I just watched the new Fahrenheit 451.
The Badges should all watch it, you’ll LOVE it…
LOL. Don’t moderate, get criticized. Moderate, get criticized.
2 Likes
It tends to be…
Do your job properly and fairly , don’t get criticised (as much) .
Don’t allow the same person/people to spread discriminatory stuff all over the site and turn every thread into a shitfest , don’t get criticised.
Actually, if something gets cut because it’s kind of awful, that’s probably good, isn’t it? The offending content is also gone.
I love the way that went from 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, it was like the Porsche hitting the railing.
What did I miss??
So @tempogain was oppressing someone apart from me?
I start to feel like what we had together wasn’t that special… 
1 Like
So one poster asks a question about policy.
Another poster sincerely ventures an opinion, based purely on observed behaviours.
And the entire exchange is deleted, like it never happened…
До свидания!!
2 Likes
I read that exchange before it got deleted, but it’s already starting to fade. It seemed pretty innocuous to me at the time, but can I trust my own memory? History is written by the victors…
Somebody said something that I felt was awful, but perhaps not against policies and therefore not flag-worthy. Someone else (um, maybe me) used a somewhat less than civil tone, but still I believe within the rules (I sure put a lot of effort into remaining within the rules!), to comment on said awfulness. Things kind of escalated from there, and anyway, now the awful stuff is gone, so I’m content.
To work with liuqirae’s metaphor, which I like because it somehow makes me a Porsche (!): ugly oil spill on road. Porsche hit it an hour or so later. Small pile-up ensued, and clean-up came along and tidied everything up rather quickly. Debates linger about which exact infractions should require removal of vehicle from the road: straight-on ramming is out, but continuous and willful leaking of oil, well, that’s more complicated.
(Rocket, I guess you’re referring to my question, and your response - in fairness, that would have made NO sense after the earlier content had been deleted.)
1 Like
I … am not sure what that means. Peacemaker or Quisling?
I intend to give forum members, in particular long-time contributors, ample opportunity to change their ways, but such behavior isn’t going to be tolerated indefinitely either.
Nazi collaborator. But, to be fair, he would’ve shot her kids if she didn’t serve him the milk.
Got it. So I’m toadying, but it’s for the kids. Ribbit. Or croak?
Personally, I’m all for letting Hsinhai post his opinions freely. I certainly don’t agree with all of them, but they do represent the views of a significant segment of Taiwan’s population, and I think it’s good to know how people think. If you had countered his position without resorting to ad hominems, the exchange might still be up there for everyone to learn from.
2 Likes
I very carefully avoided any ad hominems. Hell, a big chunk of it was just quoting him, with small substitutions. I attacked the ideas, yes.
Edit: I’m honestly not sure which I prefer: what I consider to be vile content left up, with my objections (and I think totally justified anger) also still present; or both gone. I see a good case for either approach.
2 Likes
Now I want to know what the discussion was about and what things were said.
Your response was clever, but still basically thinly veiled ad hominem. Righteous anger feels good, but doesn’t really lend itself to rational discussion. If what you call vile content represents a commonly held point of view in Taiwan, aren’t you better off knowing about it than not knowing about it?
(Insert shrug emoji that I can’t find here.) Maybe - which is why I’m not sure which approach to modding I prefer. But if that content is allowed, then angry reactions to it should also be allowed. For what it’s worth, to me this site seems much more welcoming than it did 10-12 years ago, because in general it’s a lot more civil now - and part of that involves censoring of angry content.
Sometimes, as well, I think that righteous anger is a better approach than rational discussion. But again, where the lines are is very debatable. If someone says “All those fucking [insert group noun here] should be killed”, to me, that should be met with righteous anger, not rational discussion (“Now now, how about just jailing them all, and not killing them?”). Of course, the comments I responded to were nowhere near that extreme, but to me, they were still beyond a level at which rational discussion is appropriate. But I totally get other people not thinking that way, which is why I’m not going to give a blanket statement saying that kind of stuff should be banned. It’s easy for me to say what kind of content I don’t like, but god help me if I needed to make a decision about what should be banned.
1 Like