Basic manners, keyboard warriors etc

[squirtyflower]

I've been a mod on a fairly busy site, and it's a thankless task. Some people feel the mods are out to get them, and specifically them, others do everything they can to try your patience and see how far you'll go, some love the idea of needling them in front of other posters at every opportunity.

The mods are just like all the other posters, sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they say the wrong thing, sometimes they do the wrong thing. But generally speaking they are giving up a fair bit of their time to try and make the site run a bit more smoothly, and in an ideal world would like not to have to do anything to anyone.

They're not perfect because they're human. But anyone thinking it's some kind of great job where you can lord it over the members has never done it. It's shit, and some members always view them as the enemy and treat them accordingly, while anything and everything that goes wrong is the mods' fault.

First and foremost, they are members here, let them at least be that without being jumped on because of their other responsibilities.

A great post, and you can tell that you are a mod as you sum up what happens regularly, even had two or three today at it

 

[roaminblue]

You don't understand I did this on purpose. Suggesting that this post that claims that society is "fucking wrong" and people "should be called cunts" is perfectly rational and calm is ridiculous.

I don't see how its ridiculous? I mean, if I had a friend who was saying some of the stuff I see on here, I would call them a ****. You would too right? If society genuinely is being more and more islamophobic, I think society is wrong. Same as I think society is wrong to pillory bankers, or is wrong to want out of the EU. If it was the word "fucking" in there that made it seem aggressive, I can understand that though. But it was said with no attack on you intended.

Now whether your aggression was done deliberately or not, I think is neither here nor there. The outcome is the same, right? The action of being aggressive is always deliberate, no? A conscious effort to be aggressive.

So whether its done to highlight irony, or whether its done because one wants to be aggressive, the outcome is the same.

This is irrelevant. I don't know what you had in your head but you didn't put it down in the post for what this is supposed to mean. This isn't a democracy. That phrase will come up when people mistake it as a democracy ergo they will be discussing the board because it's a description of the board. That should be remarkably obvious.

I agree that wasn't all that articulate.

What I meant to say was that I am fairly sure I have read people questioning the freedom of speech on this board, and you have come back with the phrase "its not a democracy"

Questioning freedom of speech is vis a vis questioning the CoC.

For a moderator who has used the phrase "its not a democracy" to then publicly question conduct on the board is, in my mind, somewhat ironic.

Your first post was needlessly aggressive or certainly used needlessly aggressive language. You can't throw in accusations that "society is fucking wrong and Bluemoon is wrong too" and expect the tone to be read as perfectly calm.

You say you don't get overly involved but the past 3 pages are examples of you specifically getting overly involved because I ignored your post.

Overly involved in past posts. Normally even threads I enjoy move too quickly for me to keep track of, and normally It will have jumped tens of pages while I'm at work.

I am involved in this thread, correct.

Patronising drivel. I was ALWAYS aggressive in stating my opinion and ALWAYS dismiss crap points badly made, and I still constantly contribute to any scientific threads. If anything I've calmed down. This is you talking about me in a negative fashion in a post claiming that you're not trying to piss me off.

"I'm not trying to piss you off and it's not personal or anything but you're a **** mate"

Yeah ok, cheers.

Well I must have missed that, then, you seemed and admit when read again it does seem patronising. What I meant it to read was that I always admired your posts and found them entertaining, however I see less of those and see a lot more of your aggression these days.

It's though as a moderator who enforces the Code of Conduct on a daily basis and along with Ric and the other mods helped write and design the Code of Conduct, I know the Code of Conduct well enough to see where the line is and not go over it. There are numerous posters who can be aggressive with their opinion and stay within the Code of Conduct, the CoC isn't designed to moderate attitude but behaviour.

But again, its an approach to moderating that I don't understand. Are you suggesting you can be abusive, be malicious, patronising or anything you want, but because you know where that line is, its ok?

Because to me that doesn't seem correct.

Whether you like it or not, people here will post and think irrationally.

Anytime a poster is banned/warned for abusing someone, they will point towards others who abuse people and don't get banned. This will be even more pronounced if it is a moderator, because like it or not, they will believe that you are flaunting the system. Perception is nine tenths, here.

Now that may seem ok to you, because you may be able to see this in perfect black and white, but it won't appear that to others.

