The umpire is calling strikes..................

[THE_BEYONDER]

As good a reason as any.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

One more quick comment: while it is easy, and tempting, to focus on a single individual in any conflict, the actions and words of others also have an impact. Nothing occurs in a vaccum, after all.

 

For example: a poster consistently employs unjustified hyperbole, for example, or false dichotomies, or persistently mischaracterizes what others have said. This is subtle, and perhaps couched in "long, wordy ways that attempt to mask it", but it is quite common, and it is just as provocational as calling someone an idjit...if not as obvious.

 

Some may chalk it up to ignorance, but a long established pattern of such comments, with multiple people over various topics, really calls that into question.

 

These things may look like "#1". or even "#2", but they are almost always #4, and should be considered in the context of any situation that comes up. It requires discernment far above standard, but it is possible.

 

It all comes down to the same thing: motive. It's always about motive.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

. I guess that wasn't so quick after all.

 

[Architecht]

There are really two essential points there:

 

1. In the end, it's a judgement call where a post lies on the attitude scale.

 

2. It's better to fix a blunder than bluff your way through it.

 

 

Both of those are true.

 

The judgement of post content is, by the nature of moderation, frequently a point of contention with whoever posted it - otherwise they wouldn't have posted it. That's not always true. Sometimes people recognize when they have gone off the deep end and the next day when they get moderated they just nod their head and apologize. Still, the starting point for every post on these boards - whether it's reasonable or way way out of bounds - is that it was a good idea to post... at least at the time.

 

But despite the potential difference of opinion between a moderator and a poster, at some point a line has to be drawn and someone has to draw it. Someone posts something that is fine in their own mind, but aggressive or attacking in the minds of others. How do you decide?

 

You do what I do. You flip a coin.

 

Just kidding.

 

Generally, I watch over the process to look for mistakes. I don't review every action, but I look for patterns. It's not that often that I find something I think - either in the moment or later on reflection - that is so off that I think it needs fixing. One explanation for that is that I'm uh... inappropriately self confident. But the other explanation reads something like this:

 

1. Generally, some member has hit notify moderator before we do anything. So before moderation even starts it takes at least one other person to cast suspicion on a post.

 

2. Moderators read the notify report and the post and decide what to do about it. That's a pass/fail gate. They may decide to do nothing and file the complaint as overly sensitive.

 

3. If the mods pull the post, they can choose to categorize it as pruning - remove the post, but don't really do anything else, or as review - basically a suggestion for warning or strike. So that's another "relief valve". A member might post something that can't stay up, but it really doesn't go any further. It's akin to a warning ticket from a police officer.

 

4. If the post goes to strike review, it's usually either blatantly obvious what the problem is, or not. If it's obvious then an admin reviews the post and issues a strike. Say someone wants to bash someone else in the head with a tire iron --- that doesn't result in a debate about fairness.

 

5. If it's not obvious, a discussion between admins and mods ensues where the reasons for the moderator action recommendation are given. Other moderators can chime in. Sometimes that feedback is "I think you are being knee jerk, leave them alone" and sometimes it's "yeah, that person needs a reset". Regardless of what the mods say, ultimately the admin has to make the decision. The mods cannot issue strikes or warnings or wrist slaps.

 

6. When the admin makes the decision we are already conscious of the fact that to reach this point (if it's a borderline post) a group of other people had to think the post was a problem. If part of the borderline aspects of the post is that it's part of a pattern, then that means that the poster went through that same escalation process multiple times.

 

7. Still, the admins sometimes choose to do nothing, or just warn or wrist slap people. Much more rarely, a strike is issued.

 

It comes down to counterpointing the passionate explanation of a board member about how it's simply a misinterpretation of what they said against the accumulation of opinions from the above process. In most cases, that's going to result in siding with the moderation process.

 

As far as the admins being biased and human - sure, they are. But they have something going for them. The admins aren't board members. They read what gets escalated, they browse the boards to keep the flavor of things in mind, but they're not invested in the debates. They're not mad at someone because they don't like DC, etc.

 

Could they still be wrong? Yep. They could. It's just the less likely outcome. More likely is that the poster WANTED to sound reasonable or THOUGHT they sounded reasonable, but they really weren't. More likely is that they are giving off a series of aggressive signals that they are unconscious of producing. Maybe they have some personal style when face to face that allows them to say outrageous things in a likeable way - or maybe they just aren't as socially conscious as they could be. Whatever the cause, before that strike came in, a bunch of people thought the post/pattern was inappropriate.

 

If your posts make a number of people feel bad - not just one, then that might help find the line between misinterpretation and poor choice of words.

 

 

[Transplant]

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

4. . . . Say someone wants to bash someone else in the head with a tire iron --- that doesn't result in a debate about fairness. . .

[THE_BEYONDER]

Basically.....

 

The ADMIN has the final say in all wrist slaps/strikes/etc....

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If your posts make a number of people feel bad - not just one, then that might help find the line between misinterpretation and poor choice of words.

 

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

When there is only concern for feelings, and not truth, life withers. One can be concerned with not overtly being "offensive", but also not watering down, or eliminating, the truth, in order to "spare feelings."

 

What it's really coming down to is "you need to carefully couch what you say, all the time, to avoid even the possibility of offending anyone, as unjustified as their offense may be, and heaven help you if you've offended someone in the past, and now they bear a grudge, because *you*, not the offended party, will be held responsible and have to justify yourself.."

 

Which is a way to go about things, but makes for a very stifled environment.

