Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Personal Attacks in Political Forums by Poobahs Mr Wookie, 5ive, goofybalef AoFrantic etc Personal Attacks in Political Forums by Poobahs Mr Wookie, 5ive, goofybalef AoFrantic etc

06-30-2017 , 07:33 PM
tomdemaine used to be fun to argue with, but he hardly ever posts now that he's green. So my request for any new Politics mod is that they be somebody I want to see post less.
06-30-2017 , 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Let's not get ridiculous here.
What's the starting salary for an entry level moderator? Do employee's receive a family health insurance package after a certain hire date/hours worked or is that only available to the Supers'?
06-30-2017 , 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
fine with me. any volunteer requires approval from tom and wookie.
Pretty sure that set up isn't going to work as Wookie is hardly going to approve even a moderate.
06-30-2017 , 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
The thug scum that were wandering around Central Park beating the **** out of random passerby, yes.
Lol/sigh, but also I wanted to see if you were intentionally ignoring my other posts directed towards you.
07-01-2017 , 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
I don't report posts and generally ignore attacks or personal insults. It's the Internet. I find the bias even in this thread to be tangible, however
right, well, reality is based on facts and thus has a liberal bias.
07-01-2017 , 07:33 PM
posted last night:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
stfu you transparent ****ing concern troll
I'm not sure if this was reported or not, but I assume this violates the personal attack rule? I'm not sure if the person he was attacking knows about the report function or not, but figured this would be a good example for discussion.

Last edited by Shoe; 07-01-2017 at 07:42 PM.
07-01-2017 , 08:19 PM
Maybe it was covered by 'It's not a personal attack if you believe it's true or justified' notion.
07-01-2017 , 08:21 PM
I really want people to weigh in a little more on Noodle. We know his political opinions, but he does seem more concerned than anyone else, willing to be a politics mod, about personal attacks. I really want to put him in there for this particular purpose.

Any real objections?
07-01-2017 , 08:30 PM
In my view he is good on personal attacks and objectional posts. His policy on banning posters might be worth exploring.
07-01-2017 , 08:32 PM
He's actually agreed to leave that decision up to others, if that's what people want.
07-01-2017 , 09:04 PM
What do the current politics mods say about Noodle?
07-01-2017 , 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
What do the current politics mods say about Noodle?
Why is this even being considered when he did such an average job when he last moderated a thread in P? And allround from the same school of Wookie when it comes to moderation and not being able to keep his left bias out of it.
07-01-2017 , 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
He's actually agreed to leave that decision up to others, if that's what people want.
I'm assuming he would actually stop the personal attacks in P but it's hard to imagine how that works in a forum where there's such a determined ethos of allowing personal attacks that the mod believes are true or justified.

Is wookie really going to support 'tone policing'?
07-01-2017 , 09:52 PM
I think chez makes a good point. We'd probably have to embrace a general tone shift in the forum and maybe refine and refocus some of the rules. For example, the no broad brush attack rule is seldom enforced, from what I've seen. Might be time for that one to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bundy5
Why is this even being considered when he did such an average job when he last moderated a thread in P? And allround from the same school of Wookie when it comes to moderation and not being able to keep his left bias out of it.
i almost entirely moderated posts from left-wing posters in that thread, not sure where you're coming from here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
What do the current politics mods say about Noodle?
Hopefully tom doesn't mind me sharing this, but he pointed out that i'm pretty quick to judgment when it comes to new posters. Indeed, my ignore list is chock full of obvious trolls that took longer to ban than I was willing to wait. Hence why I said I wouldn't mind leaving ban decisions to others. Also a good reason to bring well named on to the staff.

Last edited by Loki; 07-01-2017 at 10:02 PM.
07-01-2017 , 10:01 PM
An interesting thing to know before making anybody a mod: how many posters have this mod candidate on ignore?

