I don’t think it bizarre to read “That other posters managed to get themselves in trouble responding to ludicrous provocation is on your head” as saying people can’t be responsible for their own actions when provoked. But if you don’t feel that’s what you’re saying, then I don’t understand the point of your quoted comment.
Actually, you keep skipping a step, which is what I alluded to in my first response. First, there has to be a determination that the OP was actually trolling. I get that there are people in this thread, including you, who feel there’s absolutely no question about it. But ITD did not state, “Oh, this is a trolling OP, but I’m going to let it go and just moderate other people in the thread,” and I suspect you know that. I’m not going to speak for her, but I’m guessing she saw enough potential for trouble to make it worth monitoring and moderating very closely, but not enough evidence to close it immediately. That’s a call we have to make sometimes, and as I said before, we [all in this thread] disagree on whether the line was crossed in this particular instance. I have absolutely zero issue with you or anyone else starting ATMB threads to make your case for why you think that was the right or wrong call.
But instead, I’m reading your comments as saying that everyone, including the moderation, determined there was trolling happening, but moderators just chose to ignore the trolling. If that’s true, I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think the accusation really gets us anywhere. If you’re just blowing off steam, so be it. But if your comments are meant to be constructive, then I think the discussion ought to center around why you think the OP of the original thread should not be read as anything other than trolling, and we can go from there.
I have to agree with Exapno on this, I found the modding on that thread confusing.
Regarding the OP, I thought the board had reached a strong consensus that men discussing what kind of women they find sexually attractive is just not something we want here? Not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with gossiping about who you find sexy, but there are other social contexts to do that, and it’s not appropriate on SDMB if we want to make it more inclusive and welcoming to women. Nothing to do with suppressing speech, just a matter of etiquette - no different from saying (for example) that you don’t talk about which workmates you think are hot in the cafeteria at work. Am I wrong in thinking that?
In that spirit, whether or not the OP was deliberately trolling, it seems to me that an OP with a pretty obvious salacious subtext where the “thesis” is supported only by links to pictures of attractive young women should have been closed immediately and Noted. Sure, there’s the potential for a tangentially related serious discussion on variation in physique and genetics (DSeid eventually posted some interesting data, and ignorance was fought), but that can be accommodated by inviting the OP or anyone else to restart a new thread in an appropriate manner if they wish. As it is, to the extent that a worthwhile discussion eventually occurred, the thread is defaced by the inappropriate OP and reactions to it, and it’s something that one might hesitate to link to in a related serious discussion.
(Instead, ITD’s first modding action appeared inexplicably oblivious to the fact that Darren Garrison’s comment was an extremely obvious satirical critique of the OP’s inappropriateness. Whatever ITD’s intended guidance, that obliviousness undermined it. it’s not surprising that the modding got stuck in the weeds of peripheral misunderstandings after that.)
Then the step you mods need to do as a group is to read contrary opinions closely.
I understand the instinctive action is to affirm a mod’s actions and that’s what I would want were I a mod. However, if you find most posters agreeing that the mod made serious mistakes then you should all take a step back and stop responding with automatic defenses.
Every single person in that thread and this one knows exactly why people rose up in response to that OP. Don’t even try to put the onus on explaining this on me.
“Most posters” aren’t posting in this thread. It hasn’t even made it to two pages. The only people posting here (or there) are those that feel strongly about this. I don’t agree with you: I’m pretty sure that plenty of people who are blissfully unaware this thread exists might disagree with you as well. But I’m mostly “meh” about it. So that’s why I hadn’t posted until now. The mods made a judgement call. That’s what they are here to do. You disagree. So that’s why you are here.
But the onus **is **on you to make your case. Because you haven’t convinced me. Don’t put it on the mods to “accept a consensus” when a consensus doesn’t exist.
I’m still trying to get my head around how Darren Garrison’s response to the OP in post #3 was worthy of a mod rebuke to begin with when the OP itself wasn’t.
…a worthless empirical observation. A meaningless empirical observation. An observation that doesn’t remove the onus from Exapno to make his case in this particular thread.
How do I know that plenty of people who aren’t aware that this thread **might **disagree with Exapno?
Do you want me to link to the google definition of “might?” They “might” disagree. Or they “might” not. I’m not claiming to speak for other posters. I’m suggesting that its entirely possible there will be people that disagree with what Exapno Mapcase has said.
I am truly trying to engage you here, but I doubt that I’m going to be able to get through your insistence that someone who disagrees with you is either deliberately ignoring the obvious or engaging in “automatic defenses.” Good grief, man.
I don’t think anyone in here—moderator or poster—has disputed that a line should be drawn when someone is obviously trolling. We disagree about whether that line should have been drawn on this thread. I am here, reading what you have to say about why that line ought to be drawn differently for this thread. ITD stated very early in this thread that she did not see the OP in question as “just an excuse to post girly picks.” Isn’t that the the key, here? That’s how I understand the argument of folks who wanted the thread closed immediately. There are people here who feel that was clearly the OP’s intent, and people here who aren’t certain.
To Riemann’s earlier point, the moderation is definitely looking more closely at when or if a thread should be shut down preemptively, regardless of whether the OP was deliberately provocative or simply being obtuse. We’re going to continue to try to make the best calls we can on those. And to listen to feedback about those calls. But if the call we make is not the same call you would have made, it doesn’t mean we’re deliberately letting something go. Consequently, we’re going to continue to moderate subsequent posts in the thread, even if posters feel the thread itself is controversial.