[Architecht]

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

I don't think this is true. People disagree with each other all of the time around here and are still friends.

 

In fact, I think challenging people can help them grow and make them feel interested and excited.

 

Starting with the premise that disagreement always causes raw feelings is, in my view, conflating disagreement with HOW you disagree with someone.

 

Some people are overly sensitive, but then that's why the system is NOT member complaint = moderator action. And some people are overly aggressive and that's why the system is NOT say whatever you want.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

If your posts make a number of people feel bad - not just one, then that might help find the line between misinterpretation and poor choice of words.

 

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

When there is only concern for feelings, and not truth, life withers. One can be concerned with not overtly being "offensive", but also not watering down, or eliminating, the truth, in order to "spare feelings."

 

What it's really coming down to is "you need to carefully couch what you say, all the time, to avoid even the possibility of offending anyone, as unjustified as their offense may be, and heaven help you if you've offended someone in the past, and now they bear a grudge, because *you*, not the offended party, will be held responsible and have to justify yourself.."

 

Which is a way to go about things, but makes for a very stifled environment.

 

This is a comic book message board. What about comics has the moderation team kept you from discussing?

 

Seriously.

[Dano]

The truth and feelings are not mutually exclusive. If a bunch of people think someone is offensive, well it looks, smells and acts like a duck - the truth is, dude is probably a duck.

 

Dan

[Dano]

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

I don't think this is true. People disagree with each other all of the time around here and are still friends.

 

In fact, I think challenging people can help them grow and make them feel interested and excited.

 

Starting with the premise that disagreement always causes raw feelings is, in my view, conflating disagreement with HOW you disagree with someone.

 

Some people are overly sensitive, but then that's why the system is NOT member complaint = moderator action. And some people are overly aggressive and that's why the system is NOT say whatever you want.

 

Bingo. Clear as spring water.

 

Dan

[Dano]

If your posts make a number of people feel bad - not just one, then that might help find the line between misinterpretation and poor choice of words.

 

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

When there is only concern for feelings, and not truth, life withers. One can be concerned with not overtly being "offensive", but also not watering down, or eliminating, the truth, in order to "spare feelings."

 

What it's really coming down to is "you need to carefully couch what you say, all the time, to avoid even the possibility of offending anyone, as unjustified as their offense may be, and heaven help you if you've offended someone in the past, and now they bear a grudge, because *you*, not the offended party, will be held responsible and have to justify yourself.."

 

Which is a way to go about things, but makes for a very stifled environment.

 

This is a comic book message board. What about comics has the moderation team kept you from discussing?

 

Seriously.

 

Apparently the "truth" is being stifled.

 

Dan

[THE_BEYONDER]

If your posts make a number of people feel bad - not just one, then that might help find the line between misinterpretation and poor choice of words.

 

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

When there is only concern for feelings, and not truth, life withers. One can be concerned with not overtly being "offensive", but also not watering down, or eliminating, the truth, in order to "spare feelings."

 

What it's really coming down to is "you need to carefully couch what you say, all the time, to avoid even the possibility of offending anyone, as unjustified as their offense may be, and heaven help you if you've offended someone in the past, and now they bear a grudge, because *you*, not the offended party, will be held responsible and have to justify yourself.."

 

Which is a way to go about things, but makes for a very stifled environment.

 

This is a comic book message board. What about comics has the moderation team kept you from discussing?

 

Seriously.

 

Apparently the "truth" is being stifled.

 

Dan

 

[bababooey]

[RockMyAmadeus]

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

I don't think this is true. People disagree with each other all of the time around here and are still friends.

 

In fact, I think challenging people can help them grow and make them feel interested and excited.

 

Starting with the premise that disagreement always causes raw feelings is, in my view, conflating disagreement with HOW you disagree with someone.

 

Some people are overly sensitive, but then that's why the system is NOT member complaint = moderator action. And some people are overly aggressive and that's why the system is NOT say whatever you want.

 

See how easy it is to misinterpret?

 

I didn't say disagreeing with people always causes raw feelings. I only said it happens. And it does, and far more often than it should...that's the problem.

 

I have disagreed with people all the time, and they with me, and we still remain good friends. That's how it *should* always be. But it's not, and that's where problems start.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If your posts make a number of people feel bad - not just one, then that might help find the line between misinterpretation and poor choice of words.

 

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad." Are these, therefore, forbidden?

 

When there is only concern for feelings, and not truth, life withers. One can be concerned with not overtly being "offensive", but also not watering down, or eliminating, the truth, in order to "spare feelings."

 

What it's really coming down to is "you need to carefully couch what you say, all the time, to avoid even the possibility of offending anyone, as unjustified as their offense may be, and heaven help you if you've offended someone in the past, and now they bear a grudge, because *you*, not the offended party, will be held responsible and have to justify yourself.."

 

Which is a way to go about things, but makes for a very stifled environment.

 

This is a comic book message board. What about comics has the moderation team kept you from discussing?

 

Seriously.

 

Apparently the "truth" is being stifled.

 

Dan

 

This, by the way, is an example of a "#4" comment...an unnecessary, sarcastic comment in response to what I said earlier, meant to diminish my point.

 

:shrug:

 

Edit: I'm not offended, but it does illustrate the point I made earlier. Why reason, when you can mock?

[HarveySwick]

#4

 

[jsilverjanet]

<<<<<<<<<<<------------------------------------

[ChrisInBaltimore]

 

Disagreeing with people makes them "feel bad." Challenging people makes them "feel bad."

 

Custom title?