Are mods kept an eye on? How are they selected? Any vetting?

Post Reply New Topic

Why was this thread locked?

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=330300

I'm guessing this is an active effort to "appear" to be fair to both predominant political leanings during the US elections:

A lot of partisan threads which favours the current US democratic narrative (along with the passive aggressive behaviour and namecalling/browbeating demonstrated by subsequent posters) is being left to run riot and that is because "they're good people because they don't support Trump and Trump is bad'. It's that simple in my mind and seems to be supported by official comments made in this section of the forums. Fine, so be it, we are only guests on this platform.

I'm also suspecting this thread was chosen to be locked in the aim of appearing to be fair because of the sheer number of threads the user makes with loaded questions, foregone conclusions, rhetoric, fallacies etc. The 2 thread rule was recently put into place because of this reason.

I'm not the one who locked it, and so cannot say with certainty, but I do see that the thread was reported by another member for "More trolling and generalized insults." Evidently someone on moderator team took a look and thought there were sufficient grounds for action.

Contrary to TheSpectrum's speculation, there is no effort to appear fair. Fairness or balance between sides on any issue is not part of the general instructions to modertors--but comments disparaging groups of people are not allowed, though in PPR, it's open season on ideas (but not the people who hold them, unless they are public figures).

In general, I don't read threads in PPR unless a specific topic catches my eye and interest, or I see that someone has posted there whose ideas I find interesting, or there is something flagged for moderation.

If you think some side or other is being allowed to get away with rule violations, please report the posts that bother you. Mods don't read every post and are unlikely to act unless something has been flagged by a report.

Sometimes, it's nice to be wrong thanks for your 2 cents.

^ Your welcome.

In passing, I noticed the reported personal attack in the UKIP thread and removed it.

The two-thread rule was made over a year ago, and it was not instituted because of this user.

Also, I'm glad Adamantium said what he did about "being fair", because threads, IMO, shouldn't be locked because "of the sheer number of threads" that are annoying (summarizing what you said), if they don't break any rules, of course.

When I read what Adamantium said about the thread being reported, that concerns me / reminds me of what I said several pages, ago, about the Mods allowing a user(s) to "direct" them. IMO, if it was determined that ONE user (or, 3 or 4, or whatever) was the most constant / consistent reporter(s) of threads / posts, I would begin to question the REPORTER'S intentions.

A general reminder to self and others that the rules preclude discussion of locked topics:

This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned

and also include this provision
Owners of WrongPlanet reserve the right to delete, edit, move, or lock any thread for any reason.

If moderators are going to be challenged to justify each decision, there won't be any moderators here, and though that may be desirable for some, I for one would be out of here licketysplit, as both a moderator and a member.

I support the above and my goal is not to offend so while its fair to say the above, I would also like to add that it is not my intention for any of my posts to be deleted, edited, moved, or locked.

Proceed with moderation.

Now I don't mean to break the above rule with any particular thread in mind but I will say there are five million threads about Trump and Hillary. I had a question yesterday and it didn't take me long to find a thread about the election so why people are debating this when its very clear is beyond me. Almost half the threads in there pertain to the election in some way shape or form. I don't know that a locked thread in this particular context has anything personal to do with the user. Its just, EVERYONE is talking about it and its a monster to contain, few other forums would allow multiple topics on the same thing. Even the wild wild west (4chan) has mega threads on reoccurring topics.

This is being made into a bigger deal then I think it is with the context of the election. Some other complaints may have merit but the whole "Lets create five million election threads with every possible political stance" does not.

No one is being challenged on every decision, a little transparency won't kill you, especially seeing as how it's the only form of accountability here in the (largely) absence of Alex.

Moderators have no mandate to make new rules whether they want to or not, our role is to apply the existing ones, as best we can. There is accountability, (we are accountable to Alex and to peer review on the modteam).

Speaking of the largely absence Alex, how would a person who was raised Christian and grew up in a southern state feel about using religion as a means to offer support in the context of not harming anyone else's right to believe what they want?

(Above post edited for length)

I don't think the first paragraph is fair at all. There are a lot of passive-aggressive partisan threads which favour the Republican narrative also being "left to run riot". For example, there are long running threads about how racism isn't real and that social justice is a problem, and of course the "TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH" thread.

Although we want to be fair, we're not going to do that by locking threads/banning users in equal numbers - it's equality of opportunity, not outcome But yes, the volume of threads Mootoo makes with foregone conclusions and attempts to provoke factored into the decision here - a new user might have got the benefit of the doubt. It was a blatant straw man, because no sensible person has claimed that building the wall will prevent natural disasters. Deliberately attempting to provoke other users is against the rules.

The two-thread rule came in about a year ago because of a banned user who used to make extensive threads about nothing several times a day.


Actually we pretty much get challenged on every active decision, although it's pretty much just two users who challenge everything between them regardless of how obvious the rule-break is. I agree that transparency is good, but it gets extremely frustrating to have to explain every decision twice.

I've recently taken the policy of not explaining why I am locking a thread if it is obvious, and there is no ongoing discussion. When I'd post in the thread, it would get it bumped up to the top of the forum ahead of legitimate threads. Seems people would prefer that I change that, so I will.


I tried to implement mega-threads for anti-Trump and anti-Clinton discussion but Alex gave me a public smackdown.

Any attempts to game the system in the way you describe are going to be treated as a form of trolling and put someone on the fast track toward a temporary ban and then a permanent one if they can't reform.

Reports about this kind of topic usually come in two types. One is a reported personal attack--something like, "Member X attacked me!"
Investigating the reported post, we might find something like this.
"Member X: You are so wrong! You are a stupid poopy head!"
At this point, a warning goes to Member X--"personal attacks are against the rules, don't do it"

This isn't a situation that is subject to that much subtle interpretation. Member X may be a partisan of Sylvania and the reporter may be a partisan of Freedonia, but that is irrelevant detail. The attack is what it is and it really doesn't matter if the reporter has an agenda.

If you don't make a personal attack, you can't be found at fault for it. If you do, don't be surprised if a moderator gets involved and is unimpressed by variations on "but he's on the other side and is wrong" as a defense.

The generalization thing is trickier. The whole SJW thread should not really exist, for example, since it is entirely about generalizing about a group people, rather than their ideas, for example. On the other hand it seems a lively and useful discussion is going on, so it might be better to leave it. Personally, I find that thread distasteful and avoid it. I read the OP and won't read any more of it unless there is a report on a post in it.

I misbehave so Adamantium has to discipline me.

Mods are hella sexy.

Thanks, I needed a laugh!

Put me on the naughty step and smack my bum.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr