|
Sad the extent to which people posting factually untrue things, even when carefully explained to them. Personally, I would still prefer stricter moderation in GD; to try to focus on actual facts and law, rather than the endless spouting of people who don't know what they're talking about. I'd rather people find the thread a source of edification and insight, rather than idiots posting nonsense with poor understanding of things. Or maybe have a separate thread for intelligent discussion.
Also, we're going to need this thread, so may as well start it now; because it's clear there's going to be issues.
|
If you're talking about this:
The number of people who are so poorly educated on law, international law, ethics on the use of force, and other such issues; who call both sides equally bad, is quite sad. I'd expect more from an educational system.
You should start with yourself. I had that discussion yesterday with Nyxisto via pm, to not clutter the thread up (since i was really pissed off about his generalization of israel-critics generally being antisemites). Obviously, genocide is a dumb thing to say, but everything so far regarding international law is a fact, if you like it or not.
I agree though, the thread should be strictly moderated. Trouble is, you can't do it like in the MH17 thread, since this time, there is no third faction. You have israelcritical news, and pro-israel news, so prohibiting sources doesn't work.
|
It's not hard at all to moderate actually. The mods just don't want to put in the (substantial) effort; it's not hard to enforce strict standards of discourse though. Nor do the mods want to allow someone else to do the moderation who's willing to put in the time.
And I am not poorly educated on the law or ethics of the situation. If you have evidence to the contrary, cite it, otherwise, your point is invalid; or you're not stating the correct point. I'm not sure which facts you're citing, but a lot of people in the thread are saying a lot of things that are wrong.
|
On July 24 2014 00:09 zlefin wrote: It's not hard at all to moderate actually. The mods just don't want to put in the (substantial) effort; it's not hard to enforce strict standards of discourse though. Nor do the mods want to allow someone else to do the moderation who's willing to put in the time.
And I am not poorly educated on the law or ethics of the situation. If you have evidence to the contrary, cite it, otherwise, your point is invalid; or you're not stating the correct point. I'm not sure which facts you're citing, but a lot of people in the thread are saying a lot of things that are wrong.
For example the fact that Israel is considered an occupying force by international law. That's a fact, and i (guess my bad) thought you were talking about that when you said "misinformation about international law". It's a fact that there even was a special committee monitoring israels actions as a occupying force.
I do agree with the decision to not have "privates" running rampage in the thread, since i don't believe anyone would do a good job with that (that includes you, considering that everything you apparently not know about is "misinformation" and "abuse"). The same goes for mods, the only thing they should restrict is flamebaits like Bill Murray did, or general flamewars.
|
Zurich15234 Posts
On July 24 2014 00:09 zlefin wrote: It's not hard at all to moderate actually. The mods just don't want to put in the (substantial) effort; it's not hard to enforce strict standards of discourse though. Nor do the mods want to allow someone else to do the moderation who's willing to put in the time. The thread is being moderated. If you have an issue with specific posts use the report function.
|
Just wondering about 2 recent warnings in the thread. One I presume is for using the word "Nazi" in it only it wasn't him that brought up the subject nor the analogy. The other seemed to be for using an analogy? What were the reasons for the warning? I don't think warning people for using analogies in a thread about describing a situation and points of view is warn worthy.
|
Zurich15234 Posts
Using intentionally dumb analogies invited nothing but even dumber analogies, flames, and derailing.
|
That would probably ban half the thread for using dumb analogies at one point or another.
|
mhm, I've been too busy to participate in the past couple of days, but m4ini, WhiteDog, razJ and I (among others) went on for quite some time in a way I felt was relatively respectful...overwhelmingly disagree with a bunch of people, but hadn't seen a comment I felt was banworthy.
|
Well, to be honest, a debate can get "heated" sometimes. Doesn't mean disrespect though, most of the people in this thread regardless of opinion side in other threads anyway.
Nyxisto and i for example clash quite harshly together in this thread, or rather, our opinions, but that's (at least for me) no problem. I don't think he's an idiot. If i would, i'd tell him, even though i got warned for that today - so much honesty in my mind has to be.
|
On July 24 2014 01:42 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 00:09 zlefin wrote: It's not hard at all to moderate actually. The mods just don't want to put in the (substantial) effort; it's not hard to enforce strict standards of discourse though. Nor do the mods want to allow someone else to do the moderation who's willing to put in the time. The thread is being moderated. If you have an issue with specific posts use the report function.
I actually have an issue with a report button. Why can't we report a post several times? Shouldn't it make your guys job easier? Like if there is just 1 report vs 6, gives you even more bits of information for decision making. Instead there is just one? What if the reporter makes a poor report and is generally untrustworthy? Looks like the poster would have a pretty high chance of getting away from moderation.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
The reporter's identity very rarely matters. When a report comes in, one or several mods will look at the reported post both in the context of the report and (more importantly) on its own. If the post warrants action, it will be actioned, there is no need to attempt to stress or hurry the mods with several reports.
|
Not that I'm complaining, but moderation is not lightning fast. So by the time the action is being taken there is a high chance that quite a few reports would be available, and that is beneficial. Once the post has been dealt with, further reports can be dealt the same way they are being dealt with right now. So the question is: does implementing multiple reports require too much effort (rewriting code?) which is considered too much hassle?
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
Moderation is not lightning fast because we prefer to take a good amount of time rather than making hasty decisions that negatively impact moderation. It isn't uncommon for some of the more "controversial" reports to take some 24 hours before a decision is reached, because several mods will want to weigh in with their own opinions and ideas. As for your question, I don't think the coding is the problem - there simply isn't any significant benefit that hasn't already been considered and deemed less significant than the advantages of our one report system.
I also do not understand your point about the benefit of multiple reports being available. Could you elaborate on what potential advantages there would be for us having access to five reports all targeted at the same post, rather than just one?
|
Well, you would be letting the community to kind of self-moderate. I've been moderating myself, and I do believe that having that kind of statistics at hand about what comunity thinks of one particular post is quite beneficial. Sure they are not experts, and sometimes very biased, but it's not like you are forced to act on their advice. The thing is I like to have others' advice before I act, the more - the better, rather than having to do all the thinking all by myself (or by a group of a selected few).
|
Zurich15234 Posts
In that case this is mostly an issue of moderation philosophy. Whenever the idea came up, TL has always decided against community moderation. It's just not how we operate. I believe reports really are the only thing we ended up using out of the many suggestions to let the community in on moderation.
|
So you willingly choose not to know. I'm a bit disappointed.
|
i was banned for claiming to be an antisemitic which was taken at face value. Disclaimer: i have nothing against Jews, never did and never will have. I only said that because pro Israelis can not make the distinction between being anti-Jewish or being anti-Israel so i thought why should I make it?. I put an "in this case" in front of the statement (the case there being Israel vs Palestinians) and figure it would suffice. well, it didn't.
as for the sources for post i was banned: http://www.sott.net/article/281344-LISTEN-Recording-of-kidnapped-Israeli-teens-distress-call-to-police their call made to the police. you can hear gun shots, multiple gunshots.
http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Brothers-Keeper/Shin-Bet-piecing-together-moment-by-moment-account-of-kidnapping-361126
Although other possibilities are being considered, according to this view, a phone call by one of the youths to the police to try to report the kidnapping immediately triggered the murders.
This led the domestic intelligence agency to gradually narrow the search area for the bodies, until it honed in on the area near Halhoul. they were looking for bodies
|
Zurich15234 Posts
|
...and we all need excuses to justify our actions, i know. i'm sorry for being overly emotional about that and that i wasn't politically correct enough. i'll care less next time.
Edit: there were pro-Israel people in that thread posting sourceless and photoshopped maps of Israel and nothing happened to them.
|
|
|
|