Moderators Should Use A Light Handed Approach, IMO
Before the recent rule update, I was worried that the calls for more action from moderators was going to make it harder for people to speak their minds liberally on chainlink, and in my mind, this private message from Duppie confirms that my fear was justified:
Tristan,
I saw your posts in the Drive-thru thread. Name calling and personal attacks are not allowed. Please keep that in mind going forward.
Thank you.
Duppie,
Moderator
So, Duppie, let's see what was said. Here is the post by Martin Hazard that I was replying to:
I love to go to the drive through at the Mcdonalds on Milwaukee just south of Diversey. They state that they dont serve walk up traffic, after the lobby is closed. Nothing more. I didn't walk my F-ing bike up to the window. I order a hamburger and wait for them to call the police. The police never show up for that type of call, and in the mean time they have countless drivers who already placed orders driving off without paying. When they finally capitulate, and they always do, I throw that burger out;-) F-them, it is up to the individual Mc-d's.
Here is my response:
Man, if I was the drive-thru manager, hell would of frozen over before I would of given you that hamburger, because I follow the principle of never give in to the demands of an entitled asshole.
Definitely, a sassy reply. But, technically, I didn't call him anything directly. I was simply trying to say that I thought it was asshole behavior. And, bottom line, my criticism is directed at the behavior, not the person. At least, I meant it that way. After that h' sarcastically replies:
Matin Hazard, the very personification of "entitlement."
To which, I sarcastically reply:
Oh is Martin a transgender albino native american asshole? Regardless, I still wouldn't of given him the hamburger.
That's sarcastic. And in question form. Again, it's sassy, but hardly a personal attack. And, bottom line, I'm going to continue to speak my mind. If you want to delete my posts go ahead.
And I want to voice my support for Lee Diamond's approach to moderation:
It is easy to say that there should be more moderation, or better moderation, or that certain language or topics or discussions have crossed the line, but in the end, this is just a place. The conversations that are had at this place are not condoned or endorsed by the Chainlink simply because we don't intervene. Does Facebook moderate your conversations? Does AT&T listen in on your calls and tell you how to talk or what you can and can't say? If you go to a bar or a restaurant or a mall to have a conversation, are there security guards escorting you out when you use a certain word, express a particular opinion or say something that even the owner of the mall, restaurant or bar objects to? In some cases the answer is yes, and those businesses can choose to run themselves that way. For the most part, the answer is that the place itself is just where that stuff happens. It has no ownership of the conversations held within its walls, be they physical or digital. Like a bar, we'll toss a patron when they get too rowdy. Like a bar, many of the patrons will feel we should have done that long ago, or shouldn't have done it at all, or should have let that person stay and tossed someone else instead. Such is life. And internet life too.
Views: 1235
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tristan Jackson on
-
I felt that way when I read your BMX cop debate
-
-
Permalink Reply by Haddon on
-
This again? IMO moderators should use VERY HEAVY hand.
There are other places where people can go express themselves, reddit has a bike forum so does craigslist, people can start blogs and express themselves to their hearts content.
"Oh is Martin a transgender albino native american asshole? Regardless, I still wouldn't of given him the hamburger."
OP - This does not make you a man with any dignity, your a child pissing in the town pool and thinking that makes you a hero, it doesn't. It makes you terribly self centered with a sense of entitlement. You want to speak your mind in a form you didn't start, don't own but because you can sit and pound on a keyboard believe that gives you some rights which it doesn't. With words like this one can hardly perscribe to you dignity or the sort of maturity that one might hope of men in the modern world. Please, rather than acting like this how about you be a man, an adult, the sort of person one can look up to and admire rather than one that is tolerated.
It is one of my horrors that we now have a generation of men who are so mind boggling immature that they think that being rude is somehow righteous, that offering insult makes them better. I'm certainly not perfect but when I go wrong few people will apologize and scrape more than me. I am weary of the pervasive rudeness here and have taken it to put a few swings into those that are the providers of such.
My proposal is: when in doubt boot someone for a month, next time 3 months, the next time is 6 months, a few passes of this and people will get the drift. People want to make use of the chainlink as a forum and feel they have some god given right to be disregardful basic manners.
I know traffic matters, that advertisers and contributors look at metrics. My belief is that if you boot the problem 1-2% who are childish than the rest of the 98-99% will flower and come out and post and read more knowing that they are not going to get crapped on and denigrated. You have run the experiment as is with people going wild/rude, how about trying things for a year or two with a liberal boot policy? Kick people for 3 months, whats the downside? One reader is gone for 3 months? What does that matter? In time the traffic loss will be made up and then some. If I'm wrong then in 2 years swing the gates open and let every entitled mouth breather into the gates and they can bring flame throwers if need be.
The Chainlink is established enough that it really doesn't have to worry about upstarts. They will pop up, flounder and go away and no one will care about them. 10,000 gives you some weight, please use it.
H
-
-
-
I disagree. I rather chainlink be a space where people speak their minds, even if immature or even rude. Duck your heavy hand.
Haddon said:This again? IMO moderators should use VERY HEAVY hand.
There are other places where people can go express themselves, reddit has a bike forum so does craigslist, people can start blogs and express themselves to their hearts content.
"Oh is Martin a transgender albino native american asshole? Regardless, I still wouldn't of given him the hamburger."
OP - This does not make you a man with any dignity, your a child pissing in the town pool and thinking that makes you a hero, it doesn't. It makes you terribly self centered with a sense of entitlement. You want to speak your mind in a form you didn't start, don't own but because you can sit and pound on a keyboard believe that gives you some rights which it doesn't. With words like this one can hardly perscribe to you dignity or the sort of maturity that one might hope of men in the modern world. Please, rather than acting like this how about you be a man, an adult, the sort of person one can look up to and admire rather than one that is tolerated.
It is one of my horrors that we now have a generation of men who are so mind boggling immature that they think that being rude is somehow righteous, that offering insult makes them better. I'm certainly not perfect but when I go wrong few people will apologize and scrape more than me. I am weary of the pervasive rudeness here and have taken it to put a few swings into those that are the providers of such.
My proposal is: when in doubt boot someone for a month, next time 3 months, the next time is 6 months, a few passes of this and people will get the drift. People want to make use of the chainlink as a forum and feel they have some god given right to be disregardful basic manners.
I know traffic matters, that advertisers and contributors look at metrics. My belief is that if you boot the problem 1-2% who are childish than the rest of the 98-99% will flower and come out and post and read more knowing that they are not going to get crapped on and denigrated. You have run the experiment as is with people going wild/rude, how about trying things for a year or two with a liberal boot policy? Kick people for 3 months, whats the downside? One reader is gone for 3 months? What does that matter? In time the traffic loss will be made up and then some. If I'm wrong then in 2 years swing the gates open and let every entitled mouth breather into the gates and they can bring flame throwers if need be.
The Chainlink is established enough that it really doesn't have to worry about upstarts. They will pop up, flounder and go away and no one will care about them. 10,000 gives you some weight, please use it.
H
-
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on
-
I think it's helpful to know that moderators are "enforcing the rules" in a non-transparent and apparently selective way.
This is a perfect example of where a misplaced, felt need to "moderate" gets someone dinged for doing something that non-obviously violates a particular moderator's interpretation of the rule against "personal attacks." Well, what is a "personal attack?" Tristan seems to have called someone an "entitled asshole." Right? But if Tristan had just phrased the comment as, "I think your behavior in that situation was self-entitled and asshole-ish," it would be just "debating the idea," wouldn't it be? But what's the meaningful difference?
We don't have a rule against "personal attacks" because we need to avoid comments that could possibly be construed as direct insults. We have a rule like that so that discussions don't veer off topic into pointless flamewars where people just insult one another. When a rule against "personal attacks" morphs into a rule against abrasive language - as it apparently already has in Duppie's mind - and that rule is enforced in a non-transparent way, the result is a lot of frustration. I.e., exactly what Tristan's displayed here.
Really, there's no way that Tristan could have said anything negative about Martin's throwing a tantrum at a drive-in window without saying something that could possibly be construed as a "personal attack." He would, in any event, have to have said something about Martin's personal behavior. So this is a particularly silly example of moderator enforcement.
Look, moderators - if you want to police this community, you're going to have to do so in a way that's transparent, understandable, and predictable. Tristan had every reason to believe that at least a few of the moderators would have no problem with his obliquely calling someone an "entitled asshole," so what this starts to look like is a situation where we may just have various versions of the rules that may or may not be enforced, in ways that may or may not be consistent.
h' 1.0 said:Was this meant for Duppie or for all to read?
I feel like I accidentally opened someone else's mail.
-
-
-
If Tristan ought to go for calling someone an "entitled asshole," it would seem that you would have to be booted, as well, given that you've called him - let's see: "a child pissing in the town pool," "terribly self-centered," "mind-bogglingly immature," and an "entitled mouth-breather." I can only imagine that a stern message from Duppie is on its way; perhaps you could share it with the rest of us, once you've received it?
And that's not even starting into this obnoxiously chauvinistic commentary about "being a man" worthy of admiration. If Tristan's behavior is culpable, it's not because he's being insufficiently "manly."
Also, I think you have a very poor sense of how easily you can kill a community like this. It's not going to swing back to fuller levels of activity if it doesn't endure a heavy-handed moderation policy very well. Everyone's going to be off looking for other resources, and gone in a matter of months.
Haddon said:This again? IMO moderators should use VERY HEAVY hand.
There are other places where people can go express themselves, reddit has a bike forum so does craigslist, people can start blogs and express themselves to their hearts content.
"Oh is Martin a transgender albino native american asshole? Regardless, I still wouldn't of given him the hamburger."
OP - This does not make you a man with any dignity, your a child pissing in the town pool and thinking that makes you a hero, it doesn't. It makes you terribly self centered with a sense of entitlement. You want to speak your mind in a form you didn't start, don't own but because you can sit and pound on a keyboard believe that gives you some rights which it doesn't. With words like this one can hardly perscribe to you dignity or the sort of maturity that one might hope of men in the modern world. Please, rather than acting like this how about you be a man, an adult, the sort of person one can look up to and admire rather than one that is tolerated.
It is one of my horrors that we now have a generation of men who are so mind boggling immature that they think that being rude is somehow righteous, that offering insult makes them better. I'm certainly not perfect but when I go wrong few people will apologize and scrape more than me. I am weary of the pervasive rudeness here and have taken it to put a few swings into those that are the providers of such.
My proposal is: when in doubt boot someone for a month, next time 3 months, the next time is 6 months, a few passes of this and people will get the drift. People want to make use of the chainlink as a forum and feel they have some god given right to be disregardful basic manners.
I know traffic matters, that advertisers and contributors look at metrics. My belief is that if you boot the problem 1-2% who are childish than the rest of the 98-99% will flower and come out and post and read more knowing that they are not going to get crapped on and denigrated. You have run the experiment as is with people going wild/rude, how about trying things for a year or two with a liberal boot policy? Kick people for 3 months, whats the downside? One reader is gone for 3 months? What does that matter? In time the traffic loss will be made up and then some. If I'm wrong then in 2 years swing the gates open and let every entitled mouth breather into the gates and they can bring flame throwers if need be.
The Chainlink is established enough that it really doesn't have to worry about upstarts. They will pop up, flounder and go away and no one will care about them. 10,000 gives you some weight, please use it.
H
-
-
Permalink Reply by Tandemonium on
-
Amazing. The kid who sets off a series of fights leading to more moderation is now crying about the increase in moderation. -1 for you today.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on
-
Tristan, we live by a system of rules. If you want to be a part of the community here, you have to follow the rules. In my opinion, as of now, the new rules and moderation seem to be fair and even-handed. Things evolve over time for the positive impact for all involved in the community. Stay, only if you want to be a part of this community.
-
-
Permalink Reply by David P. on
-
Tristan,
Your apparent sense of victimhood greatly exceeds the non-existent sanction that was levelled against you for the post you quoted. Duppie wrote you to ask to please mind your manners. You would be well-served to try it!
David
-
-
-
Me too.
rwein5 said:I LIKE BIKES AND BIKING ! ! !
-
-
-
In my mind, I wasn't me who set off those fights. It was the person who shall not be named. That person deserves your minus one, not me. I didn't even directly respond to that person. I was done talking to that person after that person wished me physical harm.
Tandemonium said:Amazing. The kid who sets off a series of fights leading to more moderation is now crying about the increase in moderation. -1 for you today. -
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
Moderation is always a judgment call. No matter what we do, someone will take exception to it.
There are many more people who would enjoy participating in Chainlink discussions if there were fewer personal attacks. I would be happy to see more of them join in.
I appreciate what Tom said above. Who else would like to join in creating a greater sense of community rather than an arena full of verbal slugfests? -
-
-
I don't agree that I broke the rules. That's the problem. In my mind, I was criticizing an idea, not a person. I don't know Martin. And I wouldn't discuss anything about Martin the person. I did discuss the idea Martin put forward. I know what an ad hominem is, and I try my best to avoid them. I'm with Simon on this:
We don't have a rule against "personal attacks" because we need to avoid comments that could possibly be construed as direct insults. We have a rule like that so that discussions don't veer off topic into pointless flamewars where people just insult one another. When a rule against "personal attacks" morphs into a rule against abrasive language - as it apparently already has in Duppie's mind - and that rule is enforced in a non-transparent way, the result is a lot of frustration. I.e., exactly what Tristan's displayed here.
Really, there's no way that Tristan could have said anything negative about Martin's throwing a tantrum at a drive-in window without saying something that could possibly be construed as a "personal attack." He would, in any event, have to have said something about Martin's personal behavior. So this is a particularly silly example of moderator enforcement.
Tom A.K. said:
Tristan, we live by a system of rules. If you want to be a part of the community here, you have to follow the rules. In my opinion, as of now, the new rules and moderation seem to be fair and even-handed. Things evolve over time for the positive impact for all involved in the community. Stay, only if you want to be a part of this community. -
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
