Forum menu
We review all reports....
Thank you for the clarity. I will assume that no news is good news in the future.
Certainly posts of mine have been deleted when I've crossed the line, so I'm fairly confident that posts I report in turn get considered and dealt with.
There’s a big difference between saying ‘that’s bigotry’ and ‘you’re a bigot’.
There’s arguably a very weaselly difference.
Not weaselly at all. They're fundamentally different and which of those lines of argument you choose to pursue is likely to have a significant effect on the outcome of a discussion.
Thank you for the clarity. I will assume that no news is good news in the future.
Yes essentially just that we may see things in a different context or not understand how it’s effected someone more personally.
<logs in>
I'm not banned. Cool!
There’s a big difference between saying ‘that’s bigotry’ and ‘you’re a bigot’.
I do try to see it this way and to separate the post from the person, but we do have one or two forumites who've made their inability to present facts with citations and/or to accept when the weight of evidence goes against them without segueing into non-sequitur a performance art. Personally, I would like to see a function so that users may two-way block those individuals, thus improving our forum experience.
Its a pity Mark has had to start this thread but the beaviour from a few on some threads has been very close to the line recently so can understand why he's done it.
In an ideal world moderators would not be needed but even Mumsnet with its very lax attitude to swearing etc has to have them. Here is very much a place where the modding can effect the feel of the place and for that I'm happy with how the mods deal with us lot in here on the whole. I've never been on the recieving end of any mod action but have reported span posts at 1-2 am and seen them actioned within the hour, pretty impressive for volunteers!
Drac and (historically) I often posted updates in threads as the non-anonymous members of the team.
That was my first thought after reading about feedback wanted, closed threads got a little explainer as their last post and some users' posts would get altered with the offensive bit removed and replaced with a "NOPE! - Mods" in its place. Maybe thatxan be looked at, not for every time but as a way to show thngs are reviewed regularly.
I love this place and a lot of the 'feel' of it is down to exactly how hard or lax the moderating is, it isn't random. There is just enough rope to allow 'life' in discussions without overdoing it. Some people are very skilled at going right up to the edge but this looks like a good move imo. Likes (if we had a like button of course)
There’s a big difference between saying ‘that’s bigotry’ and ‘you’re a bigot’.
I agree. If someone say's something that's off then I think it's fine to say, 'That's a bigoted thing to say' and back it up with your reasoning.
However, there are some users who repeatedly pop up and make comments that either on the line or just a bit over it. If you challenge them they've deliberately left enough wiggle room to say, 'What I said is factually correct.' Technically what they say is true but if they are saying things that are 'technically' correct but bigoted on every contentious thread eventually debating them becomes pointless because they will once again point out that they are 'technically' correct and therefore it can't be bigotry.
However, from now on I won't bother engaging and just hit the Report button.
Just to show that the moderators job is thankless and basically impossible, I think there should be double standards and mods should be given as much leeway as possible to interpret what is being said and who is saying it.
If someone is having a bad day and it's a particularly contentious issue (such as ankle socks or airbnb reviews, for example) and someone say's something they shouldn't then I don't think it's a big deal and I'm sure a quick warning is all that's needed.
However, if there is a user who repeatedly pops up making borderline comments and their posts are getting reported every week then I think the threshold for a ban should be far lower.
TBH, being a mod seems like a really crappy job so thanks for doing it 🙂
TBH, being a mod seems like a really crappy job so thanks for doing it
Genuinely, hear! hear!
In the past I was a mod on a big online forum (150k+ members). The modding attitude there was similar to here - fairly informal and tolerant to encourage debate but with some pretty firm lines.
The only thing we would always try to do that I don't see at STW was (as mentioned a couple of times here), make it really obvious in a thread where posts had been edited or deleted by a mod. This was basically in place of the thankless task of responding to individual concerns and reports. I also felt it was a nice reminder that someone was watching (albeit in the least Big Brother way possible). We did have a fairly large team of mods though that made this easier - no idea how big the STW team actually is due to all the (alleged) secret police floating around!
Having said all that, I must be reading the wrong threads as my perception of the atmosphere of this place hasn't changed much over the time I've been here.
I’ll admit that I tend to get quite insulting if I feel someone is attempting to dehumanize a particular group.
The difficulty with that approach is "if I feel". If you misinterpret the post you may end up insulting someone who wasn't doing what you thought they were. If they respond in kind, the thread goes downhill.
@BruceWee can you give an example of something which is 'technically correct' but 'bigoted'? Genuine question, because to my (simple) mind the two are mutually exclusive? Happy to be corrected though.
they’ve deliberately left enough wiggle room
and
can you give an example of something which is ‘technically correct’ but ‘bigoted’? Genuine question,
Compare... Let's use the word "demographic" to represent whatever your preferred Group Du Jour may be. Immigrants or homosexuals or brexit voters or singlespeeders or gingers or vegans or cellists or whatever. Compare the two statements:
"All Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island."
"I think that all Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island."
See how one is presented as 'fact' and the other merely expressing an opinion? Or similarly:
"You're an arsehole because you believe that all Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island."
"Anyone who believes that all Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island must be an arsehole."
This is the sort of judgement challenge the moderators face on a daily basis and the people who are most fond of tying these linguistic loophole minefields are so very practised at it.
Having said all that, I must be reading the wrong threads as my perception of the atmosphere of this place hasn’t changed much over the time I’ve been here.
I've said this too.
Compare… Let’s use the word “demographic” to represent whatever your preferred Group Du Jour may be. Immigrants or homosexuals or brexit voters or singlespeeders or gingers or vegans or cellists or whatever. Compare the two statements:
“All Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island.”
“I think that all Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island.”See how one is presented as ‘fact’ and the other merely expressing an opinion? Or similarly:
“You’re an arsehole because you believe that all Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island.”
“Anyone who believes that all Demographics should be rounded up and dumped on an island must be an arsehole.”This is the sort of judgement challenge the moderators face on a daily basis and the people who are most fond of tying these linguistic loophole minefields are so very practised at it.
That is interesting Cougar and I can see how that would be a challenge to moderators - but the examples you give are still of opinions worded slightly differently, not statements which are 'correct' which is what I asked based on what @BruceWee said.
Without going into too many details because I don't want to have to start fighting battles all over again, but the first one that springs to mind is when someone referred to a group as being 'abnormal'.
Now, technically, this was correct. Culturally this group has some difference when compared to the 'average' UK citizen so technically referring to this group as abnormal was correct (although, you could refer to pretty much any group as being abnormal).
Of course, the real reason they called them abnormal was to 'other' them and dehumanise them, but because this user was technically correct they were able to argue the technicalities rather than the substance of what they were saying and no amount of pointing out that the language was dehumanising was going to make a bit of difference. The purpose was not to debate with facts but to appeal to emotions, specifically our fear of people who are different.
This was about the fourth or fifth time I'd seen this user using this tactic.
There have been several threads where similar things have been said. The language used is always 'neutral' and often scientific sounding so at a glance it looks like merely stating 'facts'.
However, if you actually dissect the statements, using dispassionate or scientific language just disguises the fact that what they are saying is incredibly vague and meaningless but still has the effect of othering or dehumanising a group of people.
Abnormal means nothing in this context. Technically it's correct but the intention was nothing but bigotry.
See how one is presented as ‘fact’ and the other merely expressing an opinion?
We do have a forumite who habitually posts their personal opinion as though it were fact in a manner that's often quite challenging. When they eventually paint themselves into a logical corner, the non-sequiturs are deployed like chaff. To the very best of my knowledge over the past thirteen odd years of my time here, I've never once seen a retraction, apology or even an acknowledgement from the person concerned.
There’s arguably a very weaselly difference.
It's pretty big. When we speak, we all make mistakes from time to time. We all shoot from the hip, get annoyed, try to be funny, get drunk, and/or experience other negative emotions. Or sometimes we just don't understand. I've made plenty of racist and sexist jokes in my time and called it 'joking' or 'banter'. However, I've never knowingly been racist or sexist and I've always sought to correct my mistakes either straight away or over time as I learn and grow.
