me or call me out if I'm doing something wrong and I also specifically asked for mod peer review of that argument in general. Lib specifically said I was threatening to use my buttons on them and then they refused to engage because of it. And fully agree with Koos: There should be a rule against Mods using their buttons against people they are debating with. Its already pretty much a defacto unstated rule as it is. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 29, 2022 |
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Seconding all of this, but on point 2 specifically, in the interaction I had with CGIR that SPR pointed out, the original crux of the meta-argument was that a poster had created a strawman of an argument and then demanded that other posters defend that strawman he'd made for them and as labored as the metaphor might be, reporting a mod arguing in bad faith (who has a historical pattern of doing so, even!) seems a bit like calling the cops on a cop - d&d mods largely being self-selected by existing d&d mods makes it difficult to feel like such reports would be taken seriously given how often the issue of authoritative tone has come up (Koos' recent intervention in the situation not withstanding - its very much seen and appreciated that Koos acknowledged that his tone is often an issue whether intentional or not). Its worth pointing out: D&D mods are not self-selecting. We can suggest people for mod and then they get reviewed by the admins. Sometimes the admins themselves help with the selection or suggest people. The Admins have rejected plenty of our selections as well, and quite a few of those we've selected chose not to accept.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
We also tend to rope in other mods like CSPAM mods or Admins to look over possible conflicts of interests when doing probations.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
thatfatkid posted:You do realise that all the poo poo you claim happened to Peng Shuai didn't actually happen right? Way to use a quoted post that perfectly shows the massive bias at work in the China thread. If its a matter of differing opinions, you don't get to be the arbiter of which one is right and wrong, which is exactly what you just did. And I'm fairly certain that you are not a person in the immediate vicinity of Peng nor are Peng themselves, so as you say, the hypocrisy is palpable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 16:41
|
|