Simply Put, Too Much

[ericgtr12]

How can you guarantee that the next post, in your example, is taken care of given the thousands of posts made daily? If you would have said that to me, anywhere on this forum I wouldn't have been offended and I wouldn't have reported it. So now what? You seem to think it is a violation and I don't - given that it was said to me. So, how do you answer that in the context of consistency?

I should clarify that this is based on reports, which we assume is the basis of most actions taken. While you may not have been offended, someone else may have been had I said it them or conversely had they said it to me, I may have been offended. Then it gets reported. Now it's up to the mod to act or not act, all I am saying is you may have two completely different outcomes (for the exact same post) depending on the mod who fielded it. I can see we have different views on this, I just wanted to air that piece out and I appreciate you guys giving me the chance in this thread. I'll leave it at that.

 

[triptolemus]

It appears that the only time it's removed is if/when it's reported.

I don't really have a horse in the race, but regarding this, what would you expect to be different? Do you expect that mods should review every post in the forum, reported or not?

 

[jagolden]

No offense, but what exactly is the point of making a “farewell” post? If you’re done with this forum, just leave and be done with it. Seems to me you’re just seeking attention by declaring you’re done with MR. JMO.

I think he wants to share why he is leaving, which is legitimate.
The moderation has become very uneven.
I’ve read long, running insulting battles among members that seem to go unmoderated, but call someone out and you get a "love note" warning you of your post.
It seems to be whatever mod feels at whatever moment.
Now that the phones are out I’ll be checking in much less often.

THAT SAID, I do think the mods do a pretty good job considering the huge amount of posts this forum generates. And of course they can’t read every post to check it over. A lot of times it’s the person who reports the post because they can dish it out but won’t take it. It’s a retaliation move on the post readers part, not always the mods.

 

[S.B.G]

I should clarify that this is based on reports, which we assume is the basis of most actions taken. While you may not have been offended, someone else may have been had I said it them or conversely had they said it to me, I may have been offended. Then it gets reported. Now it's up to the mod to act or not act, all I am saying is you may have two completely different outcomes (for the exact same post) depending on the mod who fielded it. I can see we have different views on this, I just wanted to air that piece out and I appreciate you guys giving me the chance in this thread. I'll leave it at that.

Ok, so now there is a report on it.

Let's pretend I'm mod A and you are mod B.

We each have our opinions on the post in question, relayed in the above posts. So now we both disagree on the the handling of the report. What, in your opinion, is the best way to deal with it?

(These types of scenarios do in fact happen in the back room).

 

[ericgtr12]

Ok, so now there is a report on it.

Let's pretend I'm mod A and you are mod B.

We each have our opinions on the post in question, relayed in the above posts. So now we both disagree on the the handling of the report. What, in your opinion, is the best way to deal with it?

(These types of scenarios do in fact happen in the back room).

Fair question and as one who has modded or owned large forums in my day I'm familiar with the back room. I do understand this side of it from the staff perspective, however being on the other side of it here does offer a different view as well.

For the user, if they have been reprimanded for what they see as the same offense, it's a hard pill to swallow when they aren't given the same courtesy. Past history is obviously considered here and I do think the team tries to look at that where applicable, but at the same time we can't expect a mod to do a deep dive on every person who is reported on.

So yes, it's subjective but at times can feel unfair, other times you know you have it coming and should've known better.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

That nirvana of objective moderation perfection will never happen. As @LizKat said, “they are just pixels”...move on.

Then why are there contacts forms and this folder. The mods act like they want feedback and then when we give it to them, we hear people say get over it and move on.

 

[S.B.G]

Fair question and as one who has modded or owned large forums in my day I'm familiar with the back room. I do understand this side of it from the staff perspective, however being on the other side of it here does offer a different view as well.