So yeah please pull me up and say 'that was racist' but accusing me of being a true racist person is a completely different thing.
some users’ posts would get altered with the offensive bit removed and replaced with a “NOPE! – Mods” in its place.
To be honest, I think 99% of those posts are written by the actual poster for comic effect.
the examples you give are still of opinions worded slightly differently, not statements which are ‘correct’
To be honest, that's likely my fault for a fairly lame "off the top of my head" example. The point is that with a bit of thought it's quite easy to diplomatically / indirectly call someone a See You Next Tuesday and that's really difficult to police because they know exactly how they can then turn it 180' if you pull them up on it. We have a few masters of this particular craft on here.
[EDIT: Bruce just explained it better than I did. This is what I meant by weaselly - throwing a dead cat (weasel?) (catweasel, heh) onto the table and then going "well I think you'll find, what I actually said is..."
TL;DR - it's a trap.]
All Lives Matter?
A good example thanks, but obviously context dependant. Used to denigrate or downplay 'black lives matter' then absolutely.
Ahhh big fan of pitchforks and flaming torches to drive out the opposition...
Joke folks just a joke
Thanks Mark for the announcement.
TBH it’s about time it was said and everyone, not singling anyone out for special mention, takes it as a gentle nudge to reign their behaviour in a bit. I’ve seen more language and behaviour used recently that has overstepped the mark than ever before and we can all take some responsibility for that.
I recently had a post removed, one where I’d overstepped, but I had no email from the mods, mine and a few others posts just weren’t there. It would, in my mind, be better to delete the post contents but leave the posters details up for all to see. Those that read the post would know the jist of it and then see that action had been taken, rather than it erased and some people non-the-wiser. I wasn’t aware I’d overstepped until I went backwards and forwards trying to pick the thread back up.
Something as simple as “Post removed because of Rule#1” would do.
Something as simple as “Post removed because of Rule#1” would do.
Generally we do just that in the form of a warning. Not laying blame but make sure your email is up to date and it hasn’t gone to trash.
Having said all that, I must be reading the wrong threads as my perception of the atmosphere of this place hasn’t changed much over the time I’ve been here.
I’ve said this too.
There are certain posters who only appear on certain threads on certain subjects at weekends and cause trouble. They're the ones I've spotted but there must be more I don't see as I don't follow every subject on here. I can see how it would be easy to never see these posts as the posters home in on one subject or poster to try and ruin it, if you never see those threads then you'll never see what happens away from the main topics.
I meant on the post rather than an email.
Eg:
Drac
Full MemberPOST REMOVED BY MODS, BREACHING RULE#1
Posted 29 minutes ago
REPLY | REPORT
Got you.
Something we may consider.
Something as simple as “Post removed because of Rule#1” would do.
I'm thinking of changing my forum name to Rule#1boy 🤔
Many thanks to Drac and Cougar for explaining the process. I totally understand the reason for not replying to reports as it just invites discussion. Maybe however just an automated reply along the lines of "Thank you for reporting a post, the report has been sent to the moderators who will investigate accordingly". Then at least people would know that the report hadn't just disappeared into the ether. Just a thought.
Another quick question if I may:
At what level of offense would a post be deleted or a user sanctioned? Inevitably I'm quite sensitive around language when it comes to gender identity. Some time ago I reported a post which I found very upsetting but the post was left. Would it ever be enough that it offends a person who is sensitive and personally connected to the subject, or do you go for the would a "reasonable person" be offended? I've not got a particular axe to grind on this, but was just curious. And I appreciate it's a question which doesn't have a simple answer!
Thanks for your continued work and patience.
"Something as simple as “Post removed because of Rule#1” would do."
<furiously stabs at imaginary "like" button>
All Lives Matter?
A good example thanks, but obviously context dependant. Used to denigrate or downplay ‘black lives matter’ then absolutely.
But it's never used to denigrate anything! It's always deniable.
Me, officer? Why, I was just saying that everyone's lives matter! Because they do, surely? I mean, the phrase Black Lives Matter isn't very inclusive, and that's not right, is it officer? I just say All Lives Matter out of my boundless love of all humanity!
