Rules and Moderator information

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Jersey Girl »

Marcus wrote:
Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:36 pm

To that end, it would be helpful to know what happens when someone does break the rules? And then continues to break the rules? And then breaks the rules some more? And then are publicly warned not to break the rules? And then have the rules publicly explained to them? And then continues to disrupt, harass and derail, ad nauseam?
I am sure I mentioned this in a previous post, but the ban button allows moderators/administrators to suspend posters on a timer, if you will. For example, you could have a 3 day suspension of posting privileges.

It would be helpful if/when a poster was put on suspension or banned or put on the queue and/or confined to Prison or Telestial, that the moderator taking the action would post that mod action directly to the board like they do every other mod action. Otherwise no one knows that anything is being done as a consequence to posters for habitually and defiantly breaking the rules, and it feels like the end is never in sight for posters who do conform to board rules.

Another idea would be to instead of confining posters to Prison or Telestial, to confine them to Celestial or the new Super Spirit Paradise Forum here as a form of rehabilitation. I'm dead serious here.


In the matter of queuing and confining to Prison/Telestial, I think that Shades has it exactly bassackwards. Put them in the upper forums and you can avoid the queue entirely. If they can't pass muster, then by all means, queue them.

We've got 3 excellent mods on this board now. Why should they be bothered baby sitting grown adults and fielding the reports being generated by these people every day they come on this board? In all these years, I have never lost sight of the fact that Shades and the mods are posters, too. Why let defiant posters who have no intention of abiding by the rules that the rest of the posting world here does, suck up everyone's time? Makes this board look like a bunch of wag the dog fools, it does.

Did that last line sound like Yoda?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Chap »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:28 am
I am sure I mentioned this in a previous post, but the ban button allows moderators/administrators to suspend posters on a timer, if you will. For example, you could have a 3 day suspension of posting privileges.

It would be helpful if/when a poster was put on suspension or banned or put on the queue and/or confined to Prison or Telestial, that the moderator taking the action would post that mod action directly to the board like they do every other mod action. Otherwise no one knows that anything is being done as a consequence to posters for habitually and defiantly breaking the rules, and it feels like the end is never in sight for posters who do conform to board rules.
Mods - may I ask if anyone is currently on suspension or banning of some kind, or has just emerged from it?
Jersey Girl wrote:
Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:28 am
We've got 3 excellent mods on this board now. Why should they be bothered baby sitting grown adults and fielding the reports being generated by these people every day they come on this board? In all these years, I have never lost sight of the fact that Shades and the mods are posters, too. Why let defiant posters who have no intention of abiding by the rules that the rest of the posting world here does, suck up everyone's time? Makes this board look like a bunch of wag the dog fools, it does.
I have to agree with this. Again, this is not about someone 'annoying' other posters by expressing a coherent point of view that others happen not to agree with - which should certainly not be a reason for imposing any sanction. This is about deliberate and continued saturation of the communications space with repetitive (and at times disgusting) nonsense with the aim of sabotaging the normal operation of this bit of cyberspace as a discussion forum.

Why does that get a free pass?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Jersey Girl »

Chap wrote:
Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:16 am
This is about deliberate and continued saturation of the communications space with repetitive (and at times disgusting) nonsense with the aim of sabotaging the normal operation of this bit of cyberspace as a discussion forum.

Why does that get a free pass?
I wish I could have said it as succinctly as your above!

I don't think that Shades gets the full effect that regular users of this board do. I'm going to be perfectly blunt here. Shades isn't a regular participant on this board as some of the rest of us are. He doesn't involve himself at any length in the discussions, therefore, I don't think he feels the same level of investment in the discussions as many of us do. He's not following a topic as a participant, he might be reading them, I don't know, but for those of us who want to dig in to a topic and follow it to whatever degree we are able (I'm no genius but I try to stay with a thread that interests me, contribute, make inquiry and learn), it's outrageous to see the threads disrupted by total garble. It is NOT a matter of opposing viewpoints. It's a matter of throwing road stars on the path of thought for the sole purpose of disrupting and destroying the discussion.

For those of us who really want to get our heads into a topic and think, it's essentially discouraging us from doing so. The result is a form of censorship.

