⬆️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (114)
sorted by:
⬆️
A person who makes a commitment to respect, fairness, and transparency is held to it not only by us humans but also by (God in) the universal order that punishes broken commitment. Humans are imperfect, but setting guards is sufficient for the dialogue and growth you seek to flourish. Other guards are possible than those I suggested, they are only a note to the community.
In your first link, the voting on the discussion proceeding is +30/-15, but of 16 main replies only 2 agree with OP and the vast majority reject OP. A mod who judges solely based on a vote total for a discussion wouldn't be taking the whole situation into account. When I held a community discussion on what I thought was an obvious troll, I was shocked to find that there was more mercy in the community than there was demand for resolution of injustice, so we didn't act at that time other than to define a probation (which the "troll" later broke, allowing us to ban).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We can only pray that the mod team be based enough that they do have good ear to what the community wants by clear consensus, that they do respond to appeals and allow objections, etc. We only have the people who are here from which to choose. If God puts you in an outpost where there isn't critical mass for establishing a law-abiding system with good guards, then you live under anarchic rules until something better comes along. If you have a tyrant, it's much the same. But humanity has discovered that there are a number of principles of deliberative assembly that have great effect toward minimizing (or at least pushing back) tendencies to these abuses. So, specifically, Conspiracies will either find a mod team it can live with and be stuck with it until something better happens, or it will go on as is, and either way we can only live our best lives (including educating each other about these principles of good governance in the hopes of such improvement).
I think that's the first time I've heard u/axolotl_peyotl or u/clemaneuverers characterized as weak.
I need not give more of my resume of hard decisions until you acknowledge what I've already given of it.
What a perspective! I came to Win without care of whether I was liked or respected but only to do the Lord's work here. He blessed it. I do seek to understand everyone and not to mark anyone as recalcitrant unless they cross a specific red line (I think one person has in 5 years). But I do judge individual actions all the time, including those that violate TOS including individual forum rules. The fact that you don't agree with my judgments about Will isn't proof either of us are right or are in agreement with community consensus; it's just that, if either of us were mod, the other might appeal the one's decision on this and a dialogue like this would ensue, and the mod team would continue to judge the appeal based on whether any new information indicates error in the judgment. Your characterizing this disagreement as a general personality trait of people-pleasing, when I express no interest in people-pleasing even as I seek to speak the gospel in language that they receive, is rather broad-brushed.
Anyway, all that's to answer your questions and explain my position in light of your judgment of it. As for trying to prove my mod abilities to you, I'm almost a week past all that now, so your continuing to harp on that point is rather interesting. It's pretty clear that there's no critical mass here to push the status quo very far at all, and in terms of what I could do as user or mod I don't see the call to do much more any given week than I did last week. All I see is a feelgood concept that having a mod team would be better, differently conceived by everyone who expresses that. I may comment more publicly to that effect.
I have no clue what you're trying to say with this... Doesn't seem to be responding to the quote from my comment that you quoted above it... Please clarify, if that's even a possibility.
Then let's discuss the whole situation, shall we?
{Against Jesus, defends fwoc, a lot of times he ignores him}
{Against Jesus}
{Against Jesus}
{Against Jesus}
{...}
{for the banning of fwoc}
{...}
{Against Jesus, defends fwoc}
{Against banning anyone in general without sufficient proof, doesn't provide anything useful that fwoc does.}
{Against Jesus, doesn't provide anything about fwoc}
{...}
{I bet you think that's a real person...}
{Doesn't want to ban fwoc but doesn't find anything valuable either in fwoc}
{Against Jesus, literally calls fwoc "a bot"}
{for the banning of fwoc}
{...}
In the comments:
4 users don't want to ban fwoc. (1 of them has created their account for that post, 2 others don't find value in his comments, just want to ignore him, not ban him.)
2 users want to ban fwoc.
7 users express their hate towards Jesus, religion, Christianity, etc.
You said:
Explain to me where is this "vast majority"...
Also, who are the 29 people, who upvoted the post? YOU are the one, who ONLY judges by the comments, while TOTALLY IGNORING the upvotes.
Should everyone that agrees write a comment?
Also, a lot of Christianity-hating users have obviously downvoted AND commented on the post. Any thoughts about this?
7/16 would be the vast majority that has similar views, but let's see what you have to say...
I am tired of making this breakdown and I would rather have this topic discussed first before I move to your other points.
I make note of your previous statement "but also by (God in) the universal order" (it's from the 1st quote from you that I didn't understand). Can you elaborate on that "God" you mentioned?
I'm curious as to how fair can you be in your next reply...
If a person makes and breaks a commitment, what goes around comes around. If they act human, there's a path of redemption; if they are shilling, they'll get in trouble on their own accord without my help. So if we ask people to agree to an honor code personally, even if they don't mean what they say an alert mod will be able to prevent disruption. So it's not that important to determine which is which, just to be alert to both possibilities. I frame it as "(God in) the universal order" because even if one doesn't believe in God the law of sowing and reaping still comes around, and I try to be considerate to atheists such as by hinting that ultimately order points to God.
Now, you make an excellent case that analysis of a votelike discussion can go many different ways. I gave a quick summary because I wanted to at least see what you were getting at and share what I saw. I merely counted those agreeing with OP. The vast majority (14/16) didn't agree with the proposal (i.e. "rejected" the OP proposal). So maybe 10 of them didn't accept the proposal either, and the 4 that did state rejection included a newcomer and two ambivalences. And maybe many of the 30 do agree with the OP (though that's not explicit and I usually upvote things I don't agree with if I do agree it was appropriate to bring up). But that kind of vote expression appears on every post and comment and isn't very probative unless someone's title is "<-- this many pedes agree" or something.
Now maybe you're asking how I'd interpret such a vote if I modded a community with that many contributors. When someone says "please ban" for spam and nonsense, two people formally agree, and there are 27 other upvotes, well, that's a movement in the community; when 14 people say either don't ban or focus on other things, that's a bit more of the movement of the active part of the community. The downvotes also seem to have a greater reason to explain themselves than the upvotes, which is normal. But upvotes don't represent the most active part of the community. So my hypothetical response would probably be to state the question for a more formal vote to put people on the record, referring to the prior discussion; and then to see if the formal vote total also aligns with the atmosphere (including arrow votes) and the weight I'd assign to who are more stable contributors and who are less.
But all that's because you wanted my detailed analysis on something I thought I could answer more briefly. Obviously it's not easy, and the community has changed a lot since the mods didn't act on that post. More generically, I ban people when I've warned them repeatedly about an objective rule and they keep violating with no evidence they wish to stop. If a community subset argues a rule has been broken, I hear that view and weigh it against the other side before acting. Didn't I say I had deleted Will about a dozen times and interacted with him such that he tapered off acceptably to the forum's taste? I didn't need to ban him then. If he had shown unwillingness to consider the community's standard on spam (and this one's is different), then a ban would ensue in time.
That's all theory of course. It's not too important to me who mods here or what rules they use as long as they're consistent and we can get the tech parts moved along. I like to go long on explaining theory but people use it how they will.
Thank you for the explanation, I understand it now.
Although, I disagree with this statement "If they act human, there's a path of redemption; if they are shilling, they'll get in trouble on their own accord without my help." - it's obviously incorrect for other social platforms like reddit, facebook, instagram, etc. where shills and bots rule, while real humans get in trouble.
Following these examples, one would think that this future is bound to happen in this forum as well. After all, they defeated the previous mods, it stands to reason that they will do that again with any new moderation. Especially if the moderation is as lenient towards bots/shills as the previous one.
Where do you see that? I specifically pulled the comments and how they connect to OP's proposal. I cannot see 14, can you show me 14, who "rejected" the proposal?
I still don't know where you get your information about 10...