TBH I like the Rule#1 rule.
Maybe however just an automated reply along the lines of “Thank you for reporting a post, the report has been sent to the moderators who will investigate accordingly”. Then at least people would know that the report hadn’t just disappeared into the ether.
But what would that gain you? All it'd tell you is that it'd hit the moderator mailbox. This is how email works, if it hadn't been delivered then you'd get an NDR to tell you it'd failed.
If you received an automated boilerplate reply you'd be no nearer in knowing that anyone had seen it, let alone actioned it.
At what level of offense would a post be deleted or a user sanctioned?
I'll let you into a little secret. They're winging it. (-:
There are no levels, there is no rulebook outside of the clearly documented forum T&Cs, the whole process is subjective. Rather, the checks and balances are via peer review*. I would routinely second-guess others' decisions and by turns I was equally reliant on the rest of the team doing the same with me. In questionable areas - of which there were many - there would be a discussion before any action was taken. When in doubt we'd usually favour leniency over censorship, but again that was never a rule but rather just kind of how it fell out over time.
* - That said, Mark of course has casting vote here, it's his bouncy castle. He respects and defers to the moderators' decisions (more often than he probably should 😁) but ultimately he will intervene if a bollock is seen to have been dropped.
If you genuinely feel aggrieved then as above, drop out an email. As you suggest, it's far from simple.
POST REMOVED BY MODS, BREACHING RULE#1
Bit of a weaselly and passive form of words, isn't it? Might as well just say "POSTER IS A DICK". Or is that just the wrong side of the line? Just lose the capitals, maybe?
Does this mean we should all ride our bikes more?
I'm intending to.
I started off reading this thread thinking I hadn't noticed any change in tone on the forum. Then I realised that I've just got really good at avoiding the threads that descend into name calling (or bailing on them when I spot the signs). It'd be nice to have to do that less so I hope this sparks a bit of a change.
+1
I like the 'breaching rule #1' idea.
Aware I've overstepped the mark from time to time. Appreciate the mods work.
I’ll let you into a little secret. They’re winging it. (-:
Fair enough!
No, I'm not aggrieved at all, with some subjects I'm aware that I'm a bit close to the issue to see the big picture. I've always felt very supported on here, there are some users who have always been great and you (Cougar) have been one of them. Thank you.
The general malaise that has infected this country since, oh I don’t know say 2015/16, has understandably infected this forum. We have all become a little bit more polarised (and 2 years of global pandemic has also added to the toll).
There have always been users whose sole aim is a windup. It’s just now people have shorter fuses and when these users (please don’t ban me for swearfilter avoidance 🤪) crop up on ‘serious’ threads (such as the coronavirus one which has been an excellent source of information from seriously qualified people, yes TiRed I’m talking about you) and deliberately derail it it makes people angrier as it really is a pretty shitty thing to do (I’d argue some threads need stricter moderation than others as a consequence).
This is why I’d personally like to see a ‘block user’ function. There are certain users whose posts I consciously avoid reading as I know what they are trying to do. But every now and again I end up reading one by mistake. That way I can easily ignore them and enhance my ‘experience’ of the forum.
I have personally increasingly found this space to be less suited to me (whether that is a result of the change in general feel of the place or a change in me I don’t know) but it has been instrumental in me cancelling my paid membership (I used to print +digital and kept print going for a lot longer due to the pandemic) but I interact a lot less these days and anticipate a further tapering.
I don’t actually expect people to give a **** about that but, hey, it’s my tuppence worth.
Very well put metalheart, my thoughts entirely. Nothing else to add really.
Hobnob anyone?
Bit harsh, he only usually posts about whatever new expensive bike he's riding that week.
Very well put metalheart, my thoughts entirely. Nothing else to add really.
+1
Right down to the not renewing my membership because I don't value this site the way I used to.
I started off reading this thread thinking I hadn’t noticed any change in tone on the forum.
+1
Although by about post 3 on this thread it was pretty obvious what Mark was talking about! People instantly wanting to punch the player and don't even know what a football is!
Everything that Metalheart said.