Hell if AM actually expressed a viewpoint around here, I'd up and die from shock.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Marcus »

Welcome back, Cultellus/Binger. You've been back for 4 hours and have made 14 posts, approximately 10 of which have already had to be moved by moderators because of your rule-breaking. Fun times, huh?
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Dr. Shades »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Dec 31, 2021 4:41 am
Further exasperating the climate is when the absentee father figure actually shows up, and because he doesn’t really care about his family he makes arbitrary nonsensical judgements like banning a beloved family member . . .
He wasn't banned. He voluntarily departed.
. . . for talking about their homeland . . .
If he had talked about his homeland in the Off-Topic Forum, where it belonged, instead of derailing threads with it, would he have been placed on the queue?
. . . and posting tasteful art, . . .
Cartoons of women being raped and people being beheaded count as "tasteful art?"
In our board troll’s case we’re most likely stuck with his B.S. until the mods grow a damned set of balls and nut the “F” up, or Dr. Shades wrangles this piece of crap.
The mods don't punish people; they simply ensure that rules aren't broken. People are allowed to be strident or express opinions that run afoul of the general narrative as long as, again, rules aren't broken. Sure, "spam" exists as a concept, but something that challenges us or calls us out doesn't automatically equal spam. It's a subjective call, so we must be very cautious.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Marcus »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:31 am
The mods don't punish people; they simply ensure that rules aren't broken. People are allowed to be strident or express opinions that run afoul of the general narrative as long as, again, rules aren't broken.
of course. We all get that. But, when a poster returns and in three hours has 11 out of his first 14 posts moved, then it's logical to conclude he broke 11 rules, and wasn't simply being strident or expressing opinions that run afoul of the general narrative, right?
Sure, "spam" exists as a concept, but something that challenges us or calls us out doesn't automatically equal spam. It's a subjective call, so we must be very cautious.
Of course.And our mods are very, very, VERY cautious. Exceedingly cautious. To the point that reminding us that caution is necessary seems superfluous.

Especially since that issue is really not the main issue we have been dealing with. The sexual harasment, personal attacks, and attacks on family members are far larger issues. Those are the main issues Doc is referring to, in my opinion. Focusing on the subjective nature of spam determinations seems to avoid the real issue.
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Dr. Shades »

Marcus wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:50 am
of course. We all get that. But, when a poster returns and in three hours has 11 out of his first 14 posts moved, then it's logical to conclude he broke 11 rules, and wasn't simply being strident or expressing opinions that run afoul of the general narrative, right?
Or broke one rule 11 times.
Especially since that issue is really not the main issue we have been dealing with. The sexual harasment, personal attacks, and attacks on family members are far larger issues. Those are the main issues Doc is referring to, in my opinion.
I thought we had successfully dealt with those issues. . . or at least decisively, uh, decided how to deal with them. Have the moderators failed to deal with such infractions of late?
Focusing on the subjective nature of spam determinations seems to avoid the real issue.
I thought that was what was on people's minds at the present time.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Marcus »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:13 am
Marcus wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:50 am
of course. We all get that. But, when a poster returns and in three hours has 11 out of his first 14 posts moved, then it's logical to conclude he broke 11 rules, and wasn't simply being strident or expressing opinions that run afoul of the general narrative, right?
Or broke one rule 11 times.
ok. How is that a response to my comment that 11 incidences of rule-breaking isn’t “simply being strident or expressing opinions that run afoul of the general narrative, right?”
Especially since that issue is really not the main issue we have been dealing with. The sexual harasment, personal attacks, and attacks on family members are far larger issues. Those are the main issues Doc is referring to, in my opinion.
I thought we had successfully dealt with those issues. . . or at least decisively, uh, decided how to deal with them.