What it will appear to others is that you, as a moderator, are able to abuse people when you like, and that there will be no implications because you're a moderator. Would you receive a warning for calling another person a ****?

If the behaviour is going to be modified, it has to be levelled equally, and it has to be done with a cultural change at those who enforce behaviour. Its management science, really.

@BillyShears and @Shaelumstash are a good example of two pretty mortal enemies who both understand the CoC enough to have straight up arguments but rarely crossing the line into abuse. Like me, and other posters of this ilk of which there are too many to name, they get a warning or a ban. Here's the important distinction, as long as you aren't abusive and as long as you're actually discussing things then you can have a bit of an edge to posting because we're grown men and women and this isn't a safe space/passion free zone. People like Rascal and others were straight up abusive and didn't actually talk about the thing they were arguing about, but instead talked about the posters. It saddens me that this has to be explained. Don't be a dickhead but be yourself should be a pretty commonly understood thing (unless you're a dickhead, then it's more complicated..)

I don't know either of those posters, so can't comment. But in general, I agree with the point.

You've just told me the rest of this paragraph is bollocks, so why would I continue to read the rest of the paragraph? Make a proper point next time.

This was meant to be lighthearted. I know you read the comparison I made, so what are your thoughts?

It's patronising to say "you said my point is bollocks. You're a clever man, you should be able to see that my point is not bollocks". You also never considered that my level of analysis is high enough to understand that your point is bollocks regardless of whether you also recognise that.

"Stop disagreeing with me"

Both of these have no substance, you're erring away form the discussion. If everything is so logical to you, then you should easily be able to ignore what you believe are patronising comments and into the point.

You are discussing Bluemoon as a mouthpiece for society, I think there is a significant difference.

In all of this you seemingly missed this bit of my post which completely negates this whole paragraph:

On the second point, you actually said something like this to me as a reply in the Mod Forum when I raised it -

I directly was addressing the owner of the site and using the exact phrasing he said to me. I didn't pick those words out of thin air.

I don't understand what you're suggesting, this is your comment, no?

So my point is that whilst Islamophobia is one of my buttons that fucks me off, if we attempt to toughen up the moderation on it then we're sort of showing a bias of opinion there. We can't reflect society and not allowed views that reflect the views of millions in our society to not be aired. We don't want to turn into one of those safe space bollocks whereby nobody can possibly be offended at anything anybody says ever.

As this is what I'm discussing with you. There are plenty views of millions of people you don't want aired, so there is no societal mouthpiece issue ?

I reiterate, are we going to be perfectly representative of every social demographic in the UK?

Yes you can. You can do whatever you like. Why is there this obsession amongst people that you have to be completely and utterly philosophically consistent across all fields? Maybe you think differently about one subject and want to plead a special case? Fine. This idea of consistent ideology is the refuge of the slow, there's no such thing as having a completely consistent belief system. There's a difference between consistent and logically justifiable.

People demand consistency, because we are humans, we are driven by self-interest, you know that. Every single person demands equality in one way or another, and when they believe that this demand for equality isn't being met, then tempers fray.

I understand what you're saying, you're saying that the rules applied do not have to be consistent, and its at the moderating teams behest. Which, at a base level, is right.

But you're with your left hand saying "BM is a mouthpiece for all", and with the right saying "no actually it isn't", how do you expect people to react? People who perhaps don't think in strict black and white? They will get frustrated that laws are not applied fairly.

Now, the example I gave was one to make a point, you might think it the "dumbest possible example", but it serves a purpose.

The point is that to many it feels like there is no consistency in the moderation of the board

At a really simple level, you're just setting yourself up for a fall. You can't make a quote suggesting this board represents society, and not expect everyone to want their views aired with no fear of banning. It very least you'll be setting yourself up for many more people to complain about things, which I'm sure you don't want.

Also, the whole "you ban rags so you should ban Islamophobia" might have been the dumbest possible expression of a point that you could have made. I think I know what you're getting at and addressed it above but that example was crap and doesn't make sense.

Again, the patronising. If you think you know what I mean, then counter what I mean. The one thing I've noticed in our dialogue is that you will consistently shift the topic of the discussion in order to avoid through arrogance. Discussing philosophical consistency, avoiding a topic because it doesn't make sense to you. Perhaps the issue is in your interpretation, rather than the method in which it is presented. Perhaps the issue, and where our discussion falls down, is not that the argument is presented in an ansine fashion, perhaps you have the inability to prioritise what is pertinent within the point that is being made.

