I have to raise my eyebrow at the "we are not the thought police" statement since when put into context in regards to those who have been allowed back, it comes off as an attempt to shirk having to contend with certain things. I am not suggesting in the slightest that the moderators should impose draconian policies or the like, but I feel that a better job at discipline and protecting those vulnerable is needed.
Edited by Kakuzan on Jul 30th 2018 at 3:24:42 PM
Don't catch you slippin' now.The other solution is for people to behave in a way that does not require moderator intervention.
[Edited estimate because
Edited by crazysamaritan on Jul 31st 2018 at 8:55:50 AM
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.I think you greatly overestimate the number of mistakes, probably because a lot of "misunderstandings" still need to be moderated. In a text only medium misunderstandings happen easily and are often the source of dickery. There isn't much evidence that "personal bias" is currently a major problem either. Disagreement is not the same thing as bias no matter how many people mistake the former for the latter.
"Bad faith arguments" often have the same issue; a number of people have difficulty differentiate between reasoned disagreement, mistakes and bad faith arguing. Probably because in a number of contentious topics the topic has implications so broad that nobody can keep track of every aspect and thus ends up with a selective sample of information and because we cannot read into other people's motivation.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman~Silasw, regarding Ambar, we did cursory check after he did not post in the edit banned thread despite being active. Most OTC-heavy posters, when banned, almost immediately go to edit banned, so that, combined with past PM issues with him, led to the check.
To clarify a bit, the mods do discuss internally almost every ban that isn't a wiki-side violation (some cases are so egregious and/or urgent that we take swifter, individual action).
If a mod is actively posting in a thread as a troper, we try to pass potential thump responsibility off to someone else, or at the very least get a second opinion before thumping ourselves, so as to avoid personal bias.
While we are not the "thought police", as stated earlier, we do intercede if we feel that there is an effect on other tropers' wellbeing. That can be difficult, as we try to moderate based on what people do (i.e. posting, editing, etc.), rather than what they are thinking about over private conversation. In edge cases, we may monitor PMs more rigorously.
Okay so to further clarify on the Amber situation (having gone over the P Ms he and I exchanged), he was banned for P Ming people things? Was it for the nasty accusations he made about a mod (which while I’d say are untrue do draw their roots from the fact that you guys have let people who do match that description into OTC, as I said before it’s kinda weird that accusing someone of being that gets a ban but actully being that just results in a person being told to keep quiet about it), the fact that he would warn other troopers about the dangerous past of some OTC regulars, or something else that I’m not awere of?
Like I get the initial ban, I’m sure you guys were sick if him getting into fights with certain people (though I’d argue that the solution to that was to properly moderate OTC and ban said people, not just punish Amber for back seat moding), it’s the upgrade because of P Ms that I don’t get. If the things he accused a mod of are viewed so negatively by the mod team then why are people who openly admit to being like that allowed on the site? Likewise I don’t think it’s ever been made clear here that we can’t gossip about other troopers or warn people when they’re getting into an argument with someone who has previously shown to have a nasty motivation for their stance that people should be awere of.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 31st 2018 at 8:04:48 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Again, accusing people of being fascists and pedophiles is not acceptable here, any more than accusing them of anything else. We as moderators reserve the right to make judgments about who is and is not allowed on our site. It's about what you do, not what you are. If we judge by the latter, then we're entering very dangerous territory where we are expected to police people's thoughts, and we refuse to be put into that position.
Putting this another way, merely having socially unacceptable views is not a prima facie reason to ban someone. They have to post or edit in a way that is itself unacceptable. For example: expressing sexual desire towards a child, or posting apologia for such desires, such as why we shouldn't consider them wrong. (Incidentally, "[underage fictional character] is hot" is not automatically banworthy, although it might merit a thump depending on context.)
That said, a person who has misbehaved in the past is not always excommunicated: tainted with their crimes forever and ever without hope of reprieve. We may choose, from time to time, to let someone who's expressed the intent to reform back into the site. Obviously that is conditional on continued good behavior.
If that makes some people feel uncomfortable, well, welcome to life. We can't always choose whom we interact with. Obviously if any such user does anything to cross the line, it should be reported, but the mere fact of them existing should not be read as the intention of the moderators to condone their views.