Once you make them a mod they are forcibly removed from ignore lists.
07-01-2017 , 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
What do the current politics mods say about Noodle?
I agree with Mat that he cares, and having offered to target primarily personal attacks plus spam and other obvious things while leaving more judgment calls to me and Tom, I trust his judgment on the subject. My concerns would be if the forum members, left and right, actually want a tighter ship in that regard, and of course that having an open liberal run said tighter ship will just lead to more ATF complaints from conservatives. I mean, I recently had a conservative citing posts made in Politics 7.0 to me to try and prove my bias, so there are limitless grounds for people to feel like they are treated unfairly. If Mat wants to hear complaints about Politics less, I think more bans may be counterproductive in that regard.
07-01-2017 , 11:54 PM
Just go find Dids and bring him back as Politics mod. Dids don't gaf about your petty ATF drama and accusations of bias.
07-01-2017 , 11:54 PM
I'm not sure how that would help the forum tbh.
07-02-2017 , 12:04 AM
Dids is too busy not having sex to mod anything. Noodle would be a great addition to as mod of the politics forum. Let it be so.
07-02-2017 , 12:25 AM
I have noticed Noodle's post reports and the personal attacks he reports are made by both left and right posters. He doesn't appear biased in that regard.
07-02-2017 , 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
I agree with Mat that he cares, and having offered to target primarily personal attacks plus spam and other obvious things while leaving more judgment calls to me and Tom, I trust his judgment on the subject. My concerns would be if the forum members, left and right, actually want a tighter ship in that regard, and of course that having an open liberal run said tighter ship will just lead to more ATF complaints from conservatives. I mean, I recently had a conservative citing posts made in Politics 7.0 to me to try and prove my bias, so there are limitless grounds for people to feel like they are treated unfairly. If Mat wants to hear complaints about Politics less, I think more bans may be counterproductive in that regard.

if nobody complains in atf, i'll just wind up watching more pornography. so unless there comes real objections in the next couple days, i'm partially celebrating independence day by adding noodle to the mod roster in politics.
07-02-2017 , 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
if nobody complains in atf, i'll just wind up watching more pornography. so unless there comes real objections in the next couple days, i'm partially celebrating independence day by adding noodle to the mod roster in politics.
Alright but be prepared for a period of porn drought.
07-02-2017 , 03:40 AM
Have no real opinion on Noodle as mod, but agree that the rules in Politics are selectively enforced. I'm not going to read this entire thread, but in my opinion the whole notion of "rules" is the problem here. Like, we don't want to allow "subjective" bannings, therefore we create rules like "facts posted must be cited or you get banned" and "no personal attacks" and such. But all this does is that we end up with a thin veneer of objectivity covering the wildly subjective interpretations of what is a "fact" that needs citing, what constitutes an adequate citation, what exactly is an over the line personal attack, and so on.

In the real world, where we need the rule of law, we struggle on, try to phrase things as precisely as possible, train people for years in how to interpret it, etc. I don't see why the rule of law is required here. The worst thing that could happen to someone is that they get unfairly banned from an internet poker forum. I don't even think the goal should be fairness to individual posters, the goal should be quality discussion, with bannings handed out as necessary to achieve that goal. If there's bias, get a less biased mod.

I see Broadway is one of the plaintiffs here. The problem with Broadway isn't that he's been treated unfairly, it's that he wasn't nuked from orbit months ago for derailing threads with constant trolling and content-free posting. He's the poster child for someone who should be banned whether he has broken the "rules" or not. Note that I don't feel this way about conservative posters in general. raradevils is one who springs to mind as someone who has, in my view, idiotic political ideas, but is civil, on topic and non trollish when discussing them. In fact, he has copped far more tempbanworthy posts in Politics than he has dished out.

In conclusion, mod ChrisV for great justice.
07-02-2017 , 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Have no real opinion on Noodle as mod, but agree that the rules in Politics are selectively enforced. I'm not going to read this entire thread, but in my opinion the whole notion of "rules" is the problem here. Like, we don't want to allow "subjective" bannings, therefore we create rules like "facts posted must be cited or you get banned" and "no personal attacks" and such. But all this does is that we end up with a thin veneer of objectivity covering the wildly subjective interpretations of what is a "fact" that needs citing, what constitutes an adequate citation, what exactly is an over the line personal attack, and so on.

In the real world, where we need the rule of law, we struggle on, try to phrase things as precisely as possible, train people for years in how to interpret it, etc. I don't see why the rule of law is required here. The worst thing that could happen to someone is that they get unfairly banned from an internet poker forum. I don't even think the goal should be fairness to individual posters, the goal should be quality discussion, with bannings handed out as necessary to achieve that goal. If there's bias, get a less biased mod.

I see Broadway is one of the plaintiffs here. The problem with Broadway isn't that he's been treated unfairly, it's that he wasn't nuked from orbit months ago for derailing threads with constant trolling and content-free posting. He's the poster child for someone who should be banned whether he has broken the "rules" or not. Note that I don't feel this way about conservative posters in general. raradevils is one who springs to mind as someone who has, in my view, idiotic political ideas, but is civil, on topic and non trollish when discussing them. In fact, he has copped far more tempbanworthy posts in Politics than he has dished out.

In conclusion, mod ChrisV for great justice.
+ 1 - you would be a much better option than Noodle.
07-02-2017 , 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
if nobody complains in atf, i'll just wind up watching more pornography.
I doubt anyone in ATF cares that much what you watch.

      
m