Admins have all the mod powers, I don’t see why they shouldn’t count.
And I’ve been going by what’s listed, especially for the forums I don’t particularly read a lot of. If someone’s listed as a current mod, they’re correctly counted as a mod for statements like “more mods are female than PoC” as far as I’m concerned.
So I make the current ratio 3 to 1. My statement stands.
Maybe it’s just me, but I do not want to interact with racists or pedophiles. Feeding them into a wood chipper would be fine with me.
The previous [del]Cicero[/del] (who was the pedo that was allowed here?) debacle nearly chased me away. Coddling misogynists has chased off many posters. Now this. Jesus Christ people.
Yeah. I used to have the “let’s debate for readers” attitude, but I’ve seen precious little evidence that this attitude is grounded in, y’know, evidence.
People come around with that bullshit? At the very least, a warning.
Bone, I think your logic about warnings vs. notes vs. bannings for low-post trolls is flawed. You seem to suggest that no warning is given because if it’s a warning it’s for trolling, in which case a banning is called for.
No it’s not. That might be a tradition, but if it leads to a warnable post like this not getting a warning, it’s a bad tradition. If you don’t want to ban the guy for trolling, don’t ban him for trolling. Just give the warning instead.
I agree. Seems like an unnecessary constraint on the moderators. Especially since it results in no record in the system of the moderating action. Why limit yourselves to “ban” or “no warning issued”?
At this point, though, I don’t expect the mods to go back and change things for the post in question. Something to think about going forward.
With my understanding that the thread is asking why, in a broad sense, conservatives and especially conservative media figures tend to strongly oppose public policy meant to combat climate change, I think it’s an interesting topic and I’m not sure the relevance here.
If you look at the suggested reasons offered by posters in that thread, they seem like exactly the type of broad-brushing that you’re professing here to be opposed to.
[BTW, your description of the thread is not accurate. It’s not about why conservatives “tend to strongly oppose public policy meant to combat climate change”, it’s about why they tend to deny the science supporting climate change.]
(emphasis mine, but overall very thought-provoking.) It is posts like this make me seriously wish there was a like button here because I don’t really want to participate. I’ll hesitantly add this: political affiliation is becoming the new religion.
The record exists, though informally. This discussion, as well as mod loop discussion, ensures that aspect.
It’s not a real constraint, but a logical one. If someone trolls from the get go, we ban them. If the assessment is made that someone is trolling and a warning is given, I’d be hard pressed to not execute a ban. For what reason would we not ban? Anyways, like I said, I read the post and re-read it because it gave me pause in how jarring it was, but I think it’s clear what the thought process was.
I’ve just read the thread through from beginning to end, and the moderator thinking on this matter is, quite frankly, risible in its level of analysis and consistency.
I’m not sure an insta-ban was necessary, but I simply don’t understand why that post didn’t get a warning. Every argument offered in defense of the moderation here just seems like sophistry. Perhaps the most mind-boggling is tomndebb’s hilarious effort to equate racial supremacism with political ideology.
There seems to be some sort of belief that you can’t give the guy a warning for trolling, because then you’d have to ban him, or something. At least, that’s what you imply here when you say that " If the assessment is made that someone is trolling and a warning is given, I’d be hard pressed to not execute a ban. For what reason would we not ban?" This seems to strongly suggest that trolling is worthy of banning, but not a warning.
And yet there have been dozens of warnings on this board for trolling. Want some examples?
Link (because thread was closed, so no quote function)
Awhile ago we had a poster on this board who peppered conversations with statements like, “Republicans hate women,” and, “Conservatives want brown people to die.” For awhile the mods told us we had to refute him civilly and with facts.
But eventually they told him to knock it the fuck off.
Mods, do you regret this decision? Would you give a different instruction to someone else who came to the boards with objectively incorrect, highly-insulting, stereotypical claims about a political ideology? Or do you think–as I do–that it was exactly the right call?
If you agree with me, can you explain why making objectively incorrect, highly insulting, stereotypical claims about a racial/ethnic group is less deleterious to board culture?