What it seems like from our perspective is that certain groups of tropers have taken it upon themselves to act as a sort of vigilante thoughtcrime squad, rooting out anything that looks racist, sexist, or otherwise unacceptable, and reporting it as if it should in and of itself merit a total ban. Obviously, we want problems reported to us, but it's our judgment that ultimately determines the outcomes of these cases.
If we don't act in a way that you find satisfactory, you are welcome to constructively ask about it. What we will not tolerate are the following:
- Assuming that a contrary or "Devil's advocate" position represents a poster's genuine beliefs.
- Directing personal attacks at people you don't like, trying to engage them in arguments to "draw out" undesirable views, and/or sniping at them behind their backs.
- Accusing the moderation team of supporting pedophiles or Nazis or rapists or whatever because we don't unconditionally go along with your judgments.
What we do want:
- If someone posts in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, particularly if it's sexual in nature, report it immediately.
- If you receive a private message soliciting inappropriate conversation, report it immediately.
- If you see someone posting in an overtly racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful way, report it immediately.
If you see a pattern of behavior that seems to indicate that a poster is advocating hateful or sexually inappropriate views, then don't assume that the moderation staff will see the same things as you. We don't participate in every topic; we don't see every post; we don't always get the full context. Make your case with as much supporting evidence as possible, including links to posts that corroborate the claim. If all you say is, "User has a pattern of X behavior in this topic", we may not have the time or desire to pour through dozens or hundreds of conversations to establish whether they rise beyond a point of tolerance.
If your claim is, "Well, these standards let people with unacceptable beliefs fly just below the radar as long as they don't do anything too egregious," then... yeah, that happens a lot. I'm sorry, but as I said before, we aren't thought police. Our primary moderation goal is to maintain a civil forum, not a forum that's perfectly safe from views you find upsetting. We don't have the moderation manpower to do that even if we wanted to, and I'm not sure we'd want to even if we could.
For our part, we do need to make some improvements:
- We need to respond to hollers, even if we don't take action. This is partly due to insufficient tools, and we've asked for tech solutions to make this easier. For now, it's up to individual mods to send a PM for each Holler, which often takes more time than we have.
- As previously posted, we need to recruit more moderators who can fit into our team and whom we can all trust to make unbiased decisions about these sorts of things.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 31st 2018 at 4:45:01 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So I think the disconnect is how much a bad idea can "bleed into" an innocuous post.
Someone has an opinion but doesn't talk about it? fine.
Someone has an opinion and does talk about it? bad.
Which means at some point, in that spectrum of Opinion discussing, there is a line that gets crossed over. And I think where that line is is being disagreed with.
Read my stories!![]()
I’m honestly rather baffled how to interpret this post with nombretomado’s prior statements, and with those by Septimus.
I’m going to mull this over for a bit before responding properly, but initial question:
Which statements in the last two pages come from discussion among the entire mod staff, and/or with the mod staff’s prior review and approval, and which come solely from the mod in question? Because I’m genuinely struggling to reconcile the various statements with each other.
![]()
That's fair. We may disagree about where the line is. The point is that having that disagreement does not mean we "support fascists and pedophiles". I want that made completely clear or we cannot proceed constructively.
There's no conflict. We want feedback about how to improve moderation. We will not tolerate inflammatory accusations or attempts to get people you don't like banned. The mod team is not a hit squad.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 31st 2018 at 5:06:03 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I do see conflict between the statements, which I’ll get into once I’ve got a better grasp on how to explain where I’m struggling.
But regardless of whether there’s conflict or not, that doesn’t answer my question about which statements are from/endorsed by the entire mod team versus from a single mod.
I personally don't think that the mods support pedophiles or fascists.
However, I also think that allowing people who have displayed support or sympathy towards such people to continue to post in the forum makes other people not just feel uncomfortable, but unsafe. Now, interacting with these people online isn't the same as interacting with them in real life, but you can still do a lot of damage just from online interaction. And while it's true that opinions don't necessarily lead to action...well, we don't know if they do until it happens, and I think a lot of people would prefer if the moderation didn't take that risk.
Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Jul 31st 2018 at 5:18:47 AM
Oh God! Natural light!Expressing a bit of personal opinion here @Karkat The Dalek: The problem with that approach is that there is a difference between being part of a group and expressing support/sympathy for that group and the latter situation is far more common. I've seen both situations here several times and there was no overlap that I could tell.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt seems rather evident to me that as well-intentioned as the approach of "we treat people not for what they are but what they do", allowing toxic speech such as support of pedophilia, fascism and racism such liberty just means inadvertedly leading to the censorship of the groups affected by those words. Hypothetically speaking, if a poster with known pedophilliac behavior or support for pedophilliac behavior is allowed to roam free, underage posters (or posters with children) will be less inclined to frequent the forum. The same goes for any number of toxic beliefs and the people the target. By allowing a toxic group a platform, you're denying another group a voice.
It's a thin line, I agree, but I am sure the mod team can see why there are greater concerns about it, particularly after recent incidents.
In my personal opinion, it seems like it'd be far more productive and in the spirit of the mod team as a institution if there was a greater focus on the content, less than the tone, of people's posts, always keeping in mind the history of said tropers. I understand that the mods don't have the time or the will to read through long history of tropers to keep what they are saying in context, but that's why we need a larger mod team. If not, problems like this, of the moderation letting toxic behavior slide past, will keep happening. Not out of malice, but out of sheer lack of manpower.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Nvm, the mods can handle this.
Edited by Corvidae on Jul 31st 2018 at 12:34:26 PM
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.![]()
![]()
![]()
Find a example where someone has posted an explicit statement of the type you describe, said statement was reported, and action was not taken. One example, and your concern will have merit.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 31st 2018 at 6:34:41 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Genuine question: how would one do that? If the issue is something receiving only a thump when it should have been a suspension or ban, the evidence is literally gone. Because thumping deletes the evidence.
I will also reiterate my question about personal/individual mod posts versus full mod team statements, which has still not been addressed.
If it's in pink it's an official statement and you better follow it. If it's qualified as "I think" and "personal opinion" then it usually isn't.
Moderators can see thumped posts, for the record. And we are not going to land on you for misremembering a subsequently thumped post, honest!
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNot sure if it applies post-update but if you're thumped then editing your post should show you the original text.
(though obviously this isn't applicable to thumps that don't apply to yourself)
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
The problem is, if we are remembering something someone else said from months ago, even something particularly awful, it’s going to be hard for us to remember the exact thread, and page number, AND which thumped post a mod needs to check.
Regarding official mod policy: so red posts are approved by the whole mod team, but all the mod posts in the last two pages are individual mod posts? Not official statements as the result of deliberation among the mod team? That’s... not really helpful. I’m still trying to figure out how to properly explain the conflict between the various posts, but here’s an attempt.
The gist I’m getting from nombretomado’s long post is that the mods are overwhelmed, adding new mods is a priority, concerns about bad faith/bigoted tropers are being taken seriously, and so is reviewing past posts/threads upon request to see whether there’s consistent bad behavior.
The gist I’m getting from fighteer’s post is that there will be no change except maybe more mods, that implying that the mods have inadvertently permitted tropers with bad faith/bigoted views to remain on the forums is an attack on the mods themselves, and that objecting to the presence of persons who have repeatedly made pedophiliac statements or racist remarks is tantamount to demanding that the mods become the thought police.
So, uh, that’s why I’m a bit confused.
Edited by wisewillow on Jul 31st 2018 at 6:58:10 AM
I just wanted to chime in to say that the scariest thing in this forum are the people who honestly believe that the mods should be the thought police. Looking over the rhetoric in this discussion (e.g. someone feels "unsafe" on the Internet, etc.), I can honestly say that the arguments in favor of the thought police are disgusting.
Like, there seems to be a willful ignorance on their part as to what happened to Ambar (despite how many time it was explained clear as day), and as to why being punished for what one does as opposed to what one expresses is truly the only reasonable and justifiable way to dole out punishments.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

The best solution to personal bias amoung the mods is having more moderators.
The other solution is for people to behave in a way that does not require moderator intervention.
(crazysamaritan, I don't remember seeing any discussion or proposal that you should be banned)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman