My only advice is to "let it go". Holding that "taste" in your craw for 6 years isn't (in my opinion) "healthy".Originally Posted by crosscountry
...and it is irrelevant to the discussion of current moderation.
Senior Member
My only advice is to "let it go". Holding that "taste" in your craw for 6 years isn't (in my opinion) "healthy".
...and it is irrelevant to the discussion of current moderation.
Order of Kilopi
Infractions expire...
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Order of Kilopi
Only if he actually cites the example. Right now it's just his 6 year memory that seems to be accusing mods of giving me special treatment for some reason.
I'd like to see the thread in question and see if there's a shred of truth to the matter. Personally - I doubt it fits any of the three qualifiers I've laid down that define actual 'over moderation'.
Order of Kilopi
Many cases of possible excessive moderation could be cited.
Some of those have already been argued at great length.
I was involved in only a very few such arguments. In some
cases the poster I was arguing for wanted to drop the argument.
In other cases the amount of research required to support my
side of the argument became more than I could handle. In more
cases I saw that it was more than I would be able to handle, so
I never began. In some cases I presented an argument that the
poster's intent was misunderstood, then was told by moderators
that the specific instance I was arguing was far from the first such
instance of the poster's misbehavior, and it was the totality of the
poster's misbehavior which resulted in the suspension or ban,
not that one instance. I had no way of knowing whether the other
instances were also due to the moderator's misunderstanding
without a great deal of time-consuming research. I raised one
example of this in this thread, with Forrest Noble. Everything I
saw him post was perfectly fine. The real problems were
always in some *other* unspecified posts, never in the posts
I saw.
Even my own infractions I would have to do a great deal of
research to remind myself exactly what happened. I can't even
remember whether or not I have disputed any of them. I have
disputed the *reasons* for some of them. But argung any of
them, if I wanted to, would require an enormous effort.
One case which may not be very typical, but which has had a
further development since my last discussion of it: I posted a
reply to a question on April 29, 2011 which prompted a reply to
me from the OP two and a half days later, indicating that he was
distraught by one of my comments. This moderator post
followed (slightly edited for this thread):
I asked repeatedly for an explanation of what I had done wrong,
This was just reported to the moderators (we do not read every
thread) and this is completely inapprorpriate. Jeff, you have been
here long enough to know better. If you do not wish to answer
someone's questions, then don't, but do not be rude about it.
This gets an infraction.
but got none. In December, seven months later, I was watching
a TV program about Alzheimer's disease, and thought about
what happened here, and it occurred to me that the OP might
have thought that I was joking when I attributed a possible
cause of his apparent forgetfulness to Alzheimer's disease.
That would be a completely natural mistake, since I did joke
immediately after saying it (in the same sentence, even)
about my own forgetfulness. But I was not joking about his
seeming forgetfulness, and the possibility that he may have
thought I was making light of it didn't occur to me until seven
months later, when I had to come up with that explanation
on my own.
At the time of the discussion of my infraction, though, another
poster did PM me with an alternative explanation for the OP's
seeming forgetfulness: The OP rarely replies to existing threads,
so it is possible that he rarely reads threads he doesn't start.
If anyone thought I was joking at the OP's expense, I can
understand the interpretation that my reply was terribly rude.
But I was not joking. It was a reasonable explanation of the
odd situation which occurred to me as I began to answer the
OP's question, nothing more.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
Established Member
I like this thread, if only to see some of the dirty linen, strange opinions and willingness to clarify and debate the purpose of the site. BAUT is a gold standard for quality of logic and evidence, and a bit of a taster for the general public of the rigors of real advancement of learning. Scientific consensus is about the closest we get to absolute truth, so there is something very valuable in having a site that maintains such strong respect for scientific consensus.
Established Member
Who made you the arbiter of definition here?
This thread has numerous examples in it of situations that may not fit your definition but which people still feel are situations where moderation was perhaps overzealous or counter-productive. Why should the fact that your definitions are not met invalidate the discussion? My own example (which you seem to have repeatedly failed to grasp) was one in which I repsonded to a warning (which one rule specifically says is permitted) without arguing (which most definitely and rightly is not), yet still got warned again for doing so. That fits a definition of overmoderating besides your own.
(And for the record I consider the matter in question to be resolved now: I mention it as an example here, not to rake through it all over again.)
Moderator
Y'know, I've read djellison's post several times, trying to see where he/it was "not polite" and I can't find it. Perhaps it was a bit more direct or curt than you would have liked, but I can't find where it becomes impolite or breaks any BAUT rules about that.
POV.
In this instance? No one. The Owners, Admins and Mods are.
But, for the record, I like those questions. They seem direct, pertinent, and pretty much cover it for me.
They don't "invalidate" the discussion, but that doesn't make them "valid." It's a matter of opinion and djellison has stated his; you are under no obligation to continue discussing this with him.
And that is your opinion. djellison is under no obligation to agree with you. As you know, the Mods do not.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Order of Kilopi
But still hang around in case a non-automatic response becomes warranted.
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Established Member
He's not stating opinions he's stating definitions.
It is not an opinion that one rule says responses to warnings are permitted and another that only arguing moderation is proscribed. That's written in black and white.And that is your opinion.
No-one is obliged to agree with me, but the fact remains the rules as written do allow responses to warnings, if not arguments. Further, his right to disagree with me does not, I feel, extend to a right to all but accuse me of deliberately skirting the boundaries of the rules after I repeatedly and plainly stated that it was purely unintentional, and the moderator who issued the warning expressed his confidence in that.djellison is under no obligation to agree with you.
A few pages back the moderator in question conceded that it may have been poorly worded or seemed un-necessarily harsh.As you know, the Mods do not.
Order of Kilopi
Definitions that, in my opinion, define what could be fairly described as over moderation.
No one has seen fit to provide an example.
You could do that, or offer up an alternate description of what you consider the demarcation of fair moderation.
Or you could simply ignore me.
And deliberate or not, a rule break is a rule break. Within this very thread, I fell victim to that. Entirely by accident I used a word that I didn't think was a problem. It was, a mod, rightly, picked me up on it and I sent a quick polite PM to apologize to that mod.
What I'm basically seeing in this thread is people who've broken a rule (intentionally or otherwise) moaning that they got picked up on it by a moderator. Knowing what a tedious, time consuming and thankless task being a form mod is, I find that rude and feel it only fair to come to their defense by explaining that I believe they're simply doing their job. To make that case clear, I suggest some definitions that would perhaps offer something of a reality check.
No one has since offered anything up that could honestly be described as over moderation.
Established Member
I agree with them. I disagree that they alone cover the whole business.
Examples in this thread already exist of threads that were closed after the OP had been banned or suspended. The rule break has been dealt with by banning the offender. Everyone else is subsequently denied a chance to respond to anything they said. It has been noted that since this objection was raised a softer approach has been in evidence on the CT forum, and a thread was reopened in order to continue discussion that was raised even after the proponent was kicked off the forum.No one has seen fit to provide an example.
How much more clearly can I put it other than referring you back over my earlier posts? I don't mind a warning for unintentionally straying too close to rule boundaries. My objection was to being warned for responding to that warning, which is permitted by the rules. The whole point of my participation in this thread has been to draw attention to the difference between arguing and replying, one of which is permitted by the rules and one of which is not. And I still find your suggestion that I was in some way deliberatley skirting the boundaries of the rules offensive.What I'm basically seeing in this thread is people who've broken a rule (intentionally or otherwise) moaning that they got picked up on it by a moderator.
Administrator
This was a policy we had for the sake of avoiding piling on. IF we perceived that the tone of a thread was hot, and the offending participant was suspended/banned, we closed the thread at least temporarily for the sake of avoiding hot tempered responses that would get additional people suspended, but also to prevent provocative retorts being said to a (former?)member who could no longer respond. This was not something we idly came up with. This was a result from experience at that time. I stand by it having been worth doing, though it is probable that now the general culture of this forum has moved to the point where it is unneeded. It was never a hard rule. It was a judgment call for the mod, and a humane consideration for the person being bounced.