The two ambivalences stated that they ignore most of what fwoc is writing, they simply don't agree with a ban, but they DO IGNORE fwoc.
It's obvious that "the vast majority" is done with fwoc, although they don't support a ban in majority (although votes do), they would support some action towards the constant comments of someone they ignore "in a vast majority", wouldn't you agree?
Then you incorrectly upvote things and assume others do the same. I have upvoted things I don't fully agree with, but only because I comment the specifics on what I agree and disagree in the post. I would never upvote something I disagree with... Taking just your example, and assuming others do it too, is incorrect.
Also, you find it easy to discredit why people upvote the post, while I showed you the reason many downvoted it, and that's because they dislike the username of OP. But you're not addressing this argument... Is that fair? Or not?
And it's far more likely that others would downvote for the same reason, because there are 7 people, who downvoted on the account of hating Christianity, and that leaves 8 others...
While you assume because you (1) can upvote something you disagree with, then possibly there are 29 others, who do the same?
If you weren't sure whether you're biased, or not, there's your proof.
That's totally wrong...
2 people totally agree + OP makes 3 people total // 2 people totally disagree // 2 people ignore him and don't think a ban is necessary
7 dislike the post just because they dislike Christianity.
The rest don't express opinions on the post.
Out of 45 people (yes, OP is also a person) - 30 agreed / 15 disagreed. Twice as many agreed to it.
If you need more help on how to read stats correctly, let me know.
So, according to you, a "stable contributor" is someone, who spams etymological nonsense in the comments and never posts? And that's more important than other people, who post and comment coherently? Or is it equal in your eyes?
No, you didn't. Nor does it matter because there is still no solution for the ignored by a "vast majority" fwoc.
I think DZP1 already replied to your position in the comment of that post.
I believe God is in control of it all and deferred justice is sweet.
Not at all, they outlasted them. The question is the community's sense of self-preservation, and it decides that deliberatively.
In your analysis I defined "didn't agree with" as "rejected". Only 2 agreed, the rest didn't. I granted that 10 of them "didn't vote against" it either, with is your statement that 2 verbally agreed and 4 verbally rejected. My phrasing was hasty, but it's a quibble not worth arguing over.
No, I don't agree that a mod should base a ban on upvotes on an informal question, because that's not what the upvotes mean, nor on what the community would support if they would also support other things. The purpose of blocking and ignoring is to leave enforcement to the clearest cases. A mod should ban (as I've said) based on objective criteria. A spammer should be warned twice at least, and then might be banned for crossing a clear published boundary line. (An egregious disruptor might get immediate action, but a sincere-presenting spammer need not.)
And assuming others don't follow my example is just as wrong, which is why I don't assume an upvote on an informal discussion is a ban vote. The same applies to assumptions about downvotes.
I spoke of active voters. Up and down are passive votes. The active voters clearly thought the username was more of an issue than the spamming, via their action. Since the passive votes are about content and not a request for mod activity, it's not about my misreading stats, it's about my general reticence to assume something on a community rather than to ask them to spell out their active concerns.
I didn't define "stable contributor" and you're making a strawman of it. Declining to post is not in itself a mark of insincerity. But stable would at least include dependable commitment to community goals, which Will has stated are collective and don't "inspire" him. So offhand his view would get less weight, but then of course he didn't comment or vote. Ultimately stability judgment gives the mod the option to invoke gut feeling in borderline cases by referring to secondary objective judgment if the primary ones don't give a clear resolution between two plural sides.
TLDR (for myself): The community now isn't the one that held this vote and you're trying to relitigate something the community got over long ago. You're free to host a more formal vote and advocate for your position but what you're doing instead is to revisit my comments of last week and analyze in great detail to try to win some debate of Great Truths. I'm happy to explain myself when I think it's worth my time, but I don't care if I win debate on very tangential hypotheticals. You don't have to agree with me. So if you keep pressing with this I might feel comfortable relying on what I've already said.