[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Maru

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

So basically, more transparent moderating but leave things as it is? That could work. Like, when stuff gets deleted, post that there has been a deletion and why? Stuff like that?

The issue here would be that then the person who has been deleted will argue back that their post should not have been removed, and then we have to either delete that comment, or explain further and then the thread would turn into 'the modding is unfair' arguments

Honestly, this whole thing has made me really think I should just step back from moderating for a while. I really feel we are in a 'cant win' situation where half the forum agree with the deletions and stuff and half disagree

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Maru

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

..I think the only thing with locked threads, Maru...from my forum experience anyway...is that the thread becomes locked, so silliness can’t continue or whatever reason it has been...but that can then spill into other threads more/ a new thread...because people still want to say.....but the locking didn’t allow them....

[bots]

if members could vote to give mods a days ban, i think it could increase the fairness aspect

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if members could vote to give mods a days ban, i think it could increase the fairness aspect

Y'all can ban me permanently if you like. I don't mind

Admin did ban me once, IIRC. Just to show me it could be done. Not sure if it was Josy or Ben (when he had admin powers)

[RichardG]

i mean i think the debates section as a whole is a damn mess both in terms of its content and some occasional questionable moderating decisions but i also think the same applies to the main big brother forum as well? i think that everything will carry on as before regardless of what rules you may or may not introduce.

[user104658]

Make a separate elite subforum for the cream of the crop and make it that you have to earn your way in there by consistently making insightful posts,and after a while there will be one small but excellent little SD subforum. The promised land, so to speak, where the riff-raff may never tread. Every member there will have mod privileges and the ability to edit each others posts - but will never do so, on a trust based system.

I will obviously be the first member because A) we all know I'd get there quickly anyway and B) I don't really need anyone else to reply to my posts, I can just have discussions on my own...

And then eventually others will reach a high enough level to join me there.

Just a thought.

[user104658]

To make a couple of direct comparisons;

"I find this over-sensitive"
"I find this a bit racist"

Both fine.

"You are a snowflake!"
"You are a Nazi!"

... Not fine.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To make a couple of direct comparisons;

"I find this over-sensitive"
"I find this a bit racist"

Both fine.

"You are a snowflake!"
"You are a Nazi!"

... Not fine.

"You are a racist" though...?

I have seen that on the forum I think. My idea of insult I try to keep pretty simple... if I can make someone 0-60 super pissed by saying they are XYZ, then that's a pretty good indicator it will be taken as an insult.

Most people where I come from would be livid if you called them racist. And it's said to bait others to get them to throw a punch in a non-criminal/criminal environment.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Maru

"You are a racist" though...?

I have seen that on the forum I think. My idea of insult I try to keep pretty simple... if I can make someone 0-60 super pissed by saying they are XYZ, then that's a pretty good indicator it will be taken as an insult.

Most people where I come from would be livid if you called them racist. And it's said to bait others to get them to throw a punch in a non-criminal/criminal environment.

I think your post is racist because....fine

Random 'you are racist'. No good.

IMO. I guess again, with this stuff a lot of it is context and personal opinion.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I think your post is racist because....fine

Random 'you are racist'. No good.

IMO. I guess again, with this stuff a lot of it is context and personal opinion.

And that's as far as I'd take it really. I think picking and choosing words is a bad way to go about crafting any policy. It's better to go with context... and I think some need to let up off the moderators if they get it wrong. We're human beings with completely different subjective realities. Perception is not an exact science.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Maru

"You are a racist" though...?

I have seen that on the forum I think. My idea of insult I try to keep pretty simple... if I can make someone 0-60 super pissed by saying they are XYZ, then that's a pretty good indicator it will be taken as an insult.

Most people where I come from would be livid if you called them racist. And it's said to bait others to get them to throw a punch in a non-criminal/criminal environment.

I think I've been guilty of saying it in one thread during a temper tantrum. In general, no, it's not really OK. None of us here know each other well enough to make such a definitive statement.

However, I think quoting something and saying "This is kinda racist", or "I think you're being racist" is quite different from "You ARE A racist".

Mainly because I don't think most people are racist, but I do think pretty much everyone is capable of being racist at times, whether intentionally or not.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think I've been guilty of saying it in one thread during a temper tantrum. In general, no, it's not really OK. None of us here know each other well enough to make such a definitive statement.

However, I think quoting something and saying "This is kinda racist", or "I think you're being racist" is quite different from "You ARE A racist".

Mainly because I don't think most people are racist, but I do think pretty much everyone is capable of being racist at times, whether intentionally or not.

Of course

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think I've been guilty of saying it in one thread during a temper tantrum. In general, no, it's not really OK. None of us here know each other well enough to make such a definitive statement.

However, I think quoting something and saying "This is kinda racist", or "I think you're being racist" is quite different from "You ARE A racist".

Mainly because I don't think most people are racist, but I do think pretty much everyone is capable of being racist at times, whether intentionally or not.

...but then wouldn’t that be making a comment that would have no substance, which is what Vicky is saying that posts should have, they should be well thought out etc..rather than just throwing out labels, whichever way that label was said and attached, that part seems less important...it’s also like the thread Withano made, which is...are we entitled to..?...and Admin might say yeah, you’re entitled to, it’s within the rules ...but then what purpose does it have to further and progress a discussion ...because it would only serve to put on the defensive....defensive is never an equal in discussion, so it doesn’t make for good debate..

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To make a couple of direct comparisons;

"I find this over-sensitive"
"I find this a bit racist"

Both fine.

"You are a snowflake!"
"You are a Nazi!"

... Not fine.

Yes, nailed it tbh.

There is a huge difference between using baity terms for people, and actually stating that you find them/the post/whatever a bit oversensitive or something.

I have now changed my mind on the snowflake thing actually. I supported it earlier in the thread but of course you are right...'I think you are being oversensitive on this issue' V 'you are a being a snowflake'...of course the former is much better and more grown up

[Cal.]

I disagree purely because I think it would be hard to implement and VERY subjective depending on the moderator in question at the time. It's not as simple and black and white as normal forum rules. People could be posting things which they deemed perfectly fine and a moderator could take issue with it etc.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Cal.

I disagree purely because I think it would be hard to implement and VERY subjective depending on the moderator in question at the time. It's not as simple and black and white as normal forum rules. People could be posting things which they deemed perfectly fine and a moderator could take issue with it etc.

This is something I certainly do agree with. We are dealing with people insulting others based on their narrow interpretation of what they said or think they implied. There is no black and white and will allow some to carry on as usual.

[Vicky.]

I am closing my own thread as its now quite clear that no matter what we do, we will be in the wrong. I did think that maybe we could sort something out, but it is clear that this is not possible tbh. I don't know what I was thinking making this thread and being optimistic about it all. Also closing as I can see the direction this is now going to go, in exactly the same direction as most other threads.

Moderating is always going to be subjective. And context is important also so no 'set rules' would really work.

So I guess, I will be doing the same as usual, but I may also be reminding people that they need to be ontopic, and also intervening/deleting when appropriate. This will be my last attempt to sort out this section, and tbh, I am sure it won't work either but it has to be tried. If people do feel victimized, so be it. Its the nature of the job really isn't it..

So yeah, closed as its already going the same way as usual, tbh.

People may PM me if they disagree with this being closed, but I am sure most can see exactly why it was.