Jump to content

New (interim) moderator


AspieAlly613

Recommended Posts

AspieAlly613

Dear fellow AVENites,

 

As you may have read from the banner asking for nominations for the position to moderate this forum, our current moderator, @Iam9man, needed to step down, at least for a period of time.  

 

By agreement with the other moderators,  I'm filling the vacancy, at least in the interim.

 

As the AVEN community deserves some insight into the mentality of its moderators, I'd like to share some of my own viewpoints on matters that I consider most relevant to this forum that came up during my time moderating other AVEN forums:

 

1)  Stupidity is not a Terms of Service violation.

 

This comes up in two forms.  First, if someone shares an opinion easily disproven by other members, or shares information from an unreliable source, this is best addressed by a respectful reply in the forums, not through disciplinary action.  The second form I've seen this take is when some users completely ignore the refutations to their claims and just keep restating logically similar positions, with no influence from any replies, as if the user could not comprehend the replies.  This is also not a terms of service violation, and we can trust the AVEN userbase to be rational enough to follow the arguments being made.  However, this does not protect trolling, leading to...

 

2)  Explicit absurdity constitutes trolling.

 

An example of explicit absurdity is if someone were to say "Humanity would be benefited from a nuclear winter that kills everyone."  This is clearly trolling, and could get a user warned or even banned.  No one (as far as I know) has ever made that particular remark on AVEN, but there have been examples of people making such outrageous claims that any reasonable person should have, at a minimum, been suspicious and double-checked the claims.

 

In contrast, implicit absurdity (a statement which is not absurd in itself, but which logically leads to an absurd conclusion) is not trolling.  For example, if someone were to say "Humanity would be benefited from any action that reduces inequality between people," a response could be "I disagree with that statement.  If that statement were true, then humanity would benefit from a nuclear winter that kills everyone."  Just because the statement about equality logically leads to a statement about nuclear annihilation, the original commenter should not face disciplinary action for just not thinking through all the logical implications of a statement.  (That would be a mild example of  "Stupidity is not a Terms of Service violation.")

 

3)  If you formulate an argument through an ideological bait-and-switch, the reveal must come in the same post as the argument.

 

The example that comes to my mind was when one user intentionally misattributed an unpopular quote to one politician, when it was actually a politician from another political party who was the source of the quote.  The argumentative strategy was to wait for supporters of the latter politician to comment on how unethical the quote was, and then reveal to them that it was their own preferred politician who made the statement.  That was an example of trolling, as it was misinformation designed to bait people into responding a certain way.

 

In contrast, it would have been fine for the user to say "Mr. X said this thing," and later in the post say "It was actually Mr. Y who said it," so that the misinformation/deception would clearly only be there to provide a sense of perspective, and with immediate debriefing to make it clear that no real deception was intended.

 

I look forward to presiding over this forum, and am optimistic that disputes will be resolved respectfully.

 

If you'd like to ask me any questions about my personal views (which would normally be asked during a nomination/campaign period) feel free to ask.

 

Sincerely,

AspieAlly613

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
2 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

An example of explicit absurdity is if someone were to say "Humanity would be benefited from a nuclear winter that kills everyone."  This is clearly trolling, and could get a user warned or even banned.  No one (as far as I know) has ever made that particular remark on AVEN, but there have been examples of people making such outrageous claims that any reasonable person should have, at a minimum, been suspicious and double-checked the claims.

I really don't like this, because who gets to decide what is "explicitly absurd"? Me and many others here would be considered to have absurd views on most of the internet, so this clause doesn't exactly make me feel safe here. And your example isn't "clearly trolling", some people genuinely believe that, some could be venting some frustration, some could be morbidly joking with that. None should be a bannable offence since they're not actually breaking any rules unless you decide for them that they're trolling. And again, who decides what is "outrageous" and "reasonable"? There's far too much risk of mod bias in this, so they can just shut convos or opinions down they don't like (and that has happened multiple times that I've seen already).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This does seem a bit random TBH.

 

Is there anything to cover "explicit absurdity" in the ToS? Or anything about point 3?

 

It kind of feels like new rules (or new interpretations of the trolling rules) have just popped up out of nowhere. Since absolutely everything on AVEN seems to get discussed and documented within an inch of its life (and I've never seen a thread like this from a mod before), this seems to be a bit out of the ordinary.

 

Just imagine the mod discussions (especially for appeals!) when someone gets warned for being "too absurd" 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, awadama said:

It kind of feels like new rules (or new interpretations of the trolling rules) have just popped up out of nowhere.

Welcome to AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia

@Anthracite_Impreza@awadamaI think it's good to be able to share concerns like that with the moderator or the team.
If it helps to know, besides that, the team is also involved in more serious decisions. So if we see well ok that person is just joking or messing around like can even happen in the controversial opinion thread, then what happens is going to be leveled out.
The ToS does still apply to threads like those though, so it's not a free pass to say absolutely anything xD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the others, "explicit absurdity" is not a well-thought-out or consistently enforceable policy, and at absolute best is only going to make users more nervous lest a sarcastic, hyperbolic, or rant post is interpreted as such by an overzealous moderator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forest Spirit

I don't think AspieAlly's point with this post is to implement any new policy, it's just expressing their way of interpreting the ToS as a mod and making people aware of where they stand on issues/behaviour in an effort to be more transparent🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Quasar.w said:

it's just expressing their way of interpreting the ToS as a mod

Does this mean different mods have different ways of "interpreting" the ToS?

