⬆️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (114)
sorted by:
⬆️
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.
That's not replying at all to the fact that I disproved your position. Nice strategy to hide yourself behind God on this one, certainly a lot of believers would just shut their mouth here instead of remembering that you dodge the topic.
Do you truly believe that God will strike down Facebook?
That's a defeat still. You're simply contesting the manner of their defeat.
No, that is not the question. You want to turn this into the question.
Then your definition is clearly wrong. Didn't agree is never rejected, unless specifically saying they reject it.
2 agreed with OP = 3. The vast majority of the rest didn't even reply to it.
Play on the odds as much as you want, I'll disprove you every time.
I bet that every time you are caught in a lie, you use this argument... You downplay your fault, so it seems that you were kinda right to say those things. You cannot even admit you were wrong. Your ego betrays you. Do you know how I know this? Because it did the same to me.
I clearly stated: "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"
You reply to an imaginary comment, not mine.
Then tell me of another user, who upvotes a post that they clearly don't agree with. I will wait.
I can nitpick all your points, but the bottom line is that you can't take any useful decision towards progress in this community. Not unless it is backed by many users, so you don't feel attacked for taking this decision. But if you think about it, if the community does it, then what are you useful for then?
That's my point - with you, or without you, there is no difference.
I don't see that our disagreement about how to interpret a complex discussion amounts to "disproof". I stated how I would judge a similar case, and it's meaningless to "disprove" another person's statement of intent or thought or state of mind. De gustibus.
Yes, at the right time God will strike down Facebook if it remains evil and we don't do it as his agents first. We are to occupy until he comes and he is to do the finishing that we can't. If you're saying that position decreases likelihood that we'll get done what we need, when applied back here I've learned that I focus on what is local to me and everyone else does the same and God ensures it's sufficient. Since he hasn't revealed to me a War Plan to Right Great Wrongs at Conspiracies, I don't. What he did reveal to me at Christianity has borne much fruit.
If you're saying that infiltrators' power of outlasting good mods is an unexpected tactic, I already have that as their tactic if I decide to declare war of some kind. Sticking around at Christianity for 5 years with the same people might count for something like successful prosecution of a particular campaign. Once I recognized how Scored worked overall, 4 years ago I made a nice post at ConPro Defining The Relationship and emphasizing the statement (now nuked), "My boss taught Sun Tzu the art of war. Speculate as you please, my statement stands, if I declare war it will be epic and unnoticed." So I am very comfortable with the wars I've planned, and prosecuted. I'm a Swamp Ranger. If you don't like my victories you're not who I won them for.
Now then, you refer to a "question" without elaboration. Presumably you mean how the mod(s) should moderate to win some war and carry out some community vision. If I haven't answered, then ask directly.
I merely analyzed to help you understand my impression. You decline it, I have nothing more to argue with you about an unimportant interpretation that is a bete noire in your bonnet. Non est disputandum.
If a brother in Christ charges me with lying and refuses to negotiate with my explanation, I suggest that he hasn't learned much about Matthew 18:15-17 yet. Why should I waste time trying to defend myself against your charges when I gain nothing from it?
If some admission of wrong agrees with my conscience and is helpful to the other person, I offer it. Clearly I am generically in the wrong somewhere because you are unsatisfied. I can guarantee you I will work with your reasonable appeals to me about my alleged wrong and any reparation, but I cannot guarantee that you will be satisfied by your own standard, only by the commonsense standard.
That's a wonderful dare! Votes being so public and all. Okay, let's play face value. Yep, there's one or more users here, Christian, who has/have admitted to upvoting posts though disagreed with, whether it's because of affirming the right to speak, affirming the person and not the content, or for other reasons. Both for privacy reasons and because searching said comments would be prohibitively time-eating, I refuse to elaborate further.