
Kobold Catgirl |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |

Before we begin, I just want to say that this thread is intended to serve as a place to talk constructively about the problems Rysky and others have been bringing up elsewhere, as well as to talk about what I've perceived as some problems in how people have been bringing them up.
Oh, weird, turns out there's actually a helpful little clarification of what this thread's about if you read past the, um, title. That was nice of me.
I said this thread was about specific problems others had been bringing up. I then proceeded to lay out those problems in the rest of the post. None of them involved moderator heavy-handedness. In fact, they were mainly about perceived moderator inaction on bad faith trolls and contrarians, as well as about appropriate ways of discussing that inaction, and potential solutions. This thread was for talking about specific problems, not just a general all-purpose "complain about modding here" thread.
Make your own thread if you're that mad about whatever you're mad about. Starting arguments with moderators about moderated posts in the same thread has never been how it has been handled, by the way.

Sunderstone |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

On the state of problems Rysky and others might have and how to discuss them would have been a better title then.
Technically, your thread title is misrepresenting of your intentions, like click-bait with a metric crap ton of fine print apparently.
So... Apologies to you as I was mislead by the title. I will vacate the thread and run along.

Kobold Catgirl |
16 people marked this as a favorite. |

Back on topic, I think a lot of people who perceive "bias" in moderation are actually perceiving two very different things: nuance and context. These are important tools in the moderator's skillset, especially when handling dogwhistlers and trolls, but they tend to frustrate a lot of people because they sort of run counter to the ideal of "objective" moderation or "solid rules". The dogwhistlers and trolls, obviously, really hate them, because nothing upsets a dogwhistling bigot more than to be recognized immediately by everyone. It's like a child who plays the "I'm not touching you!" game on someone and gets indignant when he still gets in trouble.
Context is recognizing that if a poster is behaving moderately badly in one thread, but has behaved mildly bad in many others, there's an increased likelihood that these actions are connected. It's recognizing patterns of behavior. It's recognizing that someone being rude might mean very different things depending on who they are being rude to, even if rudeness is obviously never desirable for the forum. A poster from a marginalized group who behaves "badly" might be struggling to handle a problem that moderation previously dropped the ball on, or might be dealing with so much harassment that they are on the verge of leaving the community, despite having been an excellent community member up until a point, and lashing out due to pain or panic.
Nuance is recognizing that, while obviously "misbehavior" is never desirable, the actions a moderator takes are going to have consequences on everyone surrounding the situation. If Alice subtly baits Steve into yelling at her, and only Steve is reprimanded, they both might learn the wrong lesson from the incident. The current environment demands a lot of caution, and some groups may get a bit more grace than others because those groups are more under threat.
Someone's emotional or mental state never excuses them for their bad actions, but this isn't really about "punishment". Contrary to popular rhetoric, having your post deleted is not a punishment. It's simply the action of removing a given post, for any number of complex reasons.
So if the mods seem to be exerting a more delicate touch sometimes, and coming down harder at other times, that could be for any number of reasons:
1. The posts deleted are not as innocent as you think they are, perhaps due to context you are either unaware of or, in some cases, pretending to be unaware of.
2. The posts being left alone are not as bad as you think they are, perhaps, again, due to context you are unaware of--or because you are taking a word, like "transphobic", to be more insulting than is intended.
3. The posts being removed simply are not good for the thread. Maybe they're off-topic. Maybe they're going to make things worse. A lot of baiting/"snarky" posts fit into this column. And yes, it is a moderator's right to make this call. They don't make it often, but, well, context matters. Are you baiting people in an extremely emotionally charged atmosphere, as a lot of people have been lately? Is this about the Caster/Martial Disparity, or about something trivial and low-stakes?
4. The posts being left alone are important for the thread, or share a perspective that might be lost otherwise. Again, it's not about punishment, it's about the practical results.
5. You think that there are two valid sides to every issue, sunlight is the best disinfectant, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and you may disagree with someone but you'll defend to the death their right to say it. We know. This isn't a very complicated mindset, but it is comforting. It's just not realistic in the slightest. Most of the "nuance" people have tried to bring up for trans issues, for instance, is just Fox News scaremongering dressed up as concern for women's rights. It's time to move past the Golden Mean Fallacy. You cannot tolerate intolerance because intolerant people are very good at making online spaces unlivable for minorities. Maybe you wouldn't notice at first. I hope you would eventually notice that all the trans people got tired of being misgendered and left, and now only one viewpoint--the intolerant one--survives.
6. You are having an empathy problem. Take a step back and think.
If the moderators came down equally hard on every post, regardless of context or nuance, what happens to people with more skin in the game? In any talk about transphobia, trans people are going to be the most likely to get emotional and upset, because it's personal to us. Obviously.
If the mods applied identical one-size-fits-all standards, without considering the nuances involved (something I kind of expect people who get mad at this post will be guilty of), trans people are going to get a lot more of our posts deleted because we didn't quite manage to be civil enough to a given troll. We end up silenced because we were too closely connected to the matter to not get angry, while those distant from the problem are allowed to dispassionately argue the two sides.
This is a dynamic transphobic trolls eagerly take advantage of.
I'm not saying different rules apply to different groups.
I'm saying that a good set of rules for community moderation requires flexibility, empathy, and awareness of the potential consequences for a given action. All mindless "Subject B has violated Rule 234ac and must be suspended for 3 days" moderation will get you is a community of very careful bigots who know exactly how to slip between the cracks.
Maybe think about why basically every trans person here is on the same side of this issue.