For the user, if they have been reprimanded for what they see as the same offense, it's a hard pill to swallow when they aren't given the same courtesy. Past history is obviously considered here and I do think the team tries to look at that where applicable, but at the same time we can't expect a mod to do a deep dive on every person who is reported on.

So yes, it's subjective but at times can feel unfair, other times you know you have it coming and should've known better.

Do I understand then that you concede that there is no way to be truly consistent and that you accept that the moderators here strive to be as fair and consistent as they can?

 

[ericgtr12]

Do I understand then that you concede that there is no way to be truly consistent and that you accept that the moderators here strive to be as fair and consistent as they can?

I concede that it's not easy but I certainly do no agree that they have been consistent. Looking at the complaints in this forum alone and seeing moderation first hand (even in threads that I'm not involved with) speaks to how grave these inconsistencies can be. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I think.

 

[LizKat]

How can you guarantee that the next post, in your example, is taken care of given the thousands of posts made daily? If you would have said that to me, anywhere on this forum I wouldn't have been offended and I wouldn't have reported it. So now what? You seem to think it is a violation and I don't - given that it was said to me. So, how do you answer that in the context of consistency?

Yes, I think it's difficult because we're not comparing 0s to other 0s and 1s to other 1s, we're looking at often pretty nuanced sets of posts and replies to those posts. It's like asking mods to drill down into context when someone reports a post for "bickering". When does debate become pointless and when is one of the participants offering an overlooked point? How much time should mods spend on a particular report when the issue at hand is no way as clear as looking at a report of someone calling someone else an idiot? Is this guy trolling or still making discrete points in each post?

The problem of course is that some members may intend to be provocative enough to cause another member to forget about guidelnes and cross one of them. Eventually they probably mess up and cross a line themselves but in the meantime they can probably make a fair amount of work for the mods.

I would expect it could then become difficult for mods to stick to the task at hand if they begin to think they're dealing with a provocateur, e.g,just add one to the number of times someone's warned about some particular offense and move on, versus rolling eyes and throwing a completely literal rulebook at the provocateur whenever any of that member's posts comes up in a report. Would the latter be a legit approach? Sure, but probably not consistent and again not least because not every rule-busting post gets reported anyway.

On the other hand I think habitual provocateurs may over time get under-reported by other forum members (we may just put someone on ignore for awhile or scroll past something and think unkind thoughts but not reply). The result of that, however, can seem unfair to those other members when one of their own posts gets called for some rule-break that for them is a rare occurrence.

It can all get so out there in the weeds... and the mods aren't paid. On balance I'd still rather have imperfectly human-curated discussions at MR, than to deal with algorithm-driven moderation, or worse yet, venture into a forum that features completely unmoderated commentary.

 

[S.B.G]

I concede that it's not easy but I certainly do no agree that they have been consistent. Looking at the complaints in this forum alone and seeing moderation first hand (even in threads that I'm not involved with) speaks to how grave these inconsistencies can be. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I think.

No problem.

However, I'm still curious what your solution would be to enable moderation to be at a level of consistency that you desire, especially given that you say you ran a forum in the past and should have the experience of both sides.

 

[Weaselboy]

Subjective? Maybe. However, if I were reprimanded for that - then the next person who does it is not, for similarly (nearly) the exact same thing, it then feels unfair. Regardless of the topic or the opinion.

If that happens, you need to collect up the links and send in a note to the admins using the contact us process and explain what you think is the inconsistency. For example, it you are moderated for a comment, then you report a very similar comment and the report is rejected, that is something you should bring to the attention of the admins so it can be resolved.

 

[ericgtr12]

No problem.

However, I'm still curious what your solution would be to enable moderation to be at a level of consistency that you desire, especially given that you say you ran a forum in the past and should have the experience of both sides.

I have never ran a forum with rules this stringent, I'm of the mindset (and always have been) that you let these things play out. When one is overbearing and blatantly out of line then there was no question and they were dealt with. Otherwise, you let things play out and right the ship every now and then when necessary. I would have no inclination to even attempt to create (let alone moderate) the rules they have here.

