Moderator abuse

[Ken Cox]

Referencing my earlier post, and since Ken is now aware of this thread and reading it, I ask if Ken finds it more insulting to imply that someone may have homosexual tendencies than to imply that someone would abandon their child if they didn't happen to be boinking the child's mother anymore?

Let's discuss it in the relevant thread.

I think something good will come of it.

But let's not make it about me.

Let's talk about the nature of insults, and whether and when opinions correspond to insults.

 

[Spark]

If we need additional moderators for the Political forum, nominate people.

 

[Kiah]

I didn't choose to ignore anything.

Although the forum lists three moderators, I typically moderate it alone.

When I check in, I check in at the ends of threads to gauge the tone, and so I sometimes miss large portions of conversations.

Further, when I start having problems with a specific forumite, I follow that forumite's posts and police them more rigorously than the forum members in general.

The posts in question were both reported. I know that because I reported them and watched them show up in the backend. If your email is up to date, you should have gotten a copy of them there as well.

It doesn't involve talking about other forumites, but, rather, taliking about the specific content of the post and how it effects the forum culture.

This can't be co-mingled with joining the crowd in calling members "trolls".

However, I do have a problem with relentlessly inflammatory and insulting language.

OK. A member here was just issued a warning for trolling for using the words "evils of Christianity". Can I assume that this is considered inflammatory language? If so, does someone calling a religion besides Christianity evil warrant the same response?

At other times, when I don't have a pressing issue with a known troll, I do admonish and correct the so-called conservative regulars who push sarcasm and general disrespect to its limits.

That is true. I have seen you admonish the "non-trolls" for insulting and disrespectful behavior. I haven't seen you issue them any official reprimands as you do with the same behavior from the "trolls".

Let's discuss it in the relevant thread.

I think something good will come of it.

But let's not make it about me.

Let's talk about the nature of insults, and whether and when opinions correspond to insults.

Ken, as far as I know, this is the relevant thread. The last people who questioned your moderating outside this thread were infracted with a stern warning for others that it best not happen again. I'm afraid that the discussion of what constitutes an insult in relation to who gets infractions and who doesn't isn't possible without bringing the infraction giver into the discussion.

If you want to start a thread in the PA for this purpose, without the possibility of you infracting posters for their opinions, then I'll join you. Otherwise I'm not gonna be accused of bringing the issue up in the wrong forum.

As to my original point, I feel that implying someone will abandon their children and saying they feel sorry for a poster's loved ones for having them as such is more insulting than saying someone may possibly be teh gay. Do you feel that the poster who made those remarks was being insulting? If not, that's fine as well. I'll bow out of any further participation in that forum and not bring it up again. If however you do think that it was meant to be insulting, I ask why the poster doesn't deserve an infraction as well. I also question whether those remarks would be considered more insulting if coming from a "troll".

 

[Ken Cox]

OK. A member here was just issued a warning for trolling for using the words "evils of Christianity". Can I assume that this is considered inflammatory language? If so, does someone calling a religion besides Christianity evil warrant the same response?

You come into this late.

That is true. I have seen you admonish the "non-trolls" for insulting and disrespectful behavior. I haven't seen you issue them any official reprimands as you do with the same behavior from the "trolls".

How many infractions and warnings have I issued since becoming a moderator?

Someone must know how to find all of a moderator's issued infractions.

I'll guess less than five, including the recent ones.

Ironically, I've worked hard to retain the so-called trolls that have emerged in the past few months.

I issued the infractions I did only after they openly "sassed" me.

My understanding of the infraction system (not much of an understanding since I have almost never used it before now) led me to believe that I couldn't give them an infraction for "sassing" without banning them.

And so I gave them an infraction for trolling (I had to get help to do it, since I had forgotten how).

The last people who questioned your moderating outside this thread were infracted with a stern warning for others that it best not happen again.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

If you want to start a thread in the PA for this purpose, without the possibility of you infracting posters for their opinions...

Kiah implies that I give infractions for opinions.

