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
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:27 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:59 pm
Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:



The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.
What is necessarily wrong with "threads multiplying like bunny rabbits"? It's not like space is an issue, really, and people will respond where they are interested. Suppose it allows the OP to protect a topic a bit, if others object to that, they can start their own thread to complain. If the OP is alone in wanting to protect a topic, they will eventually reign over a kingdom of one. So in the end we may have lots of threads expressing these opinions instead of one, yes, but why is that a problem?

If we protect people's right to behave like assholes in their 'free speech' posts, I don't see why we can't let an OP protect their topic. We are not limiting comments, just moving them to a proper location, right?
I don't think there's anything "necessarily" wrong with doing that. From my mod chair, it's hard enough at times to sort posts into the existing 7 categories in a way that people at least grudgingly accept. Additional splitting of threads makes that job much more complicated and makes the board more confusing for someone looking to have a conversation.

On the other hand, I don't know that the way we do it now is the most effective way. As a mod, I'd love it if every comment, question, or complaint about rules was posted in a thread like this one. Rules discussions inevitably derail the topic being discussed, at least temporarily. But I don't think I have the remit to move moderator and rules issues to this thread. All I have control over is where I choose to engage on rules and moderation issues.

From time to time, I've toyed with the idea that "meta" comments should be split out to their own thread because of their derailing nature. But when it I play it out in my head, it becomes infinitely recursive. But perhaps there is a semi-clear line to be drawn between the topic: "climate change" and "how people should talk about climate change." Sounds like a topic we should huddle on.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:12 am

When reported, I've been deleting or moving posts in which someone is called a Nazi. Have I missed some? If so, report and I'll get on it.
Kindnesses.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:06 am
Split thread and moved split to Telestial, UR 4.
Telestial Split From Peterson the Historical Skeptic
Hey Res, this was a fair split. I like the solution you have with the titles. However, I would make a suggestion for future splits if you are going to do this going forward.

"Peterson the Historical Skeptic; Telestial"
"Peterson the Historical Skeptic (Telestial Split)"
"From: Peterson the Historical Skeptic (Telestial)"

You get the idea. Use colons, parentheses, semicolons or something to make sure the title is clear and consistent.

As it reads now, it reads as if the Telestial world split from Peterson.

viewtopic.php?p=2760377#p2760377

By the way, the meme was not off topic. The topic was DCP. The meme was about DCP. Tangential, maybe. Off topic for that forum? No.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Res Ipsa »

Those of you from the frozen north or from across the pond are familiar with "question time." Question time, in some parliamentary democracies, is when a representative of the ruling government takes questions from other members of parliament. The Canadian Senate had Question Time for over 12 hours yesterday, and it was very interesting listening to one single senator answer questions about the Emergency Declaration for an extended period of time.

So, as an experiment, I'm declaring Question Time on the general issue of DiscussMoronism governance. Given the volume of questions and complaints aired in several different threads, I think it makes sense to address them in a single thread. I am committing only myself to answer questions, although of course the entire mod team and Shades are welcome to do so. And I will do so, time permitting, until it looks like the exercise has run its course. Copying and pasting of questions or comments on the topic of forum governance that have been posted in various threads is welcome, and I may answer questions I find in other threads here. I'm also not limiting Question Time to questions -- comments are welcome. I will just interpret comments as not requesting an answer. I will post an invitation in Terrestrial for folks who rarely venture to the non-Mormon discussion side of the board.

Also, as an experiment, during Question Time I will consider trolling and disrupting questions or comments as violations of UR 4 and move them to a separate thread. I will do the same with inter-personal bickering.

The floor is yours.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Binger »

Why did you pick this forum for this, rather than SPP?
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:37 pm
Why did you pick this forum for this, rather than SPP?
Good question. I started this thread before SSP existed. Traditionally, board business threads were posted in Terrestial. But that practice originated when the non-Mormon questions side of the board was one "off topic" kingdom. I started this thread as an experiment to provide a space where rules and moderator issues could be discussed in one thread instead of spread out among a dozen different threads. My thinking is that having a single thread would reduce the disruption to substantive threads and give folks a single place to find various discussions about board issues -- especially Shades' rulings.

So, I picked this thread, which is located in SP, to try out Question Time. I'll think about whether it makes sense to move the entire thread to SSP.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Marcus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:07 pm
Those of you from the frozen north or from across the pond are familiar with "question time." Question time, in some parliamentary democracies, is when a representative of the ruling government takes questions from other members of parliament. The Canadian Senate had Question Time for over 12 hours yesterday, and it was very interesting listening to one single senator answer questions about the Emergency Declaration for an extended period of time.