 

[BigBoy2018]

I have never ran a forum with rules this stringent, I'm of the mindset (and always have been) that you let these things play out. When one is overbearing and blatantly out of line then there was no question and they were dealt with. Otherwise, you let things play out and right the ship every now and then when necessary. I would have no inclination to even attempt to create (let alone moderate) the rules they have here.

Agreed. I think MR sets themselves up for criticism by delving so far into the ‘weeds’ with behavior. That in turn, makes forum members more likely to be ‘sensitive’ as well, and thus report stuff that would be no big deal on other sites.

We’re all adults here. As such, we should all know not to get our feelings hurt by some percieved slight, and be able to handle a vigoros disagreement.

Instead, the overly ‘sensitive’ rules turns us all into a bunch of snowflakes who get bent out of shape when someone says our opinion is silly.

 

[I7guy]

Then why are there contacts forms and this folder. The mods act like they want feedback and then when we give it to them, we hear people say get over it and move on.

The very reason the "contact us" button exists is because we are all human and nirvana will never be achieved. The staff takes feedback in two ways. This forum and the button.

Accepting the fact the nirvana will never be achieved and being able to provide feedback and ask questions are two different things.

At some point if you feel you have been targeted unfairly and you've exhausted all avenues to plead your case, it's time to move on.
[doublepost=1543781888][/doublepost]

I have never ran a forum with rules this stringent, I'm of the mindset (and always have been) that you let these things play out. When one is overbearing and blatantly out of line then there was no question and they were dealt with. Otherwise, you let things play out and right the ship every now and then when necessary. I would have no inclination to even attempt to create (let alone moderate) the rules they have here.

Petty bickering is one thing. But if what you are referring to is: insults, trolling, snarky one-liners, memes and what else, I disagree they should play out. It leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, which gives the forum a bad rep.

 

[samiwas]

But what if the the view of the person accusing the first person of “falsehood and lies” is actually wrong? In other words, what if the first person is demonstrably right and the accuser is demonstrably wrong? What then?

I'm pretty sure I specifically laid out what I was talking about. Repeatedly spouting incorrect information, even after being proven wrong time and time again, is trolling. There is no debating over what the unemployment rate was. if you say it was 9% under Obama and less than 2% under Trump, it's not your opinion. It's flat-out wrong.

If the person accusing the first person is actually wrong, it's possible THAT'S the person who is trolling.

This isn't hard.

In your example, you are assuming that there are certain facts that everyone agrees upon. That is not always true.

I guess I'm showing my age... back in the day, the definition of "troll" was someone who states a contrary opinion for the specific purpose of causing others to respond with anger. The goal of the classic troll was to stir up strife. It's a poster's motivation that defines them, not the position they take.

In my example, you can't have an opinion on what the unemployment rate was. It's a factual number, not something open for debate and opinion. If you say it was 9% three years ago, you don't get to just claim that is your opinion. You are wrong. If you think it's under 2% now, that is not your opinion. You are just wrong. If you continue to repeat it, you are still wrong. And there's a good chance you keep repeating it in order to rile people up...AKA, troll. I didn't say it was about the poster's position, but rather the continuous posting of false information after being told it's wrong.

Now, if that isn't trolling, then it's pure stupidity. And that may be worse.

I really like @jkcerda returning to the psri section. Nice to see him there again. Wish I had that skill.

I dunno, the polls with "shut up midget" as an option on every one are kind of tired. He's like a two-trick pony...animated GIFs and polls about midgets.

 

[sracer]

In my example, you can't have an opinion on what the unemployment rate was. It's a factual number, not something open for debate and opinion. If you say it was 9% three years ago, you don't get to just claim that is your opinion. You are wrong. If you think it's under 2% now, that is not your opinion. You are just wrong. If you continue to repeat it, you are still wrong. And there's a good chance you keep repeating it in order to rile people up...AKA, troll. I didn't say it was about the poster's position, but rather the continuous posting of false information after being told it's wrong.