Forming opinions as we speak
Administrator
I'd like to comment on one aspect of this that has come up several times in this thread, and that is the "intentionally or otherwise" point.
Several people have complained about being warned or infracted for posting something, and their defense was that they did not intend for it to be rude, political, an inappropriate word, against moderator instructions, etc., etc.
I have really no basis to judge intent. I can not see into your heart or mind to read what your intent was. All I can judge by is the text that is written. And I have to judge that versus a broad context of what is considered rude, inappropriate, and/or political across a broad spectrum of human cultures, dialects, and social norms.
Now, one might argue, given for example, two interpretations of a word that might be rude or not, I should assume the non-rude interpretation. But if I do so, then it leaves in public a word that some people (or net-nannies) may find offensive, and it allows people with less noble intentions a way of being rude. So I have to act upon the ruder interpretation.
However, I am conscious of the multiple interpretations, or the slip of the fingers. I do try to take this into consideration when deciding on the "punishment" (thus only the warning about djellison's post earlier in this thread and not an infraction, for example). I appreciate it when the offender apologizes or explains their intent. It is even possible that such an after-the-fact explanation might change the punishment (if an infraction was given) or be taken into consideration when future actions are necessary. But we can not just ignore such questionable posts at the time they are posted.
Order of Dr. Kilopi
This I understand and agree with. In fact, I like how your example was handled, even though in the same post the poster was asking for less slack overall.
Since my 7 year old example has been deemed unworthy of the current discussion, even though I suspect it would reoccur, I'll leave it where it is. At least one of the parties had a real life reputation outside of this forum, and I suspect that that contributed to the banning and subsequent re-ban after the merger of BA and UT.
Established Member
While a more recent example probably would be better I fail to see how you "7 year old example" even qualifies as an example at this time. It could very well be worthy of discussion 7 years later but we'll never know until you actually give the example.
Established Member
defineolitics "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area."
Wikipedia: "a process by which groups of people make collective decisions".
It doesn't seem to meet those definitions, unless you interpret the first definition so broadly as to include anything a government might do. If you do that then there should be enormously more political infractions given than there are.
The problem is the rule doesn't really name what it prohibits. I think it is intended to suppress discussion of (US) "hot button issues" and party political partisan posts. That is not, however, what it says.
Established Member
It's not lesser, it's different. I don't know where anti-American abuse and politics stand in the mods' pantheon of evil. Note that I have only William's word for the fact that the infraction was for politics not abuse.
Administrator
You are only very partially correct. Suppressing "hot button issues" is part of the intent, since political discussions often get hot and nasty. But it isn't confined to just US politics, as I can recall actions also taken regarding UK, Canadian, and Australian politics, to name a few off the top of my head.
And no we are not going to define "politics". I think the commonly understood definition is quite fine. We also don't define "politeness", "religion", "conspiracy", "mainstream", "thread", "focused", "space", or "astronomy", all of which are also used in the rules. This isn't the final exam for third year law.
As far as the particular post in question, not a single moderator who looked at it disagreed that it was not completely inappropriate (and multiple ones commented about it).
Administrator
None of our rules do or should provide an allegedly complete list of specific linguistic constructions which are prohibited, or even give a smattering of examples of specifics that are allowed and prohibited... for two reasons: first, such rules would be impossibly long and unreadable (see "Goedel, Escher, Bach"); second, there is a subset of our past, current, and future membership that are amused and/or empowered by exploiting gray areas in the rules to violate the sense of the rule.
On a related topic, you giving a one sentence excerpt for the definition of politics, and saying that is the exhaustive definition of political is obviously weak rhetorically. It suggests that you want to accuse us of being wrong (and we have been on occasion, so I don't claim you can't), but are really struggling to find a compelling example.
Forming opinions as we speak
Moderator
I have to address this. And I have to use a sports metaphor. (Sorry.)