No, you decided how to deal with them, which of course is your right. I, for one, do not agree with how you decided to deal with sexual harassment. Earlier in this thread, one of your mods expressed a similar sentiment.
Focusing on the subjective nature of spam determinations seems to avoid the real issue.
I thought that was what was on people's minds at the present time.
I’m just explained it wasn’t, at least for me. In my estimation, ‘spam’ hasn’t been the main issue for anyone the last several months. Your focus on that without comment on the big issues leaves me nonplussed.
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Dr. Shades »

Marcus wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:39 am
No, you decided how to deal with them, which of course is your right. I, for one, do not agree with how you decided to deal with sexual harassment. Earlier in this thread, one of your mods expressed a similar sentiment.
Didn't we agree to delete such comments or, at the very least, reclassify them to a lower kingdom?
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Marcus »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:29 am
Marcus wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:39 am
No, you decided how to deal with them, which of course is your right. I, for one, do not agree with how you decided to deal with sexual harassment. Earlier in this thread, one of your mods expressed a similar sentiment.
Didn't we agree to delete such comments or, at the very least, reclassify them to a lower kingdom?
Didn't we agree. :D :D :D :D :D No, Shades, your kingdom is not a democracy. We didn't 'agree.' you 'decreed', as of course you have every right to do.

But no, your statement above doesn't quite match what we were recently told, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. I know you've had your plate full lately, so here's a quick recap, if you don't mind reviewing it:

Res Ipsa had a discussion with us about it, here is his first where he quoted the new rules:
viewtopic.php?p=2759500#p2759500

Then my response, where i give some thoughts about sexual harassment here and ask for clarification re: delete vs. move:
Marcus wrote:
Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:52 pm
Thanks for posting the early notes, as well as the ruling. If you will forgive a little rumination, this explains, for me at least, why there was a little confusion in my mind over the sexual harassment ruling.

To explain, I recall when Shades posted the first part, especially the first sentence:
NEVERTHELESS, we can safely curtail the sexual harassment that's been seen here of late...
I think what happened was I stopped there and thought, 'that's great, no more sexual harassment,' but it wasn't until the rules came out and I read this
Your requests have been granted:
...
2.Sexual harassment will, of course, be considered a personal attack and will be treated accordingly.
...that I realized there would NOT be a 'curtailing' of sexual harassment, as I understood the word 'curtail.' There would be no decrease or diminishment in the actual sexual harassment, but simply a restriction in where it was allowed. The only possibly new part was identifying sexual harassment as a personal attack, but that seems pretty obvious and was likely the rule all along (I hope), so it just felt like although the rules were presented as not allowing sexual harassment, nothing actually changed. If the deletion part is new, that helps.

Given how few female posters there seem to be and how specific the sexual harassment of them has been, it just didn't feel like the issue had been adequately addressed.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Regarding mod choices whether to delete or move personal attacks, personally, I'd vote for deleting every time, if only to improve the level of discourse here in general.

If the mods will permit a question, is there a framework for deciding delete vs. move? Do you think Shades might be open to always deleting if personal attacks occur anywhere but the two allowed forums? Kind of like how family-related attacks are always deleted? I can ask this separately, if it would help, but, probably more importantly, can we bribe you into considering it by adding pool tables to that mod-only Casino game room I heard about!? Or maybe spot you guys a couple free rounds of fantasy quidditch? :D :D
And RI's response, with the part bolded that relates to delete vs. Move, plus his assessment of the sexual harassment part of the rule:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:18 pm
Shades vetoed the Fantasy Quidditch, so that avenue of bribery is right out. I started this thread as an open thread for any and all questions having to do with rules and moderation, so your questions are most welcome in this thread.

In answer to your question, the general philosophy of the board is to honor free speech to the extent possible, as long as the speech happens in the right sub-forum. The delete option, as it was originally presented, was applied in cases in which a post that was substantive and otherwise within the rules contained a personal attack that was thrown in almost as an afterthought. In that case, to preserve the integrity of the substantive conversation, the personal attack could be deleted to allow the post to stay in the forum in which it was posted. On the other hand, if the "sting" of the post was a personal attack, it would be moved.

That's the general idea. It's an option that has been used more and less over time. But the intent is to use deletion to benefit the user by allowing a post that breaks the rules to remain in the forum in which it was posted. Using it consistently to make words disappear would be contrary to the intent as I understand it.

I appreciate your feedback on the sexual harassment rule. My initial reaction was that it didn't solve the problem people had been complaining about at all.
Most of the sexually harassing posts we were dealing with qualified as personal attacks anyway, so the rule didn't change much in my opinion. But, given the lack of objections by those pushing for the rule change, I didn't express my opinion. In retrospect, maybe giving the new rule a try instead of objecting at the time was a mistake.
If there is a possibility you are now leaning more toward consistently deleting comments that constitute harassment, you certainly have my vote.
Post Reply