 

Surely if these are the rules we all have to abide by, they should be clear, straightforward and not open to interpretation...? 😅

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
2 minutes ago, awadama said:

Does this mean different mods have different ways of "interpreting" the ToS?

 

Surely if these are the rules we all have to abide by, they should be clear, straightforward and not open to interpretation...? 😅

 

*laughs knowingly*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forest Spirit
1 hour ago, awadama said:

Does this mean different mods have different ways of "interpreting" the ToS?

 

Surely if these are the rules we all have to abide by, they should be clear, straightforward and not open to interpretation...? 😅

 

Well, not everyone sees the world the same way and what one person thinks is trolling or any other ToS breach, another person thinks isn't or less severe ecc. Particularly in cases that are not clear and straightforward, or overt, but are rather subtle and need to be looked at in context f.e., so covert. That's why we have an admod team and do reports or policies as a team, where everyone can give input in the discussion process and through their vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, awadama said:

Surely if these are the rules we all have to abide by, they should be clear, straightforward and not open to interpretation...? 😅

This might have changed since I left the backroom, but the rules used to be abstract on purpose so members have a harder time circumventing them. (Just to add - the members who are usually best at avoiding warns are former admods.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

2)  Explicit absurdity constitutes trolling.

Hard disagree (but my type of absurdity doesn't seem to register among your examples) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, the OP reads like something that generally would've been deliberated over for two months in the back room.

 

Curious...

 

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to ensure that I can exercise my right to intellectually dabble in the swampy fog between shitposting and sincere discussion while under the influence of legally obtained substances. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
7 hours ago, awadama said:

This does seem a bit random TBH.

 

Is there anything to cover "explicit absurdity" in the ToS? Or anything about point 3?

 

It kind of feels like new rules (or new interpretations of the trolling rules) have just popped up out of nowhere. Since absolutely everything on AVEN seems to get discussed and documented within an inch of its life (and I've never seen a thread like this from a mod before), this seems to be a bit out of the ordinary.

 

Just imagine the mod discussions (especially for appeals!) when someone gets warned for being "too absurd" 😅

Good questions.

 

The absurdity clause is generally discussed under the categories of trolling and/or flaming.  All I'm saying is that we reserve the right to say "we do not believe that you actually believe this, and are just saying it to get an angry reaction."  

 

Point 3 has also been discussed under trolling/flaming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
7 hours ago, timewarp said:

Welcome to AVEN.

As AVEN's moderating team has frequent replacements, new perspectives and interpretations are to be expected.  That being said, I do acknowledge the importance/relevance of honoring precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
8 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I really don't like this, because who gets to decide what is "explicitly absurd"? Me and many others here would be considered to have absurd views on most of the internet, so this clause doesn't exactly make me feel safe here. And your example isn't "clearly trolling", some people genuinely believe that, some could be venting some frustration, some could be morbidly joking with that. None should be a bannable offence since they're not actually breaking any rules unless you decide for them that they're trolling. And again, who decides what is "outrageous" and "reasonable"? There's far too much risk of mod bias in this, so they can just shut convos or opinions down they don't like (and that has happened multiple times that I've seen already).

 

7 hours ago, Morays said:

I have to agree with the others, "explicit absurdity" is not a well-thought-out or consistently enforceable policy, and at absolute best is only going to make users more nervous lest a sarcastic, hyperbolic, or rant post is interpreted as such by an overzealous moderator.

 

 

2 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

Hard disagree (but my type of absurdity doesn't seem to register among your examples) 

 

1 hour ago, Snao Cone said:

I just want to ensure that I can exercise my right to intellectually dabble in the swampy fog between shitposting and sincere discussion while under the influence of legally obtained substances. 

 

 

To clarify, the explicit absurdity is just meant as a guideline/rule of thumb for determining trolling/flaming.  The idea is that it has to be so blatant that the perceived goal was to start a fight, not to convince people of an opinion.

 

I should have added that jocular comments are exceptions.  People were right to point that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun fact: Most step downs and the time to get a replacement into a forum, the moderator covering. Has a no need of actions/reports to handle. Usually things are fine.

Another fun fact: AVEN hasn't has a solo moderator in a long long while. (Before my staff time). All disciplinary actions are reviewed/decided by team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AspieAlly613 said:

All I'm saying is that we reserve the right to say "we do not believe that you actually believe this, and are just saying it to get an angry reaction."  

Sounds like something that's very easy to abuse. For example, what if someone posts "If we don't get rid of capitalism, the world as we know it is doomed to suffer an environmental disaster" and the moderator deems that to be too absurd for anyone to believe?