Kobold Catgirl |
12 people marked this as a favorite. |

Also, I'll just repeat this: A post being removed should not be considered a "punishment". Like Rysky said, it shouldn't even be considered moderation. It's just... an action. It can have a lot of interpretations depending on why it happened. You can email the mods to recover the text and maybe even rewrite it to fit community standards.
I do think a "Your post has been Hidden, but you can view it and edit it to remove the bad elements" option would be neat, but it may be beyond the forums' capabilities.

gwynfrid |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

KC, I'm going to go out on a limb and attempt to debate you. Please take it as a sign of respect and appreciation on my part. You're one of the very few posters who's shown a willingness to spend time on thinking an argument through, educating others, and trying to actually propose something to help with the current situation. So, I thank you. I think your posts in this thread are worth thinking about and responding to.
That said, I don't agree with several of your points, and I believe this might be a useful discussion to have. Here goes (warning – this is going to be a long post).
Back on topic, I think a lot of people who perceive "bias" in moderation are actually perceiving two very different things: nuance and context. [...]
I fully agree with the importance of nuance and context in forum moderation, as well as with your definition of these two concepts.
Someone's emotional or mental state never excuses them for their bad actions, but this isn't really about "punishment". Contrary to popular rhetoric, having your post deleted is not a punishment. It's simply the action of removing a given post, for any number of complex reasons.
This is where I don’t agree. Having a post deleted has a clear meaning: That the post was in violation of the community guidelines. Maybe we don’t want to call that “punishment” if we find the word too loaded with moral intent. But it is definitely enforcement, or in another word, it is discipline. It’s a consequence of undesirable behavior, and it needs to be seen as such by all forum participants. This is the only way the moderation policy can be applied for the betterment of the forum.
So if the mods seem to be exerting a more delicate touch sometimes, and coming down harder at other times, that could be for any number of reasons: [...]
I understand and appreciate what you’re trying to do here, I really do. But, as a policy, it can’t work. A moderation policy needs to be clear and definite: Either a post is in violation of guidelines, or it is not. If it is, it needs to be removed even if the poster is right on the merits, and even if the poster is rightfully responding to something wrong.
There have been a number of calls, in other threads, for posters to not respond to bait. “Flag and move on” is the mantra, and it is correct. Some of these calls have been made by moderators. All have been ignored, by virtually everybody. Some have tried to hold themselves to that standard, but that didn’t last. The results are plain for all to see: The thread under the leadership team’s announcement blog post is a case in point. I wanted to post a reaction there, but when I saw the sea of fire, I thought any reaction was going to get drowned, and I just shut up.
The problem here is that mere calls to not respond to bait amount to “please be good”. That’s not a policy. Saying “please” is a way to be polite, but without enforcement, it’s useless, as proven by the current toxicity level of most threads on this subforum. “Please flag and move on” isn’t a request, it’s a rule (and I believe this should be made explicit in the guidelines), just like anything the moderators say is a rule. Posts that don’t follow the rules need to be scrubbed, period.
The posts being removed simply are not good for the thread. Maybe they're off-topic. Maybe they're going to make things worse. A lot of baiting/"snarky" posts fit into this column. And yes, it is a moderator's right to make this call. They don't make it often, but, well, context matters. Are you baiting people in an extremely emotionally charged atmosphere, as a lot of people have been lately? Is this about the Caster/Martial Disparity, or about something trivial and low-stakes?
Baiting posts, snarky posts, any sort of post that elicits angry reactions cannot possibly be good for the thread… Even in low-stakes situations. If the situation is low-stakes, snark that angers people will cause an escalation, and soon enough the situation will become high-stakes. Everyone loses.
The one element of context that matters here is to make a distinction between snark and light-hearted humor or teasing. This being the Internet, it is wise to exert caution, but if a post doesn’t elicit bad reactions, it’s probably OK. Otherwise it’s a problem.The posts being left alone are important for the thread, or share a perspective that might be lost otherwise. Again, it's not about punishment, it's about the practical results.