As to my original point, I feel that implying someone will abandon their children and saying they feel sorry for a poster's loved ones for having them as such is more insulting than saying someone may possibly be teh gay. Do you feel that the poster who made those remarks was being insulting?

I haven't seen the subject posts in context.

If not, that's fine as well. I'll bow out of any further participation in that forum and not bring it up again.

Don't make me the author of your actions.

Do the right thing.

=====

Well, what an education.

I don't see much good coming from this conversation, and so I'll bow out.

Let me know what you decide to do with me.

And, if you burn me in effigy, please send me a picture.

 

[Kiah]

You come into this late.

If that means I've missed the history of the poster in question, then no. I'm aware that he trolls and incites and I agree with the previous infraction given as I stated in my second post.

How many infractions and warnings have I issued since becoming a moderator?

Someone must know how to find all of a moderator's issued infractions.

I'll guess less than five, including the recent ones.

16. In my opinion that's a pretty light hand in that forum.

Ironically, I've worked hard to retain the so-called trolls that have emerged in the past few months.

I issued the infractions I did only after they openly "sassed" me.

My understanding of the infraction system (not much of an understanding since I have almost never used it before now) led me to believe that I couldn't give them an infraction for "sassing" without banning them.

It depends on their collected points so far. Sassing is 30, Trolling (not Major) is 10. 50 total is an autoban.

Kiah implies that I give infractions for opinions.

I'll own that.

I haven't seen the subject posts in context.

Ken, you replied to my post in that very thread on the matter just a bit ago, The context is immediately above that. If you feel that the posts in question don't warrant a moderator response, but mine does, then that's your call. I do hope you knew the context of my post before commenting on it as the two are related. And again if you feel the posts in question are fine, then that's your call as well.

Don't make me the author of your actions.

Do the right thing.

Not at all. I lay no claim of authorship of my actions to anyone but myself. That includes overlooking things I don't agree with. As I can't control the actions of others, it's better to avoid them, and that action is mine alone.

Well, what an education.

I don't see much good coming from this conversation, and so I'll bow out.

Wasn't meant to be an education, Ken. It was my opinion on an issue that was brought up.

Let me know what you decide to do with me.

And, if you burn me in effigy, please send me a picture.

No need for dramatics. The subject is relevant to a lot of posters, especially when some have paid to participate in a particular forum. I had no intention of insulting you by asking questions or stating my opinion. I enjoy your posts more than most, and agree with you on most of the infractions/warnings you have issued (not all obviously) and most of your views for that matter. I only feel that you are letting certain members get away with things that you wouldn't let other certain members. I'll drop my participation in this issue and as I've stated will follow others in bowing out of the PA in general. I'm sorry if you took any of my posts personal or felt they were malicious in the least, they weren't meant to be and you have my utmost respect for taking on a job that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. Peace.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Political Arena is one of those forums that cannot be moderated by focusing on every word/phrase/entry.

I could do it by opening a tab with the PA thread in one, a working tab for infractions in another, and a dictionary in a third. Then I could go through every post in a discussion and minutely critique the possible impact of each heated remark.

And thereby lose sight of the discussion itself.

There is a difference, which Ken Cox constantly addresses, between overheated opinions and deliberate attempts to derail a discussion. Getting any deeper into who said what wrong would be a form of trolling in itself: it would derail the discussion.

The answer to the problem is what Ken Cox suggests, that the forum self-moderate, that participants model the behavior they expect from others instead of the moderator slapping wrists for remarks that do not exceed what he feels is an acceptable rhetorical level for a given discussion.

Given any individual moderator's ability to follow a number of busy threads, this acceptable rhetorical level might not be what even he likes, but moderating is like politics itself: the art of the possible.

 

[tomcrx]

The answer to the problem is what Ken Cox suggests, that the forum self-moderate, that participants model the behavior they expect from others instead of the moderator slapping wrists for remarks that do not exceed what he feels is an acceptable rhetorical level for a given discussion.

