Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Politics v7.0 Moderation thread Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

03-02-2017 , 03:06 AM
Welcome to the Politics v7.0 moderation thread. Anything to do with moderation of the forum belongs here. This replaces the previous moderation threads which have now both been closed.

Any posts not related to moderation of Pv7.0 will be deleted. Also any posts talking about the moderation of this forum in other threads will be deleted

It's not a !!! thread but will be treated as such when it's about the moderation.
03-02-2017 , 03:15 AM
Posted by Original Position (Sorry, I deleted this from the previous mod thread by accident)

Quote:
I propose a new rule:

------

8) Links from some on-topic websites are banned (although you can still refer to or quote from them). To ban a website, a moderator (and only a moderator) can start a thread with a poll open for one week proposing to ban links from that website. If more than two-thirds of poll respondents say yes, then it is banned. To reverse a ban, follow the same procedure, but with only more than fifty percent needed to revoke the ban.

-----

This would replace the current rule where linking to a website is banned at moderator discretion. Deciding to censor a website will always be controversial and open the moderators up to accusations of bias. Thus, using a more open process with user input will increase the legitimacy with which this decision is perceived and remove the responsibility (and hence blame) for making this decision from the moderator.

Proposing a website to be banned should be kept to moderator discretion for a couple reasons.
-to cut down on frivolous process arguments about forum rules
-For progressives, as a sop to the fact that moderators in fact hold most of the power here and you can't just take it all away at once. For conservatives, moderators typically have the best sense of forum standards and how enforceable they are and so should play a larger role in the process than the common poster.

It should be a two-thirds majority:
-We should strive for consensus rather than majority if we censor a website. Censorship implies the censored view is not acceptable for discussion. If the view being censored is held by too large a group, then the discussion breakdown between this group and the majority group will negatively affect too much of the forum discussion as a whole.
03-02-2017 , 04:51 AM
So are at a Ship Maneyz Or Ban The F Do situation now or what, in regards to wil's latest lol?
03-02-2017 , 08:14 AM
No triangle?
!!!
03-02-2017 , 08:15 AM
Quote:
It's not a !!! thread but will be treated as such when it's about the moderation.
.
03-02-2017 , 10:26 AM
Wtf does that mean???

This is the most intricately modded and confusing forum I've ever seen
03-02-2017 , 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Wtf does that mean???

This is the most intricately modded and confusing forum I've ever seen
I think we're allowed to clown on chez here like in the pizza moderation thread, but I'm not sure.
03-02-2017 , 11:16 AM
We need a thread to discuss dogs.
03-02-2017 , 12:39 PM
Does Chez read this forum or does he just spend his time thinking of ways to pointlessly reorganise it?
03-02-2017 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
We need a thread to discuss dogs.
We now have one. I've copied over the dog related discussion from the closed mod thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...t-2-a-1656499/

Other pets welcome
03-02-2017 , 01:02 PM
Which dickhead closed the dogs thread? WTF
03-02-2017 , 07:01 PM
Quote:
If people are so obviously wrong, it should not be difficult to point out where they are wrong.
I want to call this statement from our newer moderator into question. I keep seeing this phrase repeated in different variants and feel the need to point out that it's obviously not true. When the world contains Sandy Hook conspiritards, people convinced the moon landing is a hoax, and flat earthers, all subjects based on complete and utter trash, trash that's been debunked a million times, the idea that it's easy to explain why they're wrong is obviously empirically not true.

If we aren't supposed to tell them how stupid it is then say that, but don't blame us for not having convinced them that they are in fact wrong about their entire world view.
03-02-2017 , 07:19 PM
You raise a good point but I think it misses the mark.

Moderators in this forum (just as in every other 2+2 forum) are not arbiters of truth. That is not their role. Moderators are charged with designing rules/guidelines for their forums that encourages a healthy and vigorous forum.

A forum in which "you are wrong and you are an idiot" is an acceptable contribution to a thread is going to be beset with those posts. In fact, there is an unlimited supply of those posts.

