Thanks for the feedback. If I ever find myself moderating P&E, I will remember this point.
Agreed.
I’ve never been very clear on what gets counted as a lie vs. an uninformed opinion. There seems to be a lot of overlap.
I’m pretty sure that there have been discussions about what constitutes “trolling” where the consensus was that it’s possible to troll even with sincerely held opinions, if the opinions are clearly and preposterously wrong, unsupportable by any reasonable factual argument, and the poster’s main intent is to anger a lot of people. If those conditions hold, then whether or not the poster really believes the nonsense he is spouting becomes rather irrelevant to the moderator’s role of maintaining productive and civil discourse.
If Magiver is no longer allowed to post things that clearly and preposterously wrong, his contributions to this board will be cut down by about 90%.
And I include this one more time for completeness…
It doesn’t matter what the content of the post was. It’s wrong for a moderator to indicate that his or her definition of trolling depends on whether he or she agrees with a post. That’s a bad thing for a moderator to say. Hari Seldon should consider whether that was the best choice of words for what he was trying to convey.
I already said the same thing, which you and others agreed with. So no argument there. I’m just saying that the moderator made the right call but used an unfortunate choice of words in explaining it. Which, incidentally, is no different than the one and only warning that I ever received, in which the reason given for the warning bore little resemblance to the contents of the post. Or in this case, the reason for the non-warning not being well explained. Most of us seem to agree that that’s all this is about. Honestly, hardly worth starting a thread over.
I for one believe the sun’s not yellow, it’s chicken. My opinion.
Seconded (or thirded).
For years I’ve been dismissing the notion that the moderation here is politically biased. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that a moderator would essentially confirm that. Maybe that’s not what he meant, maybe he was kidding, but it sure sounded like “saying the quiet part out loud” (particularly coming so soon after the unnecessary Magiver smackdown).
Some of the replies in this thread strike me as “It’s cool because he’s on our side.” If I wanted that kind of board, I could hang out on Democratic Underground.
If any bias is being shown it’s bias in favor of truth. I don’t see any good reason that the board or moderators or board policy should pretend that all statements are equal. That’s the worst of both-sidesism. If something is true, then there is less reason to suspect that it’s trolling. And saying “I agree with that” is another way of saying “it’s true.”
I absolutely don’t want this board to start pretending that all “opinions” are equal.
No.
Not in English anyway.
Of course it can be so, depending on the context. In this case it obviously is.
I absolutely don’t want to see garbage opinions being granted shields or statements in opinion form that are plainly factual in jeopardy. That kind of insane equalisation is part of why this country is in the trouble it’s in.
I can’t speak for octopus, but I had no problem with the comment “The GOP is a violent white nationalist organization” going un-warned and being classified as non-trollish, except that the moderator in question made it clear that he only considered it acceptable because it aligned with his own personal political views. That’s what I find bothersome. It’s not about truth or untruth; it’s that the moderator is passing things through his political filter.
That’s precisely the problem I have. Similar behavior, actually less provocative behavior, is warned as trolling precisely because it did not align with a mod’s bias.
It’s not “personal political views.” It’s either true or it’s false.
If someone said, “I believe the Ku Klux Klan is a violent white nationalist organization,” would you object?
Here we’ve got an organization whose leader is praising acts of extra-legal violence. He’s engaging in racist insults, and tying nonwhite people to the country their ancestors came from, and suggesting they’re not truly Americans. He’s dealing with a pandemic by calling it by the name of a province in another country in a way that’s stirred up violence against people of color.
If an organization with such a leader can’t be called violent, can’t be called white nationalist, it’s because we’ve got Orwellian restrictions on plain speech. If members of the GOP are unhappy with being part of a violent white nationalist organization, rather than complain about people pointing this simple fact out, they should maybe try to change their organization’s leadership, or else leave the organization.
I’m pretty pleased that the board is moving away from its policy of protecting racist views and entities by warning anyone who dared point out that they were racist.
Yes - I don’t disagree with the eventual outcome of the call; I disagree with the process by which the moderator made that call.
If a ref says, “The pass is incomplete because the ball hit the ground” - perfectly fine, no issues at all. But if he says, “The pass is incomplete because I don’t want the Eagles to score” - that’s inappropriate reasoning, regardless of whether the catch was actually made or not.
Oh, no!!! Whatever will we do!!!
Well, the GOP supports violent white nationalist movements, so, then it gets into the realm of opinion. Now, since the Dems are pro-choice, I guess the baby - killing part is opinion, but the rest has no basis.
"The Democrats are radical baby - killing socialists " is the equivalent.
I considered that Mod post in the manner of a witticism, not a statement of Policy. It was mildly funny, I grinned. I think it was make with tongue in cheek to an extent.
This is 100% true. Conservative posters on this board get away with murder (figuratively speaking - literally they get away with trolling) because traditionally moderation on this board has been very hesitant to risk endangered species habitats - few enough conservatives here have survived outright broad daylight white supremacism, naked misogyny, etc.
But endangered or not they should be held to the same standards as anyone else.
QFT. So true.
I was contemplating starting this exact same thread, based on the example in the OP and the “bald-faced lie” comment.
There’s a reason Mods use the “Mod hat on” designation. When you act as a Mod, I don’t care whether you agree or disagree with the comment you’re moderating, and not only do I not want Mods using their role to be “fact-checkers” (except to the extent the facts/lies infringe board rules), I thought there was a specific rule against calling something a “lie” or someone a “liar”*. But I do care that when you speak and act ex cathedra, you do so in a way that is clearly not based on personal opinions of the subject at hand or the poster.
If you want to be a bit more flexible in Mod notes, fine - the use of discretion is a good thing - but when a Warning or thread closure is involved, it should be clear what rule is being broken and/or the board-based rationale for it. If you want to offer a personal opinion on it, take your fucking hat off.
I know being a Mod is a tough and thankless job but come on, Hari - get it together.
*That said, I do think repeatedly posting demonstrable lies (as a general example) should fall under the “being a jerk” rule.