I think Exapno had already explained his views, if you read earlier posts. And I don’t think it’s worthless to note that a majority of actual posts were questioning the moderation. Not everyone necessarily agreed with Exapno, but he didn’t claim that, just that the moderation seemed to generate controversy rather than consensus support, and perhaps should be examined more critically.
Yes. It confirms that your speculation about what hypothetical non-existent posts might or might not say added nothing to the debate.
Thanks. Although the mods didn’t agree that it warranted shutting down this particular thread, could you comment on whether my read on board consensus (and mod policy) toward salacious commentary about women is correct?
See my first paragraph here
I’ve seen “she’s hot” comments consistently shut down recently where they are clearly irrelevant and inappropriate to a particular thread, that much is clear. But can you just confirm that it’s not just a question of thread-specific context? We don’t want content at all if it’s in the general area of “women I find sexy”, right?
I think it is. Its inevitable that a thread in a forum that has the intent of allowing people to make comment or complain about the moderation it will probably attract people who agree with the complaint. That there are a handful of people who agree with the complainant does not show a pattern, does not show consensus.
I can actually read what he wrote, and IMHO your paraphrase is inaccurate. I stand by everything I said.
I disagree with the bolded. I don’t think the mods made a serious mistake. I don’t think Expano’s assertion that “most posters agree that the mods made serious mistakes” is defensible. Only a handful of posters have weighed in here. My speculation that there are more people like me (and you concede that more people who share my opinion exist) is not unreasonable and seems to be a premise you accept, and is entirely fair as a rebuttal to the argument that Expano has made in that post.
You appear to have an instinctive action to affirm the opinion of somebody you agree with. Because I don’t think I’ve said anything in this thread that is unreasonable, yet you feel a need to disagree with me.
The thread in question is titled “Why do Asian women tend to lack muscle?”
The OP of that thread explicitly says “Niether body type is better than the other since beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The OP doesn’t claim “these are women I find sexy.” The OP isn’t even clearly posted by a man.
So on the face of it the thread (assuming we accept your premise that “the board had reached a strong consensus that men discussing what kind of women they find sexually attractive is just not something we want here”, which I do not) doesn’t match your criteria of a thread that should be moderated.
The only thing that might fit your criteria is the images that the OP chose to illustrate their point. And in regards to that: the moderators made a judgement call. I take it you disagree with them?
Riemann, we continue to have conversation in the mod loop about exactly how to deal with these situations, so I don’t want to put forth the idea that we have a specific policy in place related to the topic at hand. I will say that we all think it’s important to figure out the right way to deal with it, to try to allow for as much discussion as possible without chasing away current or future members, of all stripes, who are interested in legitimate discussion.
It’s obviously a judgment call whether the OP in question was a cover for salacious content; and furthermore whether the borderline presentation was deliberate trolling of the board and the mods. Note that OP has not returned to the thread. In my opinion, you’re being naive.
I thought I was pretty clear that I was not stating that premise as established fact, I was asking the question if I was correct in thinking that was the board consensus. Although I’m surprised that it seems it’s not so clear as I had thought.
Setting aside the intent of this particular thread, do you think a thread on “women you think are sexy” is an appropriate level of discourse for SDMB, in any context? What do you think our standards should be? What has been the point of the extensive debate on being more inclusive to women, if not this?
That’s good to hear. If you’re soliciting opinions, mine is that it’s better to preempt blatant misogynistic threads than attempt to mod them into some semblance of order. We have a long-standing tradition of mods frequently closing threads with the injunction that a new one can be started without the poisoned well. Why not extend that current practice?
I’m not accusing mods of letting things go as policy. I am giving my opinion that in one particular instance a mistake was made that gave me and apparently others the appearance of doing so. Appearances count.
…you are welcome to hold the opinion (and by extension, the moderators as well) that we are “being naive.”
But lets just be clear on what my post was about. My post was an objective presentation of what happened in that thread. The implication that the OP could have been “deliberately trolling the boards” is subjective. Its an opinion. An opinion that is held up by some of the evidence and not held up by others. I’ve looked at some of the other posts by that OP: and you may or may not be right. But that doesn’t change anything I said.
I am not being naive because I laid out what was said in a thread without making a judgement. I’m probably not far away from sharing your opinion. But on what we have and what we know I personally can’t disagree with the way the moderators adjudicated here. The OP is on the radar now. And if you are right, then they will trip themselves up again sooner or later. They always do.
There are plenty of people who have expressed they are not happy with “women you think are sexy” getting moderated.
I don’t think that the *pit *is an appropriate place for discourse on the SDMB. I think the moderation on race issues, and (of particular interest myself) indigenous issues needs a lot of attention. I think that threads on “women you think are sexy” is one that is being addressed, that I’m uncertain where the “line in the sand” should actually be, and I’m thankful that I’m not a moderator here having to make those decisions.
One of the biggest defenders on this extensive debate on being “more inclusive to women” and one of the people who, IMHO, deserves a lot of the credit for changes to moderation that have clearly made this place better, also happens to be the subject of this particular thread. I have great respect for IvoryTowerDenizen. I know exactly where IvoryTowerDenizen stands on the issue of inclusiveness to women. If there is anyone on these messageboards who doesn’t need a lecture on “what this extensive debate” is all about: its IvoryTowerDenizen.
In this particular case things came down to a “line call”: and IvoryTowerDenizen made a call.
Here’s the thing. You are allowed to disagree with IvoryTowerDenizen’s call. But be clear what it is you are disagreeing about. This isn’t about “the extensive debate.” Its about a judgement call whether or not somebody was trolling or not. Everything else is just muddying the issue.