Jump to content

New (interim) moderator


AspieAlly613

Recommended Posts

It's funny how all of this could've been avoided if the post just said, "Hey guys, I'm taking over the job of modding this forum now" and it was left at that. Instead we have this bureaucratic lunacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ceebs. said:

It's funny how all of this could've been avoided if the post just said, "Hey guys, I'm taking over the job of modding this forum now" and it was left at that. Instead we have this bureaucratic lunacy.

I think it's funnier with the bureaucratic lunacy.

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

I think it's funnier with the bureaucratic lunacy.

I'm willing to entertain that possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

Even if someone claims 5G causes cancer or the moon landings were faked or Biden lost the election with no evidence... that isn't necessarily trolling, and it shouldn't be a bannable offence. It's a very slippery slope when you decide some (non-bigoted, non-nasty) opinions are "too ridiculous and must be trolling", it's also pretty cruel to whoever believes it. Let us pretend no one here knows me and assumed I was trolling because I said I believe the rights of cars and humans are equal; without enough mods to give me the benefit of the doubt I could be banned because of bias in what is "normal" to believe. Are you getting my drift?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

I think it's funnier with the bureaucratic lunacy.

5dspiw.jpg

 

Well, it certainly wouldn't be AVEN without it, at any rate.

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

Even if someone claims 5G causes cancer or the moon landings were faked or Biden lost the election with no evidence... that isn't necessarily trolling, and it shouldn't be a bannable offence. It's a very slippery slope when you decide some (non-bigoted, non-nasty) opinions are "too ridiculous and must be trolling", it's also pretty cruel to whoever believes it. Let us pretend no one here knows me and assumed I was trolling because I said I believe the rights of cars and humans are equal; without enough mods to give me the benefit of the doubt I could be banned because of bias in what is "normal" to believe. Are you getting my drift?

You know what? I was wrong. I suppose that it's unfair to presume intentions in a situation like that. Opinions aren't defensible in the same way as factual matters, so that's already an apples to oranges comparison. You're right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the distinction between "genuinely dedicated to a nutjob opinion" and "trolling in bad faith" is basically impossible to make.

 

I do think provably wrong and harmful misinformation being presented as fact (like all the 5G nonsense) is something that should be moderated, but as much as I'd like to prevent general trolling as well, "having weird, out-there opinions and/or moral priorities" being a ban-worthy offense is just asking for trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
4 minutes ago, Morays said:

I do think provably wrong and harmful misinformation being presented as fact (like all the 5G nonsense)

If someone thinks it causes cancer and says as such, I still don't think that's worthy of mod action. If that person starts harassing anyone because of it, or inciting violence against the towers or workers, then it is worthy of attention, cos we've jumped from an opinion that ultimately does no harm to anyone as most people are quite capable of assessing the opinion for themselves, to actual harm or threats of harm. It's the same with anti vaxxers - them holding their opinion and saying it here is allowed and always has been, despite all the pushback they get. If an anti vaxxer was inciting violence against doctors who administer them or saying someone here committed child abuse for having their kids vaxxed though, then it has crossed the harm line, and the harm line is the only line I can see being fair to moderate.

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

If someone thinks it causes cancer and says as such, I still don't think that's worthy of mod action. If that person starts harassing anyone because of it, or inciting violence against the towers or workers, then it is worthy of attention, cos we've jumped from an opinion that ultimately does no harm to anyone as most people are quite capable of assessing the opinion for themselves, to actual harm or threats of harm. It's the same with anti vaxxers - them holding their opinion and saying it here is allowed and always has been, despite all the pushback they get. If an anti vaxxer was inciting violence against doctors who administer them or saying someone here committed child abuse for having their kids vaxxed though, then it has crossed the harm line, and the harm line is the only line I can see being fair to moderate.