Your assuming that PA is a forum of deliberation and it is not. PA is a forum of debate, poor at that, with haphazard moderation therefore self moderation is a stretch. I am not saying this to be crass but to point out a misconception that people keep throwing out there.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I'm not assuming that. The Political Arena is a Bladeforums discussion forum, define that as you will -- it changes with different topics. Some are battles for the hearts and minds of people who aren't listening, some are actual discussions of topics of some common interest.

By self-moderation, I was referring to Ken Cox's advice to the participants to respond to trolling by ignoring it, and continuing to address the topic instead of characterizing the troll or non-troll member with whom they disagree.

In other words, self-moderation is treating people as we want them to treat us.

 

[stabman]

How about a restructuring of the forum?
It is supposed to be a forum for polical issues concerning knife owners, or something of that nature.
How about the political topics have to directly involve knives/knife ownership?
It would get quiter for sure, but it would lead to less chances for the gay/bigot/savage/degenerate/"useful idiots"/socialist insult-fest that it often devolves into.
Just a thought.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

It is supposed to be a forum for polical issues concerning knife owners, or something of that nature.

No, it is not. It is an area set aside for members to discuss any political questions, to keep the dissension they generate intruding in the knife-oriented forums.

 

[stabman]

No, it is not. It is an area set aside for members to discuss any political questions, to keep the dissension they generate intruding in the knife-oriented forums.

I'll go with what you just said, but this is at the top of the forum page:

BladeForums.com Political Arena Where you can discuss the political issues concerning Knife Users.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Knife Users are concerned with more political issues than those specifically related to knives, most of which end up in Knife Laws.

 

[stabman]

Knife Users are concerned with more political issues than those specifically related to knives, most of which end up in Knife Laws.

Good point.
It was just a suggestion.
Another suggestion to those who don't like the ways things are is to moderate themselves out of the forum. I did that, and it solved all issues. I think it also lowered my blood pressure and stopped the hair-line from receding!

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Another suggestion to those who don't like the ways things are is to moderate themselves out of the forum. I did that, and it solved all issues. I think it also lowered my blood pressure and stopped the hair-line from receding!

Absolutely. It is generally known as the Golden Rule: treat others the way you would like them to treat you.

Too many people go by the Gotcha Rule: treat others the way you think they are treating you.
The problem with that is it escalates until the thread becomes an extended personality clash.

Stepping outside for a while is a good way to regain perspective.

 

[jhakken]

It was suggested that moderators may have their own personal rules that they enforce. I have asked for these rules because I was given a warning for trolling when I was nothing but polite and interested in raising the level of dialogue. I want to know what rules I'm being held to.

In all fairness Ken should issue himself an infraction for calling another forum member a liar. That's as insulting as it gets.

 

[STR]

I don't often agree with Ken or see things at all the way he does. Even though we've had our differences I think he is one that is quite good at remaining objective even when his own paradigm of how things work in this universe is challenged or as he may view it, 'insulted' so in my opinion, not that this counts for much but in my opinion you should probably be thankful it was Ken you were dealing with and not someone else. The advise to step back is probably worth considering in this case. Its advise we all need to hear now and then, myself included. :thumbup:

STR

 

[teacher]

Absolutely. It is generally known as the Golden Rule: treat others the way you would like them to treat you.

Too many people go by the Gotcha Rule: treat others the way you think they are treating you.
The problem with that is it escalates until the thread becomes an extended personality clash.

Stepping outside for a while is a good way to regain perspective.

I have no dog in this hunt and no comment.

BUT, the above is priceless and I shall strive to remember; and.... do it.... :thumbup:

 

[BlackKnight86]

Can you point out where I made unsubstantiated claims? On the contrary, I offered multiple citations, in response to claims that had none. Most of the evidence in the thread is information which I contributed (and which none have contested).

"Derogatory posts" is a bit fuzzier, but I believe I kept my posts focused on arguments and evidence, not personalities.