You've misunderstood. The conversation was about that <1%, the posts that do not break the CoC but somebody feels that they do and Islamophobia is one of those topics where people feel that something is against the rules when it isn't. That was the topic of the conversation. That was the point of it, how to best deal with those posts that aren't already covered. That doesn't mean directly abusive which we already deal with. I'm talking about things like the "Religion of Peace" lot who go round quoting bizarre quotes from an obscure Hadith or blame everything on the Muslims because of their "dirty religion". Those are the problem people. My argument is that this sort of behaviour is not against the current rules and that type of Islamophobia is best dealt with on the forum than by the mods. My personal stance on moderation, as many of the mods will back up and confirm my pain-in-the-arseness about, is that we should let the forum fly and when somebody says something really heinous let the community sort it out themselves. Yes, this means that I think that some people should call them a **** and we should use common sense in moderation and get a full picture of the conversation rather than just warning collections of letters. No, this isn't how I moderate because my views are my own and not a consensus view. I believe that the behaviour of the community should always be shaped by the community and things that are grossly unacceptable will be stamped out through time.

I agree, with the latter part, and thanks for putting that across.

I can't even find where the code of conduct is, anymore, so I can't tell whether what you say is correct. But, there are most definitely posts on islam which are vile. If they don't break the code of conduct, they should. Islam as a relegion should be open to criticism, but I will never agree that comments wishing people dead, or comments that were about the three girls who left for syria shoudl be allowed to stay on the board. At least not without people having the opportunity to criticise, to me, the personal attack is the lesser of the two.

Now, I appreciate your response above, and I am certain you will come back to me with a response such as "thats your opinion, but we have our CoC and thats that"; and you'd be right.

But, to me, by allowing comments to sit on a board, I believe it creates a culture of comfort where people will feel fine repeatedly acting in xenophobic ways, because the personal attack received is deemed to be the more serious issue. They will feel safe making these comments, where they would feel ashamed to do so in public. And once more we are back to the representation argument

And you'd be right, it could just be my opinion, the impression I get is that it isn't, though.

Finally, you say you don't moderate politically, its not true. Its where your subjective distinction between what is political and what is not political lies. The "religion of peace" prose, it is political, by allowing it you're engaging in a political mindset, you're just drawing the line in a different place to where others believe it should be.

The politics will always be present, and your moderation will probably always be criticised, but if you can search through an ISIS/ISLAM thread and not see posts you don't think should remain on the server, I'd be very surprised.

I do agree with a lot of what you put at the end, I know we won't agree moving forward. Instead I'll look forward to your input on other subjects in the future

 

[Dicko69]

I've taken great interest in this thread, but I didn't read that last post, I'd rather get my kindle out and read a book

 

[The Count Of Monte Cristo]

If I couldn't post on Bluemoon then I wouldn't be on Bluemoon, therefore I wouldn't be a moderator
The only way round it would be to pay for moderators and, as a free site, that would be unworkable

And here lies the problem, you give your time for free so the site owner is indebted to your voluntary arrangement, an arrangement that is essential for the forum to function for free.
I'm sure there are people on the forum who would gladly become a non posting mod just as there are those who referee football matches without the desire to get on the end of a back post cross.

Not all posters enjoy posting for posting's sake, not all posters will amass more than 40,000 posts, so there are clearly those who prefer to read rather than post their opinion on practically ever thread.
They are the very posters who should become mods IMO.

I'm not sure of the mechanism of 'employing' moderators or how Ric has facilitated this in the past? Friends?, top blues?... Those on the forum at the time with a high post count?
I would add, getting the moderation team right is essential for a harmonious space to debate fairly, how can someone moderate fairly if their own views, opinions and prejudices tend to become the final word in threads like these?

 

[The Count Of Monte Cristo]

I've been a mod on a fairly busy site, and it's a thankless task. Some people feel the mods are out to get them, and specifically them, others do everything they can to try your patience and see how far you'll go, some love the idea of needling them in front of other posters at every opportunity.

The mods are just like all the other posters, sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they say the wrong thing, sometimes they do the wrong thing. But generally speaking they are giving up a fair bit of their time to try and make the site run a bit more smoothly, and in an ideal world would like not to have to do anything to anyone.

