Question about closing thread (Man, bear, woman,what’s the meme I’m missing?)

This is about the “Man, bear, woman…” (Man, bear, woman,what's the meme I'm missing?) which was recently closed.

Not to second guess mods (Aspenglow in this case) but could not Mislav simply have been banned from that thread? ISTM that he alone was treating the whole thing as a Pit thread and basically thread-shitting in what could have and should have been a valuable and worthwhile discussion.

Thanks for starting this.

Yeah. I felt like we were having a pretty nuanced, respectful conversation and then that guy dropped in and made it nasty.

You’re very welcome. I believe that it is a critical topic. On one hand there is obvious progress for women (eg captains of warships, aircraft pilots, CEOs etc) but on the other hand so many things seem to be taking too long or slipping back.

I sincerely hope it’s revived.

Has the OP returned to that thread yet to clarify what “man, woman, bear” hypothetical he was actually bringing up?

It wasn’t that respectful, it wasn’t just one person being nasty and it had been going on for awhile.

That thread generated almost a dozen flags in 2 hours, and they weren’t all against one poster.

People can have unpopular opinions. It’s not the job of moderators to moderate for that.

I don’t disagree it is a critical, useful topic. But it was in MPSIMS, not GD. Start again if you wish, link back to the original thread and perhaps it can go better. At least we’ll have more tools to moderate it in more formal setting.

He was asking what references to bears, men and woods were all about.
It was answered in post #3.

The poster was accusing all women who say they’ve endured hundreds of instances of sexual harassment over their entire lifetimes of lying; he kept insisting that any such claim was entirely implausible, and attempting to use that as evidence that anyone making such a claim was lying also about whatever else they were saying on the subject.

I know that MPSIMS doesn’t have the cite requirements that Great Debates does; but I’d say that’s a bit more than having an “unpopular opinion”.

Thanks for suggesting the GD thread, at any rate.

I’m guessing Aspenglow meant other posters were flagged for unpopular opinions. I don’t think they could have come down any harder on Mislav.

I didn’t throw any flags FWIW.

Other posters were flagged for personal attacks, and those were justifiable flags, too. I’m simply pointing out that Mislav was not the only poster causing problems in the thread.

We have never moderated for the truth of an assertion on this board. It’s not our role. It’s the responsibility of the community to refute what is being said.

We try to keep things civil, we investigate to see if someone is a troll or sock (not always easy to determine), and we offer guidance to help posters color inside the lines. But unless we determine someone is actively trolling, we don’t say, “Mr. or Ms. Poster, what you’re saying isn’t true, so you’re banned from this thread!” And certainly not in MPSIMS.

Even in this instance, the poster was warned for insulting others, not for what he was claiming to be true.

Lastly, we try to give posters every opportunity to learn to make useful contributions to the Board before we proceed to banning them from threads or from the Board as a whole. Even if you (the generic you) are sure someone is a troll, we may require more evidence before reaching a similar conclusion. Or don’t.

I appreciate that this can sometimes be maddening, but it is our process and we as moderators are governed by it.

It’s unfortunate that one misbehaving poster can cause an entire thread to be shut down.

Were any of these non mislav flags also not for people replying to mislav.

This is interesting, because I think I saw someone modded in the Pit for rape apologism recently. So I assumed that mods were cracking down harder on that particular issue.

I’m of two minds there. I actually wanted to talk to that guy some more, but I also don’t want a lot of people with that attitude hanging around here.

There’s a difference between justifying rape and denying that it happens. It’s not a huge difference; both are disgusting and extremely misogynistic, and they’re both attitudes that perpetuate rape culture, but they’re not exactly the same thing and I think it’s fair to treat them a bit differently. (Just my personal opinion on the matter for whatever it’s worth.)

Unfortunately, it seems as though Mislav, who I’ve never seen before on this board, just barged into the thread with one purpose only, to trash the place and destroy a generally worthwhile discussion.

Just to repeat.

I thought certain topics and claims about such which have been factually and conclusively shown to be false are no longer debate-worthy on this board and thus if brought up are subject to moderation. Has this changed recently?

But what does that have to so with what @thorny_locust brought up? She wasn’t saying Mislav was factually wrong and thus needed to be moderated.

The accusation is that they are being a jerk and accusing other posters of being liars, both of which are against the rules. I will also add that there is a rule against misogyny and making this board unwelcoming to women. (It was a long fought rule change.) And I think someone who is pushing misogynist conspiracy theories that women are secretly out to get men definitely qualifies.

As @thorny_locust said, this was not about an unpopular opinion.

It’s about bigotry. If it had been Jews who were the ones secretly out to get people, wouldn’t it be obviously antisemitic? Why should it be different with an anti-woman conspiracy theory?

There is a list of Tired Topics about which we no longer entertain discussion. They are few in number, and the topic of the thread in question is not one of them, in my view. And if it were, or is determined to be, then the remedy is to do exactly what was done: Close the thread.

He was a jerk, he did accuse other posters of being liars, and he was moderated for that, receiving a formal warning. I, too, find his ideas abhorrent – but that’s not my job as a moderator. Do you seriously believe I’m clueless about the “long fought rule change” against misogyny? Mislav is a long-term poster and received no more or less than any other long term poster who is a jerk when posting in a thread: A warning. What more do you think should have been done? Banned from participation on the first offense? That would be unusual.

Participants were invited to start a new thread in a more appropriate forum. If you all choose to not take that option, that’s really not on me.

I’m now done with defending my actions on this moderator call. If you think it was shitty moderation, well, perhaps it was. I was fielding the many, many flags that were thrown on that thread, which I had not been reading or keeping up with in any way. Not all the flags were complaints about Mislav. I was simultaneously fighting with a (continuing) terrible internet connection courtesy of the solar storm, getting rid of a rather awful troll and enduring two halo migraines. For various reasons, we are short moderators at the moment. Not every decision is a diamond. I hope you can live with that.

To be fair: I don’t think he made the claim that reports of hundreds of instances of harrassment must be false against any specific poster; and I’m not sure (it was a fairly long thread) that anybody posting in the thread had said specifically that they’d endured hundreds or thousands of instances.

I do think it’s likely, though I can’t swear that it’s certain, that there are people on these boards who have endured that many incidents, which is part of the problem I was having with the claim; but unless somebody specifically said so in the thread, or some post in a different thread was referenced by Mislav (which it wasn’t, only posts elsewhere than on this board), I don’t know that that’s covered in the rules. I think @Aspenglow has made a reasonable claim that it isn’t; at least as the rules currently stand.

I thought Mislav was moderated appropriately. That wasn’t an issue to me. He was clearly violating our rule against being a jerk and was so modded.

Truth is there are a lot of people out there who think like that. And they might have benefitted from reading a debate about that.

I used to take people like him personally, but I don’t anymore. He was reacting to some things he doesn’t like on Reddit which really had nothing to do with the thread.