Smersh, you painted yourself with two things you said in your first post:

[bold mine]I recall the immortal words of GHWB, who, in support of anti flag-burning laws said that the US flag "isn't just a flag -- it really stands for something." That claim is entertaining, but it's incompatible with the basic principles of semiotics, which hold that the relationship between signifier (the physical symbol) and signified (that which it represents) is not fixed or "true", but arbitrary.

I think the conversation is doomed, and I don't have the stomach to duke it out with the apologists for the Confederacy again.

First of all, the two bolded phrases above are condescending, whether you mean them to be or not. The first one can be perceived as a veiled slap at President Bush and an insult to people who recognize that, basic principles of semiotics aside, flags do have meanings for people. The second is an veiled insult to Codger_64, who is obviously very fond of and extremely knowledgeable in history (certainly that era). To attempt to box him into "an apologist for the Confederacy" does an injustice to his intellect and his communication skills...whether you agree with him or not, you cannot deny that he raises some very valid points.

Then, after setting that tone and claiming that you "didn't have the stomach", you come back in three posts later to "duke it out". The more you perceived you weren't being listened to, the more one could see attitude coming out in your posts, and the more you began to veer away from the topic and toward the topic of moderating and censorship.

Now, I'm not trying to bust your chops...I get out of line all the time as well. Your problem came in when you tried to "take a stand". If you get corrected, just cool off a bit. Don't try to then turn it into a censorship issue. I think that is what Ken was talking about with his sassing comment...don't question the mods in print, whether you think you're right or not. Write them a PM...but only if you really feel it's an issue. Otherwise, why turn it into one if it really isn't? After all, it's just a discussion...there isn't anything to "win".

I'd like to add a word of support for Ken...I think he's an excellent moderator and a good man. He is not quick with the infractions because he treats everyone like an adult, and expects them to act correspondingly. The only reason that the political forum gets so heated is that some folks take themselves a bit too seriously.

 

[HandofCod]

I've seen some frankly offensive comments on this forum including attacks on me personally "If other Australians are like you... blah blah".

I've always thought of it as being in the lions den so to speak. I accept that as a forum on Knives the crowd isn't going to share my views on the world. I try my best not to antagonise but to use gentle persuasion - even in the face of some pretty out there views.

Also most of those discussions happen in Current Events or Whine and Cheese so I'm willing to let it go. Everyone is entitled to their views and no one is suddenly going to stand up and say to themselves. "Oh my God, an internet forum post has changed my whole perspective on life!"

I'll also say that chatting with people from a wide political spectrum has allowed me to understand better how people feel about issues that I also feel strongly about, just see the other side of the coin.

 

[jhakken]

Smersh, you painted yourself with two things you said in your first post:



First of all, the two bolded phrases above are condescending, whether you mean them to be or not. The first one can be perceived as a veiled slap at President Bush and an insult to people who recognize that, basic principles of semiotics aside, flags do have meanings for people. The second is an veiled insult to Codger_64, who is obviously very fond of and extremely knowledgeable in history (certainly that era). To attempt to box him into "an apologist for the Confederacy" does an injustice to his intellect and his communication skills...whether you agree with him or not, you cannot deny that he raises some very valid points.

Then, after setting that tone and claiming that you "didn't have the stomach", you come back in three posts later to "duke it out". The more you perceived you weren't being listened to, the more one could see attitude coming out in your posts, and the more you began to veer away from the topic and toward the topic of moderating and censorship.

Now, I'm not trying to bust your chops...I get out of line all the time as well. Your problem came in when you tried to "take a stand". If you get corrected, just cool off a bit. Don't try to then turn it into a censorship issue. I think that is what Ken was talking about with his sassing comment...don't question the mods in print, whether you think you're right or not. Write them a PM...but only if you really feel it's an issue. Otherwise, why turn it into one if it really isn't? After all, it's just a discussion...there isn't anything to "win".

I'd like to add a word of support for Ken...I think he's an excellent moderator and a good man. He is not quick with the infractions because he treats everyone like an adult, and expects them to act correspondingly. The only reason that the political forum gets so heated is that some folks take themselves a bit too seriously.

Tone deaf.