Appeal to the moderation

Eh, I just like the fact that I know you'll actually do grunt work. Not just what you want to do but what needs to be done too. I don't think you're the best choice on the list, but you're certainly better than some.

Fair enough.

I was tempted to put myself on the list to see what would happen, but at this point I'm thinking why bother.

I do think the two currently on top would be good choices, though.

No, my precious lead!

Good to see this thread calmed down in the time I left. I would love if I could frequent OTC just like any other forum. I think the ideas posted are a good one, although the posting privileges one might be hard to maintain.

Ramidel's "shock-value posts" are still unthumped.

This is really not what I wanted. I've said it before, I think most reasonable people are going to react very strongly to morally objectionable opinions, and punishing them for doing what's right will turn them away. Are we not able to use common sense? Racism/[insert horrible thing here] is a whole different level from liking Michael Bay movies.

I'm rather tired of the moral relativism abuse around here. I contributed to it in the past while I was in my stupid teenager phase, but I intend to keep it as just that—stupid immature teenager phase. Opinions can be harmful and for that reason certain ones should not be permitted here. "African people have no dreams/are better off dead" is harmful; "you're saying racist things, shut up" is not. People need to be able to take non-sugarcoated criticism, which is not harmful. Evidently the moderation and I disagree fundamentally on what makes an opinion harmful.

I don't think this is working out. I'm jumping ship, folks.

Exactly. Thank you.

edited 14th Jan '12 10:07:34 PM by Gwirion

;_;

I am going to be left alone soon. D:

I can't believe I'm actually in the running for this.

I'll say it again: if we call out someone for having a horrid opinion, that shouldn't be just as or more thump-worthy than the opinion itself. I can understand the need to prevent dogpiles, but they're going to happen anyways.

@DS,

7th Place. Wooo!

I agree 100%.

There's no reason to be a dick when calling somebody out for being a racist; there are no angry mastodons on the internet, so there's always time to cool off and compose a nondickish response.

True, but we're talking knee-jerk reactions to really awful statements, so expecting level-headedness isn't terribly realistic.

Likewise, didn't the racist have the time to consider that calling for genocide in Africa might be offensive and dickish?

Yes, and those knee-jerk statements shouldn't be made. This is a civil forum. People can walk away from their computers instead of posting knee jerk posts. Just because someone is an ass doesn't mean you need to sink to their level.

edited 14th Jan '12 10:18:24 PM by shimaspawn

Therein lies the problem with this rule: we all have different definitions of dickish. Under my standards, there is no such think as a dickish way to call a racist out on their BS.

And let me say this to the moderation: look around. People are starting to leave and get banned left and right. One of your appointed heralds has stormed off, long-time users have flounced, it's taken so many appeals to get forum moderators, people still don't understand why some mod decisions are what they are, and there's general outrage, frustration and general disillusionment not only at the moderation, but at the site itself.

Can we please change how things are run? You know, stuff like clearly-defined rules, equal-level moderators to act as checks-and-balances for moderation decisions, maybe even a new admin, just something.

Is it possible to drop the "dick" thing and make more concrete rules/standard for the current and future mods to enforce, and the rest of us to follow?

Ninja'd.

edited 14th Jan '12 10:25:06 PM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers

I think permitting personal attacks under certain circumstances left open to tropers' interpretation is not a can of worms that we want to open. Nevertheless, I would agree with the principle that "WTF is this shit" is not worse than suggesting that genocide would improve Africa, and would go so far as to say that suggesting an equivalence is itself an insult to the former.

Ninja'd. You don't need to tell me to look around, Rocket Dude. You really don't need to tell me that. And I do agree.

edited 14th Jan '12 10:27:26 PM by BobbyG

Agreed.

Also the "every topic in OTC needs moderator approval" idea thrown around earlier sounds pretty bad.

Because... ?

I think that a set of concrete rules of what is and is not permitted would be preferable to the vaguely worded rules we have now. In addition allowing a system of checks and balances among mods and admins, as well as requiring that they too obey the laid-out rules, would help immensely with some of the problems we're having both internally and externally.

e:Because the mods aren't on all the time. If it were implemented, it would need to go through a test run, e.g. the topic would be posted immediately, but mods would be notified of its existence and required to press a button confirming that they noticed its existence, so that the average amount of time it took would be notified. A couple months of this would be the necessary amount of time I feel to get a grasp of wheather or not the response time would be quick enough.

edited 14th Jan '12 10:41:26 PM by setnakhte