If a post contains both something important and useful and something inflammatory, it’s still inappropriate and shouldn’t be left alone. I believe the solution is to edit the inflammatory part away. If that’s not practical, then the post needs to be removed. It’s possible (but it’s more work) to remove it and suggest the poster tries again with improved language.
You think that there are two valid sides to every issue, sunlight is the best disinfectant, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and you may disagree with someone but you'll defend to the death their right to say it. We know. This isn't a very complicated mindset, but it is comforting. It's just not realistic in the slightest. Most of the "nuance" people have tried to bring up for trans issues, for instance, is just Fox News scaremongering dressed up as concern for women's rights. It's time to move past the Golden Mean Fallacy. You cannot tolerate intolerance because intolerant people are very good at making online spaces unlivable for minorities. Maybe you wouldn't notice at first. I hope you would eventually notice that all the trans people got tired of being misgendered and left, and now only one viewpoint--the intolerant one--survives.
I wholly agree with that part. This is why I believe the community guidelines should be adjusted to explicitly warn about any discussion of trans issues (among a number of other sensitive issues). Such discussion should not be forbidden, but a great deal of caution is necessary, and what you’re saying above is a good start towards describing the potential pitfalls.
If the moderators came down equally hard on every post, regardless of context or nuance, what happens to people with more skin in the game? In any talk about transphobia, trans people are going to be the most likely to get emotional and upset, because it's personal to us. Obviously.
If the mods applied identical one-size-fits-all standards, without considering the nuances involved (something I kind of expect people who get mad at this post will be guilty of), trans people are going to get a lot more of our posts deleted because we didn't quite manage to be civil enough to a given troll. We end up silenced because we were too closely connected to the matter to not get angry, while those distant from the problem are allowed to dispassionately argue the two sides.
This is a dynamic transphobic trolls eagerly take advantage of. [...]
This is the part where, I’m afraid, I differ with you the most. I totally understand and empathize with you being emotional. I know the issue is personal to you. Of course it is!
But I think your suggested solution is mistaken. If moderators police transphobic dog whistles but leave reactions by rightfully angered trans people (or any other discriminated against group) in place, then the consequences would be 1) to make the moderators’ job harder, because checking who’s right and who’s wrong requires a lot more thought than just checking who’s in violation of the rules or not, and 2) to encourage the trolls. I’m sure you know that for a troll, generating an angry reaction is a win. They don’t care if they’re banned. They’ll come back, or worse, they’ll invite friends to the party. Meanwhile, posters who truly want to have a civilized conversation will either become angry and participate in the flame war, or they will become discouraged and leave. Soon enough, we’d be left with only trolls and vigilantes. Even if this extreme situation doesn’t come to pass, I don’t see how this can foster the friendly community most of us would prefer.Instead, I would suggest the following policy solution to provocative posting:
- The provocative post is removed, on the basis of having triggered flags and angry reactions.
- The angry reactions are removed as well.
- The provocative poster gets a suspension or a ban. Possibly just a warning on a first offense.
- The reacting posters all get warnings. They only get heavier consequences in case of multiple repeats.
- Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe it would be vastly preferable to edit the offending posts, replacing their text with something like “scrubbed” or possibly “scrubbed for X reason” with X being from a shortlist of typical violations. A mass removal would only be warranted in cases where an entire thread has turned into a firestorm, something that unfortunately has happened a lot recently.
Thank you, again, for your efforts to educate, explain, suggest, and argue in a peaceful manner. If anything in the above feels bad to you, I would like to apologize in advance, and assure you that it was unintentional. In such a case, I stand ready to be corrected and work to do better.

![]() |
18 people marked this as a favorite. |

The problem with "Flag and move on" is this:
Much of the time the baiters and trolls come out after hours and on weekends when moderation is at a bare minimum thanks to hourly schedules. If we just flag and move on, that leaves that post up for hours, sometimes even days, unchallenged.
It's fine and dandy to say "Just flag and move on" when you're not the one under attack. Leaving a post unchallenged for days means that there will be posters that see it, and don't see anyone defending the people it's attacking and then think "well I guess this isn't a safe space for me to be in."