Now, if that isn't trolling, then it's pure stupidity. And that may be worse.

Well... the unemployment rate is not some universally accepted standard calculation. If there is a meeting of the minds as to what all parties agree is the calculation, THEN there can be substantive identification of a statement of fact being correct or in error.

The establishment of agreed upon facts is the first step in productive dialog. If a person rejects a fact, then that should be the end of the conversation. For example: Why would you discuss the necessity of parachutes with a person who rejects the existence of gravity?

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Well... the unemployment rate is not some universally accepted standard calculation. If there is a meeting of the minds as to what all parties agree is the calculation, THEN there can be substantive identification of a statement of fact being correct or in error.

The establishment of agreed upon facts is the first step in productive dialog. If a person rejects a fact, then that should be the end of the conversation. For example: Why would you discuss the necessity of parachutes with a person who rejects the existence of gravity?

But that’s not what he/she is talking about. They are specifically saying that the national unemployment rate has a number that is put out by the government. They aren’t talking about well some people aren’t looking for jobs now so it’s doesnt count them.

This is a good example of someone trying to make a point in this thread but other people just simply refusing to see it.

I guess they should just get over it and move on.

 

[I7guy]

But that’s not what he/she is talking about. They are specifically saying that the national unemployment rate has a number that is put out by the government. They aren’t talking about well some people aren’t looking for jobs now so it’s doesnt count them.

This is a good example of someone trying to make a point in this thread but other people just simply refusing to see it.

I guess they should just get over it and move on.

Point is two people potentially not communicating. The number is a monthly verifiable number that can be sourced directly from a website, but for example are they discussing the same time period?

And did the reporting change in any time period that would make the comparisons less than equivalent.

Unless someone wants to have a discussion as opposed to a snipefest, nothing will change.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Point is two people potentially not communicating. The number is a monthly verifiable number that can be sourced directly from a website, but for example are they discussing the same time period?

And did the reporting change in any time period that would make the comparisons less than equivalent.

Unless someone wants to have a discussion as opposed to a snipefest, nothing will change.

That’s not what he means. But I think everyone who is posting responses like this are making his point for him.

 

[I7guy]

That’s not what he means. But I think everyone who is posting responses like this are making his point for him.

Bottom line there are nuances to consider and there are some things that aren’t black and white.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Bottom line there are nuances to consider and there are some things that aren’t black and white.

His point was about facts. Maybe he didn’t give a clear enough example for people who want to argue with hime He’s simply saying if someone keeps posting a lie, they are trolling.

 

[I7guy]

His point was about facts. Maybe he didn’t give a clear enough example for people who want to argue with hime He’s simply saying if someone keeps posting a lie, they are trolling.

So if I post apple’s revenue last quarter was $10B (which is incorrect), am I trolling or ill informed. If someone “corrects” me and I repost that same nunber am I trolling or incorrect? What is my intent? Doesn’t my intent govern the moderation, ie post removal vs potential time out for trolling ?

 

[Mac'nCheese]

So if I post apple’s revenue last quarter was $10B (which is incorrect), am I trolling or ill informed. If someone “corrects” me and I repost that same nunber am I trolling or incorrect? What is my intent? Doesn’t my intent govern the moderation, ie post removal vs potential time out for trolling ?

He clearly said that if someone is corrected over and over and still posts the same lie, it’s is trolling. Intent doesn’t matter to mods.

 

[I7guy]

...Intent doesn’t matter to mods.

The mods are all over this thread; let them answer for themselves.

As far as what “he” said it’s not up to the posters to make this call.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Then why are there contacts forms and this folder. The mods act like they want feedback and then when we give it to them, we hear people say get over it and move on.

But, as with being an adviser, while you ask for feedback, and you note it, you are not obliged to act upon it.