To me, being against mandatory vaccination for whatever political/ethical/personal reason(s) is not the same as claiming that, say, the vaccine implants a surveillance microchip or is made out of murdered puppies or whatever. One is an opinion whereas the other is just factually wrong, and after seeing the role of social media in facilitating and spreading harmful misinformation, I personally think removal is the best option. But we can agree to disagree on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolling would either be a pattern over the course of a conversation rather than opinions itself (eg circular arguments that ignore what other people are saying) or boundary pushing that already violates other rules. So you can't deem something like "the moon landing was fake" as trolling. You can ask the person why they think it was fake and they might give a real answer (like the Cold War being mostly propaganda so nothing from the government is to be trusted) or they might give a shitpost answer that borders on trolling (like it was staged by Jim Henson to promote Sesame Street). If they double down on the trolling answer and don't seem to be listening to other people, then I think that fits this kind of situation — but it is spread out over a few hours, at least. 

 

Trolling by posting extreme opinions to rile people up would be bigoted, and reason for any admod online at the time to lock and/or hide the thread (like regurgitating hateful conspiracy theories against broad groups of people). So that's just normal modding, nothing special to PPS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
8 minutes ago, Morays said:

To me, being against mandatory vaccination for whatever political/ethical/personal reason(s) is not the same as claiming that, say, the vaccine implants a surveillance microchip or is made out of murdered puppies or whatever. One is an opinion whereas the other is just factually wrong, and after seeing the role of social media in facilitating and spreading harmful misinformation, I personally think removal is the best option. But we can agree to disagree on that one.

But misinformation is not against the ToS as it stands, so mods right now should not be dishing out disciplinary action or locking threads for it. If the site wants misinformation to be an "offence" (and again, who decides what sources are credible? You're just introducing more room for bias and also dismissing personal experience if you demand evidence), it would have to change the rules. I think people are perfectly capable of making their own minds up, and some posts on a random internet site will change absolutely no one's minds if they weren't already considering it.

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

But misinformation is not against the ToS as it stands, so mods right now should not be dishing out disciplinary action or locking threads for it.

To be clear, that was a hypothetical if-I-ran-AVEN should rather than a "mods need to do this thing right now and aren't" should. But again, we're kinda off the rails here in terms of critiquing OP's "explicit absurdity" policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say, though, some out-there opinions that seem to be based on ridiculous things like puppy killing conspiracies from the secret underground club where Big Pharma makes out with the model airplane mafia can still come from a place of more respect than some of the things people post within the ToS. Just because a post stems from complete resentment and hatred and offers no compassion to others doesn't mean it is against the rules. Why should people with out-there ideas they sincerely believe in get treated more harshly if they're less rooted in misanthropy and dreams of violence?

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

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.  

Yes, I've understood it that way aka you can report something you deem breaching from your PoV f.e. but it's still a team vote that is needed to determine anything for sure and they can disagree with your interpretation. I feel people are confusing someone's PoV with "anything like this will be nudged/warned for".

 

It'd be nice if we could stay civil instead of getting into a "wtf is this"-attack mode when unsure about what someone means. Just a general note

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quasar.w said:

I feel people are confusing someone's PoV with "anything like this will be nudged/warned for".

A nudge used to be at the discretion of the forum moderator and the other admods only had to be informed after the deed. Has this changed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Horse Ham Radio
19 minutes ago, timewarp said:

A nudge used to be at the discretion of the forum moderator and the other admods only had to be informed after the deed. Has this changed?

Nudges have been team decisions since before I became a mod over two years ago... No idea when they changed, but solo modding hasn't been a thing for a really long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Nudges have been team decisions since before I became a mod over two years ago... No idea when they changed, but solo modding hasn't been a thing for a really long time.

I'm getting old. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the clarifications, since at least to me the original post read like a single moderator would be allowed to dish out punishment based on posts they deem to be "too absurd".

 

I still think there's too much ambiguity in point 2, and point 3 seems to exist entirely based on one incident that IIRC happened a year ago. Personally, policing stuff like the use of actual, reliable sources instead of right-wing Youtube videos and conspiracy theory sites would do PPS much more good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is it takes much more effort and time to write a carefully explained post referencing credible evidence than it does to sound off some half-baked belief as argument. So while it might be healthy to have open debate those counterarguments may not happen or happen in a timely way. You can cite reliable sources and there are people who will always refuse or ignore those sources because their beliefs are irrational and grounded in paranoia. I don't think it's always going to be an easy line to draw but AVEN does have a responsibility to moderate misinformation on its platform. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Nudges have been team decisions since before I became a mod over two years ago... No idea when they changed, but solo modding hasn't been a thing for a really long time.

