Community Moderators

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote:

Yes:

http://xkcd.com/386/

On a more serious note, I have woken to 150+ post flame threads after a single night of sleep.

I have also seen spam threads that have gone for half a day before deletion. That is clearly bad as there could be many people using the spammers link and motivating more spam.

In fact spam is the main reason why I think the 24x7 aspect is important and useful, moreso than hurt feelings.

...Then there are many who can work around them.

So you think but it is not so. The rules define only an unclosed boundary around which the adroit can sidestep.

Correct, and therein lies the value. It does not let abusers skirt the edge of the rules because someone transparently doing so is tagged.

What if they are friends of mine? Then I can easily get away with a lot more. I am more comfortable with the new system where it doesn't matter if you are a friend of a moderator, because you have someone you can appeal to in cases of abuse and moderators will change over time. It gives one more layer of accountability and responsibility to the system.

All of those are just as open ended as what I proposed. It's just a bunch more words trying to say the same thing, with every word added adding loopholes that people can exploit: "but it's not flaming BECAUSE...."

What about people that go into other camera forums just to complain about gear they do not own? They are discussing the "perception" that the owners of the other camera system sucks. It's not technically against any rules but is a form of "bashing".

Yes, each moderator will see that one differently. So why not inherently realize how open ended the interpretation is by having a rule that is transparently vague, instead of having a bunch of verbiage that obscures that fact?

Trolling is much harder to define, but basically my definition is anyone whose purpose OR effect is to generally cause chaos. At the outset there is no good way to distinguish a troll from a poster who simply is bad at asking questions.

Trolling is something hard to define but very easy to see as you have only to view the wake of destruction the troll leaves behind. After a while you realize when people are PURPOSEFULLY bad at phrasing things...

But as we all know any filter can easily be worked around, using stars or slang or anything. So the swearing rule must be in effect so you can stop people who continue to swear by working around the filters. Some people do that just because they can.

Exactly why the new system is better. The staff have not the means to handle good examination of every use of the complaint button; now they have. That means the only people they have to take a really close look at are the moderators themselves, a far smaller group.

The people who want a free for all can find that anywhere on the internet. The people who want more civil discussion have no-where else to go.

AHA but it does not make it false either.

I fully recognize the import of what I said. It is simply the other side of what you are trying to say. What you do not understand is that I see your stance as being just as much a leading cause of unfair inequities and evils as you see mine.

The thing you are missing is that trolling is an expression of power over others just as much as any moderation. Abuse of others that skirts but never quite crosses a line of rules is an expression of power. You see only power in taking away speech, without granting the far greater power that exists in pummeling people with speech.

You are seeking to protect the trolls, the flamers, basically the people that I have seen become the scourge of reasoned expression for decades since the days of the BBS and beyond. All because you are worried about a tiny group of people that is trying to wield power with care and concern.

EXACTLY!!!

Did you see how many exclamation marks I used there?

Now go back and read the bit about rules again.

Come on. Have you even SEEN the internet? And you still claim evil is NEVER intended as evil?

Oho! YOU seem to be the one claiming moderation can be tidied with rules, *I* was the one arguing against that! The whole reason why I wanted one open ended rule is exactly because evil cannot be tidied away. You have to leave the system loose and flexible to account for attackers that are adaptable.

I don't respond to personal attacks on my intellect in place of debate. As a kindness, I grant you a warning and have not flagged you for complaint.

<...>

I never claimed it did. I just said it was not a burden to free speech to have to speak civilly, nothing more or less.

That was trying to find evidence of abuse of the system, in order to help correct it. I do not doubt that SOME abuses will occur in time. In that particular case I am doubting the claimed abuses exist, and would like proof. Should we just take anyone at their word that there are abuses without any proof whatsoever? On the internet, you can link to things you know... the poster is being oddly vague with details.