They're not perfect because they're human. But anyone thinking it's some kind of great job where you can lord it over the members has never done it. It's shit, and some members always view them as the enemy and treat them accordingly, while anything and everything that goes wrong is the mods' fault.

First and foremost, they are members here, let them at least be that without being jumped on because of their other responsibilities.

I think the problem arises when you begin a discussion with a fellow poster only to find out the same poster has just turned into a mod and banned you. :-)
Where does the poster end and the mod start?

 

[hgblue]

I've been a mod on a fairly busy site, and it's a thankless task. Some people feel the mods are out to get them, and specifically them, others do everything they can to try your patience and see how far you'll go, some love the idea of needling them in front of other posters at every opportunity.

The mods are just like all the other posters, sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they say the wrong thing, sometimes they do the wrong thing. But generally speaking they are giving up a fair bit of their time to try and make the site run a bit more smoothly, and in an ideal world would like not to have to do anything to anyone.

They're not perfect because they're human. But anyone thinking it's some kind of great job where you can lord it over the members has never done it. It's shit, and some members always view them as the enemy and treat them accordingly, while anything and everything that goes wrong is the mods' fault.

First and foremost, they are members here, let them at least be that without being jumped on because of their other responsibilities.

Good post that. The mods are giving up their free time so we can post our inane ramblings and all they get is shed loads of abuse for it. Maybe it's not my place to say this but if you don't like the site or how it's run you know where the door is...

 

[hgblue]

And here lies the problem, you give your time for free so the site owner is indebted to your voluntary arrangement, an arrangement that is essential for the forum to function for free.
I'm sure there are people on the forum who would gladly become a non posting mod just as there are those who referee football matches without the desire to get on the end of a back post cross.

Not all posters enjoy posting for posting's sake, not all posters will amass more than 40,000 posts, so there are clearly those who prefer to read rather than post their opinion on practically ever thread.
They are the very posters who should become mods IMO.

I'm not sure of the mechanism of 'employing' moderators or how Ric has facilitated this in the past? Friends?, top blues?... Those on the forum at the time with a high post count?
I would add, getting the moderation team right is essential for a harmonious space to debate fairly, how can someone moderate fairly if their own views, opinions and prejudices tend to become the final word in threads like these?

I guarantee that those posters who want to be mods wouldn't make particularly good ones (power mad), and those who would make good mods wouldn't want the job (far too smart). Whenever I hear this subject discussed it always reminds me of Catch 22 by Joseph Hella.

 

[Dicko69]

I've never known a mod to moderate an opinion, seen them plenty argue an opinion as a poster.
The mods just want to post as posters, they are here for our benefit, they don't want to have to get drawn into petty squabbles or ban people.
I think some mods can be quite blunt and cutting sometimes, but they usually do that as a poster, but because they're a mod they get jumped on.
Treat the mods like a regular poster and that is all they are.
I've never seen a mod play the mod card to win an arguement.
people just need to agree to disagree sometimes instead of being abusive

 

[The Count Of Monte Cristo]

I guarantee that those posters who want to be mods wouldn't make particularly good ones (power mad), and those who would make good mods wouldn't want the job (far too smart). Whenever I hear this subject discussed it always reminds me of Catch 22 by Joseph Hella.

All I was suggesting was; there are over 50,000 registered users on this forum. How many can you name 20?, 50?, 100 at a push? Those prevelant posters you can name are the hardcore nucleus who have huge post counts, I'd agree they would make terrible moderators, I said as much in the post you quoted, perhaps not clear enough. ;-)
There must be loads of people who register/visit just to read the threads on here (long time lurkers), they would make better mods than those who have a lot to say IMO.

 

[The Count Of Monte Cristo]

I've never known a mod to moderate an opinion, seen them plenty argue an opinion as a poster.
The mods just want to post as posters, they are here for our benefit, they don't want to have to get drawn into petty squabbles or ban people.
I think some mods can be quite blunt and cutting sometimes, but they usually do that as a poster, but because they're a mod they get jumped on.
Treat the mods like a regular poster and that is all they are.
I've never seen a mod play the mod card to win an arguement.
people just need to agree to disagree sometimes instead of being abusive

Low post count, joined ages ago.
Do you like to read more than post?