In Politics v7.0 certain threads have been designated as "Content" threads. In such threads posts are expected to contain at least a modicum of content.
03-03-2017 , 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Wtf does that mean???

This is the most intricately modded and confusing forum I've ever seen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
Does Chez read this forum or does he just spend his time thinking of ways to pointlessly reorganise it?
Bring back PU and be done with it.
03-03-2017 , 04:56 AM
I nominate myself of arbiter if truth for this forum.

All those in favor say aye
03-03-2017 , 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
You raise a good point but I think it misses the mark.

Moderators in this forum (just as in every other 2+2 forum) are not arbiters of truth. That is not their role. Moderators are charged with designing rules/guidelines for their forums that encourages a healthy and vigorous forum.

A forum in which "you are wrong and you are an idiot" is an acceptable contribution to a thread is going to be beset with those posts. In fact, there is an unlimited supply of those posts.

In Politics v7.0 certain threads have been designated as "Content" threads. In such threads posts are expected to contain at least a modicum of content.
This is fine. I suggest reiterating the no personal attacks rule when needed, but dropping the idea that certain posters will ever understand the basics.
03-03-2017 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
I want to call this statement from our newer moderator into question. I keep seeing this phrase repeated in different variants and feel the need to point out that it's obviously not true. When the world contains Sandy Hook conspiritards, people convinced the moon landing is a hoax, and flat earthers, all subjects based on complete and utter trash, trash that's been debunked a million times, the idea that it's easy to explain why they're wrong is obviously empirically not true.

If we aren't supposed to tell them how stupid it is then say that, but don't blame us for not having convinced them that they are in fact wrong about their entire world view.
Agreed. But the problem is that leftists have been caught too many times incorrectly correcting what is already correct. So you've lost your moral authority to continue to do so.

Just let people say what they think. Why does it bother you so much? Are you so thin-skinned that you can't handle a guy claiming the moon landing is a hoax?
03-03-2017 , 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Peter
Agreed. But the problem is that leftists have been caught too many times incorrectly correcting what is already correct.
[Citation Needed]
03-03-2017 , 09:50 PM
Fwiw the site wil used as a citation earlier today about hate crimes was clearly a white supremacist site. The mods should kind of look after this sort of thing.
03-03-2017 , 09:51 PM
they're too busy setting up increasingly byzantine moderation rules to, you know, do any actual moderating
03-03-2017 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
Moderators in this forum (just as in every other 2+2 forum) are not arbiters of truth. That is not their role. Moderators are charged with designing rules/guidelines for their forums that encourages a healthy and vigorous forum.
Wait...you and chez decided not to allow Breitbart links because it wasn't accurate--so you are being arbiters of truth.

Not that I care much either way, but it doesn't seem like the principles of this forum are well though-out.
03-03-2017 , 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Wait...you and chez decided not to allow Breitbart links because it wasn't accurate--so you are being arbiters of truth.

Not that I care much either way, but it doesn't seem like the principles of this forum are well though-out.
Wouldn't the arbiter of truth in that spot be the content at breibart itself, qualified by their targeting of groups that have been deemed protected by the mods?

Last edited by spanktehbadwookie; 03-03-2017 at 11:55 PM. Reason: ,
03-04-2017 , 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Wait...you and chez decided not to allow Breitbart links because it wasn't accurate--so you are being arbiters of truth.

Not that I care much either way, but it doesn't seem like the principles of this forum are well though-out.
Yes, this is pretty hilarious to watch the rules unfold and refold by the minute. Post #4000 is coming up, have to take a dump somewhere. Who's front porch is it going to be? I'm thinkin' DS somehow.
03-04-2017 , 02:41 AM
Sorry chez, I didn't mean to cause you trouble, they were swarming me from all sides. I'll take a break. See ya Sunday, maybe.

My bad.
03-04-2017 , 04:39 AM
Mods: this is at least the third one day time out wil has had since P8.8 started.

Don't you realise he doesn't care about missing the odd day here and there if it enables him to continue his diarrhoea style of posting across multi-threads?

      
m