 

AVEN has definitely had some moderators who would've legitimately thought so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
6 hours ago, Quasar.w said:

I don't think AspieAlly's point with this post is to implement any new policy, it's just expressing their way of interpreting the ToS as a mod and making people aware of where they stand on issues/behaviour in an effort to be more transparent🙂

That is exactly correct.  Also, my vote only counts as one vote when it comes to deciding disciplinary action.  However, as the moderator of a specific forum does take the lead in presenting the report to the other moderators, as well as initially drafting messages to members, it is beneficial for users to know and understand the mindsets of the moderators.  I presented my mindset.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
4 minutes ago, Phoenix the II said:

Fun fact: Most step downs and the time to get a replacement into a forum, the moderator covering. Has a no need of actions/reports to handle. Usually things are fine.

Another fun fact: AVEN hasn't has a solo moderator in a long long while. (Before my staff time). All disciplinary actions are reviewed/decided by team.

That is correct, they are decided by the team as a whole.  As the last line of my signature indicate, one's opinions can be outweighed.  Often, my own opinions are outweighed by the rest of the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
12 minutes ago, Still said:

Sounds like something that's very easy to abuse. For example, what if someone posts "If we don't get rid of capitalism, the world as we know it is doomed to suffer an environmental disaster" and the moderator deems that to be too absurd for anyone to believe?

 

AVEN has definitely had some moderators who would've legitimately thought so.

Fortunately, this is why major decisions are also discussed by the entire team.  In that particular case, a number of moderators (myself included) would point out that the threat of irreversible climate change, in part spurred by profit motive, is at least a plausible concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, AspieAlly613 said:

 

I should have added that snaocular comments are exceptions.  People were right to point that out.

FTFY 😎

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ceebs. said:

Damn, the OP reads like something that generally would've been deliberated over for two months in the back room.

 

Curious...

 

spacer.png

I only found out about this like 5 minutes ago from I have no idea where. Now I'm confused

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I agree with @AspieAlly613.

 

To be fair, I would go so far as to agree that explicit absurdity could constitute trolling. Presenting absurd claims as factual without even a modicum of supporting evidence seems very close to trolling behavior, especially within the realm of this subforum. I would not go so far as to say that all explicitly absurd statements are trolling, because it's very subjective. If somebody came in here claiming that Joe Biden lost the 2020 US election, that the moon landing was faked, or that 5G cellphone towers caused brain cancer...I would consider these to be explicitly absurd claims in the absence of any evidence to support them. Walking in here and saying without any evidence whatsoever that 5G is giving you brain cancer or that Trump really did win? Yeah, that's trolling. Walking in here with some form of evidence to support your outlandish claim? That's not trolling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mag, the Drifter said:

Overall, I agree with @AspieAlly613.

 

To be fair, I would go so far as to agree that explicit absurdity could constitute trolling. Presenting absurd claims as factual without even a modicum of supporting evidence seems very close to trolling behavior, especially within the realm of this subforum. I would not go so far as to say that all explicitly absurd statements are trolling, because it's very subjective. If somebody came in here claiming that Joe Biden lost the 2020 US election, that the moon landing was faked, or that 5G cellphone towers caused brain cancer...I would consider these to be explicitly absurd claims in the absence of any evidence to support them. Walking in here and saying without any evidence whatsoever that 5G is giving you brain cancer or that Trump really did win? Yeah, that's trolling. Walking in here with some form of evidence to support your outlandish claim? That's not trolling. 

The big difference here is that the example @AspieAlly613 specifically cites as a warnable/bannable offense is a subjective value judgment, not a provably false claim being presented as factual. It doesn't fall under the TOS's prohibition against bigotry, as it is referring to all of humanity rather than a select group of humans, and while it's an incredibly strange statement to make, on its own it is not personally attacking or baiting anyone or presenting factually false information (which is a much clearer standard for mods to consistently abide by than "sorry, this claim is just too weird.")

 

If 5G-causes-brain-cancer or something-something-Jewish-space-lasers are the kinds of arguments OP is trying to guard against -- which is a reasonable goal that I would support -- he chose an incredibly poor example to illustrate his point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Morays said:

The big difference here is that the example @AspieAlly613 specifically cites as a warnable/bannable offense is a subjective value judgment, not a provably false claim being presented as factual. It doesn't fall under the TOS's prohibition against bigotry, as it is referring to all of humanity rather than a select group of humans, and while it's an incredibly strange statement to make, on its own it is not personally attacking or baiting anyone or presenting factually false information (which is a much clearer standard for mods to consistently abide by than "sorry, this claim is just too weird.")

 

If 5G-causes-brain-cancer or Jewish-space-lasers are the kinds of arguments OP is trying to guard against -- which is a reasonable goal that I would support -- he chose an incredibly poor example to illustrate his point.

Presuming that I understood the OP correctly..It was a weak example, but it got the general point across. I think it's worth delineating between acting in bad faith (trolling) and in good faith (weak or fallacious argument). I am with you 

 

On the chance that I misunderstood the OP's intent, I still stand by my statement but apologize for misinterpreting the statement and It's intended meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...