I used to give solo nudges as JFF mod to be fair.

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

I used to give solo nudges as JFF mod to be fair.

To be fair I keep banning people on Arcade, and I'm not even a moderator.

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

A nudge used to be at the discretion of the forum moderator and the other admods only had to be informed after the deed. Has this changed?

A nudge also used to just be a "hey you are getting close " and no official discipline action really. Now, you can be banned for a nudge. So, rules we knew for over a decade mean nothing anymore, obviously. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
On 6/18/2021 at 5:18 PM, Mother Bread said:

We have no absurdity clause.

That's correct, though we do have a trolling clause.

 

To compare with an example from United States Constitutional law, the phrase "clear and present danger" is often used as the standard for limitations on the extent to which the first amendment protects free speech.  That phrase does not appear in the Constitution.  It appeared in a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and referred to his interpretation of the law, and became accepted as the standard.  If he was the only Justice who held that viewpoint, then it would not have been accepted as the standard.  I'm presenting my interpretation which statements should be off-limits, though of course any action would require the majority vote of the administrative/moderating team.  It should be noted that some member of that team have been expressing disagreement with my interpretation, so users should bear in mind that my opinions may not be accepted by the rest of the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
On 6/18/2021 at 8:13 PM, Ceebs. said:

It's funny how all of this could've been avoided if the post just said, "Hey guys, I'm taking over the job of modding this forum now" and it was left at that. Instead we have this bureaucratic lunacy.

I do acknowledge that the nature/wording of my post led to exactly the sort of firestorm that it is my duty as a moderator to try to prevent/deescalate.

 

I messed up.  In hindsight, I shouldn't have phrased things quite the way that I did.  I will admit to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
On 6/18/2021 at 8:39 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Even if someone claims 5G causes cancer or the moon landings were faked or Biden lost the election with no evidence... that isn't necessarily trolling, and it shouldn't be a bannable offence. It's a very slippery slope when you decide some (non-bigoted, non-nasty) opinions are "too ridiculous and must be trolling", it's also pretty cruel to whoever believes it. Let us pretend no one here knows me and assumed I was trolling because I said I believe the rights of cars and humans are equal; without enough mods to give me the benefit of the doubt I could be banned because of bias in what is "normal" to believe. Are you getting my drift?

 

On 6/18/2021 at 9:53 PM, Snao Cone said:

I gotta say, though, some out-there opinions that seem to be based on ridiculous things like puppy killing conspiracies from the secret underground club where Big Pharma makes out with the model airplane mafia can still come from a place of more respect than some of the things people post within the ToS. Just because a post stems from complete resentment and hatred and offers no compassion to others doesn't mean it is against the rules. Why should people with out-there ideas they sincerely believe in get treated more harshly if they're less rooted in misanthropy and dreams of violence?

 

16 hours ago, Catserole said:

The trouble is it takes much more effort and time to write a carefully explained post referencing credible evidence than it does to sound off some half-baked belief as argument. So while it might be healthy to have open debate those counterarguments may not happen or happen in a timely way. You can cite reliable sources and there are people who will always refuse or ignore those sources because their beliefs are irrational and grounded in paranoia. I don't think it's always going to be an easy line to draw but AVEN does have a responsibility to moderate misinformation on its platform. 

I'd like to think that between the bunch of us on the team, someone would be able to identify whatever sincere logic a member was using.  Even if not, if the only reason for a warning was that it seemed so absurd that it ha to be an act of trolling, then the appeals process would hopefully clear up the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forest Spirit
On 6/19/2021 at 5:34 PM, Serran said:

Now, you can be banned for a nudge.

Normally no, only if on probation (ToS 4.6b)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 8:06 PM, Quasar.w said:

Normally no, only if on probation (ToS 4.6b)

Probation????? Seriously? Are there probation officers too? 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forest Spirit
3 hours ago, timewarp said:

Probation????? Seriously? Are there probation officers too? 🤣

Officers? No. It's the period of time after coming back from a temporary site ban. As you've been on the team, I don't know when this was implemented though so might not have been a thing then. I've only been on staff since 5-6 months

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

As you've been on the team, I don't know when this was implemented though so might not have been a thing then.

I was on the Project Team, never Admods. A very important difference. 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...