So, as an experiment, I'm declaring Question Time on the general issue of DiscussMoronism governance. Given the volume of questions and complaints aired in several different threads, I think it makes sense to address them in a single thread. I am committing only myself to answer questions, although of course the entire mod team and Shades are welcome to do so. And I will do so, time permitting, until it looks like the exercise has run its course. Copying and pasting of questions or comments on the topic of forum governance that have been posted in various threads is welcome, and I may answer questions I find in other threads here. I'm also not limiting Question Time to questions -- comments are welcome. I will just interpret comments as not requesting an answer. I will post an invitation in Terrestrial for folks who rarely venture to the non-Mormon discussion side of the board.

Also, as an experiment, during Question Time I will consider trolling and disrupting questions or comments as violations of UR 4 and move them to a separate thread. I will do the same with inter-personal bickering.

The floor is yours.
Wow, fascinating. I was literally searching for a post of yours in red to move here so I could ask a question, when I saw this! Great timing.

Anyway, recently you made a comment in red, asking people not to bump old threads for a specific reason:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:26 am

A plea to all. Please don’t bump old threads to try to push other peoples threads off the front page. If you want to empower us, please use the report function. Thanks.
This was in red, and it seems that you inferred Philo's intent as to why he bumped threads, and responded as a mod. (not that it was a reach, it was clear why he was doing it.)

My question is this: if you can infer intent (appropriately, in my opinion) in that context, could you also infer the intent of other posters who start threads, and if you conclude it is done with the intent to disrupt, could you ask them, in red ink, to desist?

It seems clear to me that several posters here are, repeatedly and in a very short time frame, starting threads only for the annoyance factor, so while I understand the mod comment in red quoted above, where a request was made regarding the response to trolls, wouldn't it be more helpful to comment in red on the behavior of the trolls directly?

Of course, we are not privy to your private communications so it may be that you have already attempted this repeatedly without success, and have moved on to the next level, which I would certainly understand.

There is also precedent for a request like this; If I recall correctly, Shades prohibited ldsfaqs for a time from starting threads in SP and Terrestrial, for a similar reason.
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 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:03 am


I thought moving this to the mod thread was a good idea. Shades issued his ruling on sexual harassment weeks ago. The ruling is clear that sexual harassment in Paradise/Terrestial is deleted from the post or moved to Prison/Telestial, whichever is more appropriate to the post. Shades also included his own definition of "sexual harassment" that is much broader than pornographic language. I disagree with your parsing of the language, as it would equate "you are a boy" with a graphic description of a sex act.

To my knowledge, Shades does not have a set number of violations that automatically leads to a suspension or to being placed on the queue. As I understand it, the purposes of any kind of sanction is not punitive but to encourage rule compliance. In both of the two cases you mention, my understanding is that Shades resorted to using the queue only after being convinced that the person simply would not comply with the rules. It's a matter of judgment and how the person responds to less drastic feedback.
So following the suspensions of two posters, has the behavior changed?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:49 pm
Binger wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:37 pm
Why did you pick this forum for this, rather than SPP?
Good question. I started this thread before SSP existed. Traditionally, board business threads were posted in Terrestial. But that practice originated when the non-Mormon questions side of the board was one "off topic" kingdom. I started this thread as an experiment to provide a space where rules and moderator issues could be discussed in one thread instead of spread out among a dozen different threads. My thinking is that having a single thread would reduce the disruption to substantive threads and give folks a single place to find various discussions about board issues -- especially Shades' rulings.

So, I picked this thread, which is located in SP, to try out Question Time. I'll think about whether it makes sense to move the entire thread to SSP.
Thanks. Yes, SSP. But, I'm down with SPP, yeah you know me.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rules and Moderator information

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:50 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:07 pm
Those of you from the frozen north or from across the pond are familiar with "question time." Question time, in some parliamentary democracies, is when a representative of the ruling government takes questions from other members of parliament. The Canadian Senate had Question Time for over 12 hours yesterday, and it was very interesting listening to one single senator answer questions about the Emergency Declaration for an extended period of time.