I was a soccer referee for about 20 years (note avatar). I also instructed (and assessed) soccer referees for about that same length of time. I became extremely familiar with the Laws of the Game.
Have you ever seen them? The rules that govern soccer, a sport played world wide by more countries than belong to the UN, and played by those rules for over 80 years, fit in a book that is roughly 5" x 7" and 3/8" thick. And contains a lot of white space and pictures. And extraneous information.
They work because the people who play the game understand the game... the Spirit of the Game. The Laws are not meant to define every little thing that is or is not allowed. It provides a framework to support that Spirit.
(US high schools adopted soccer and immediately expanded the rules. Their book is thicker and has less white space and pictures and extraneous stuff. It goes into great detail about what is and is not allowed, even providing examples. It is always good for a laugh.)
The BAUT Rules for Posting provide a framework that supports the spirit of, well, civil discourse. If you don't understand what that means, we cannot teach it to you. All we can do is provide the broad strokes guidelines that Mods will use to promote and defend that civil discourse. They give the Mods the latitude they need to do this without getting overloaded and overwhelmed with picky little details.
Like, what exactly is politics. Or inappropriate language. Or abusive behaviour.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Order of Kilopi
I couldn't resist writing the above as the following formal mathematical logic statement, where P(m) is the statement that moderator m believed the post was completely appropriate:
Of course, you can easily tell that this is equivalent to the statement:
So we can confirm that somehow Swift managed to keep track of the multiple negation and say what he intended.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Dr. Kilopi
Every moderator agreed that it was somewhat appropriate
Order of Kilopi
The post clearly broke the rules. That much is entirely self evident. Ergo - it doesn't exhibit ANY sign of 'Over Moderation'
Again - it seems like you're having a debate on the rules - not how they are applied.
If the constraints of a no-politics / no-abuse forum are too much for you - perhaps you should try another forum.
Order of Kilopi
I think you guys need to rest it.
Order of Kilopi
This is a bridge too far, djellison. Dial it back, please.
a) As far as the civility rule is concerned (and there's a reason civility is Rule 2), "anti-American abuse" = abuse. Discourtesy is discourtesy.
b) As far as the politics rule is concerned, pro/anti US value judgment = any other political value judgment, only perhaps more urgent as this sort of value judgment tends to wind people up faster. Partially because of our demographics (more people to potentially wind up), partially because of the more volatile political climate in the US.
Order of Kilopi
A quadruple negative
I don't think it means what you intended for it to mean, you're saying that all moderators agreed that it was at least somewhat appropriate.
Order of Kilopi
I see Grey beat me to it, though having a different conclusion.I couldn't resist writing the above as the following formal mathematical logic statement, where P(m) is the statement that moderator m believed the post was completely appropriate:
Of course, you can easily tell that this is equivalent to the statement:
So we can confirm that somehow Swift managed to keep track of the multiple negation and say what he intended.
Fully written out,
Letdenote the post in question, and
denote elements of the post, so
.
Define a function
So defining the statement "not completely inappropriate" becomes
Denote the set of moderators by
The entire statement then becomes
which is equivalent to
Or in words: every moderator agrees that the post was at least somewhat appropriate
Last edited by caveman1917; 2012-Mar-15 at 10:04 PM. Reason: removed last bit about single moderator
Order of Kilopi
Heh, you guys are over-analyzing, although I'm getting a kick out of watching you do it. To aid and abet, if it helps, consider me the mythical dissenting mod who didn't think it was completely inappropriate but only wildly so.
Order of Kilopi
I really just can't help it
and the inevitable xkcd reference
Order of Dr. Kilopi
from Grey's
I think the tense was lost.I see Grey beat me to it, though having a different conclusion.
Fully written out,
Let
Define a function
So defining the statement "not completely inappropriate" becomes
Denote the set of moderators by
The entire statement then becomes
which is equivalent to
Or in words: every moderator agrees that the post was at least somewhat appropriate
Posting Permissions