So, as an experiment, I'm declaring Question Time on the general issue of DiscussMoronism governance. Given the volume of questions and complaints aired in several different threads, I think it makes sense to address them in a single thread. I am committing only myself to answer questions, although of course the entire mod team and Shades are welcome to do so. And I will do so, time permitting, until it looks like the exercise has run its course. Copying and pasting of questions or comments on the topic of forum governance that have been posted in various threads is welcome, and I may answer questions I find in other threads here. I'm also not limiting Question Time to questions -- comments are welcome. I will just interpret comments as not requesting an answer. I will post an invitation in Terrestrial for folks who rarely venture to the non-Mormon discussion side of the board.

Also, as an experiment, during Question Time I will consider trolling and disrupting questions or comments as violations of UR 4 and move them to a separate thread. I will do the same with inter-personal bickering.

The floor is yours.
Wow, fascinating. I was literally searching for a post of yours in red to move here so I could ask a question, when I saw this! Great timing.

Anyway, recently you made a comment in red, asking people not to bump old threads for a specific reason:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:26 am

A plea to all. Please don’t bump old threads to try to push other peoples threads off the front page. If you want to empower us, please use the report function. Thanks.
This was in red, and it seems that you inferred Philo's intent as to why he bumped threads, and responded as a mod. (not that it was a reach, it was clear why he was doing it.)

My question is this: if you can infer intent (appropriately, in my opinion) in that context, could you also infer the intent of other posters who start threads, and if you conclude it is done with the intent to disrupt, could you ask them, in red ink, to desist?

It seems clear to me that several posters here are, repeatedly and in a very short time frame, starting threads only for the annoyance factor, so while I understand the mod comment in red quoted above, where a request was made regarding the response to trolls, wouldn't it be more helpful to comment in red on the behavior of the trolls directly?

Of course, we are not privy to your private communications so it may be that you have already attempted this repeatedly without success, and have moved on to the next level, which I would certainly understand.

There is also precedent for a request like this; If I recall correctly, Shades prohibited ldsfaqs for a time from starting threads in SP and Terrestrial, for a similar reason.
Thanks, Marcus. That's pretty much a perfect question, in that it highlights all kinds of stuff that we have to balance when moderating.

The role that intent should play in moderating decisions is tricky and varies depending on the kind of violation we are talking about. Often, intent isn't a factor. Although I mentioned Philo's intent in my red post, it's not the intent that was the problem. It was the effect on the board. I don't know if you saw, but Shades recently publicly made the same request to AtlanticMike. I mentioned Philo's intent only to communicate that I understood why he was doing it. In neither case do I consider the intent relevant -- just the effect.

I try to address rules issues through PM when I think it will be effective. I would love to address all rules violations in this manner, I think that demands too much of us mere mortals. I elected to post publicly in this specific case to head off a possible tit for tat war to control the front pages, which could create conditions under which I would feel compelled to start handing out suspensions instead of a friendly plea.

Because we don't have a rule against trolling, my general philosophy is to apply the rules to a trolling post as I would any other posts and, otherwise, to not reinforce the behavior. In my experience, giving a person who is trolling any positive or negative reinforcement simply rewards the troller with what they want. For that reason, I would be hesitant about adopting your suggestion to comment on trolling in red.

We do have a very broad tool that we can use in response to actual disruption of the board's function:
Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means. Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either.
Universal Rule 8

That's a broad and pretty powerful tool, which means to me that it is very easy to misuse based on personal or subjective preferences, rather than consistent with the dispassionate "clone of shades" model we agree as mods to follow. It gets more powerful when we consider that we are also charged with enforcing the spirit of the rules. UR 8 has a pretty broad spirit.

Deciding when something disrupts the smooth operation of the board is a highly subjective question, and I think Shades has made it clear that someone's actions are not disruptive simply because they are irritating. Nevertheless, I think we have to apply the rule in the lots of context that Shades has provided over the years. I have used the rule when folks engage in conduct that significantly interferes with my ability to the job that Shades expects of me. I see that as very different from someone trolling my posts in a way that pisses me off.

Given all that context, in answer to your specific question, if someone starts a thread to "be disruptive," there really isn't any rule that applies. In that context, "disruptive" is so subjective that it would be impossible to apply it in a manner that would appear fair. But, posting multiple threads on the same topic in a relatively short period of time could be fairly viewed as disrupting the smooth operation of the board, regardless of intent. Had anyone disregarded my plea in red and continued to play zombie thread to control the front page, I would have invoked UR8.

On top of that, the red notice itself would be reinforcement of behavior that I try to avoid reinforcing. So, although I certainly could do as you suggest, I don't think it would be effective in terms of rules enforcement.

Sorry for so much text, but it was a good and important question that I thought deserved a thorough response.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply