or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Welcome to Mothering! › Site Help › Could we move the Israeli War threads into Politics?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could we move the Israeli War threads into Politics? - Page 11

post #201 of 240
Cath, it's a system where members report things, you can't change individuals who are reporting, that's up to the members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
Without using specific examples I will say that often the Majority would take unwarranted offense at things as innocent as editing style / redaction, or even occasionally a “smilie” that struck them the wrong way (even one used to playfully “agree to disagree” consistent with the mutual previous use of said “smilie”). And even in some cases enlarged fonts: not “shouting” “all caps” mind you, merely enlarged or bold font.
This is the attitude I can't understanding. Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts, but it really seems like you think the majority is in cahoots with each other. I think this attitude is really misguided and you are reading far to into peoples posts. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. You read "majority," where I read different viewpoints.
post #202 of 240
Disclaimer - I am being sincere. No amount of smilies will convey that without my saying it outright. So I'm saying it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
I will generally say that it would be helpful if the Mods were more consistent when dealing with posts that could be perceived as “Passive Aggressive”.
Cath, again, perception and 'could be's are not listed in the User Agreement as UAVs. Moderators can't remove or alert posts that are not listed as UAVs. You can definitely make suggestions for changes in the wording and listings in the UA to admin, though.

Taking offense is also not a UAV as it is written. Critical dissection of links, sources and quotes is also not a UAV per administration, posted by moderators:
Quote:
# When you post a web link, book, article, etc. as a source of information, it will likely be reviewed and quite possibly critiqued by your fellow members. It is their right to do so.

# When you assert something as either fact or your opinion, some members will agree with you and some will not. Further information and opinions about political parties, candidates, policies, behaviors, etc. may get posted in an attempt to either 'debate' or debunk your post or the article it contains. This is also allowed if it remains within the UA.
.....

Quote:
Otherwise, to extend my example, the hypothetical poster wouldn’t be asked to stop defensively describing how they edited or redacted articles in subsequent posts in an effort to pre-empt any accusations of deliberate distortion. Rather, the post that put them on the defensive would have been removed after the third or fourth request.
Moderators also can't remove posts because someone feels defensive. There is only so much we can do. We also can't remove a thread or post just because someone wants it gone. If the post that one feels badly upon reading is not listed in the UA as a UAV, it isn't alertable or removable. How anyone reacts to a post is not anything a moderator can control. Again, per admin, posted by mods:
Quote:
# How members react or feel upon reading something is not within the scope of what we moderate, as feelings are not covered in the User Agreement. All members are allowed to post opinions and information regarding any and all topics contained within a thread should they so choose, provided they follow the rules. If the rules are followed but your feelings sting, then that would be a case where you would need to use the ignore feature, or send that member a private message and ask them to clarify.

# You are always more than welcome to ignore the opinions of those with whom you do not agree, and you are truly under no obligation to engage them in conversation. By utilizing MDC's ignore feature, their posts will not display on your screen, nor will you receive PMs from them. Members can always be taken off of your ignore list; it doesn't have to be permanent. Even just used as a stop-gap during a heated thread, the ignore feature could prove helpful for you.
Sometimes we all have to take things with a grain of salt, grumble to ourselves, and move on. And it's cases like those where the ignore feature can be everybody's friend. Well, not moderators, we can't use ignore.

Again, I strongly suggest wording a PM to admin regarding the wording of the User Agreement if there are nuances you would like handled a certain way.
post #203 of 240
As someone who usually disagrees with CathMac's point of view, I'm also trying to understand what she is saying. I have seen and participated in threads that were pretty hard on her point of view but within the UA. Some definitely pushed the boundaries though.

I think what she's saying is that she would like the mods to read the posts sooner and moderate more quickly ("proactively") rather than waiting for reports. It's not so much "affirmative action" for conservatives as much as a lopsidedness which naturally happens if reporting is the main mechanism for zeroing in on posts. So not giving additional benefit to the minority point of view, but giving a nod to the fact that if a situation is greatly lopsided and reporting is the main way to find offending posts, it will be unbalanced. It doesn't mean paying more attention to minority posts or reports, but rather getting in front of the problem by not waiting for reports.

At least I think that's what she's saying.
post #204 of 240
I understand that. But that idea was formulated under the assumption that reports are the only way some of us moderate (or did moderate) a forum, and it is incorrect. A report is extremely helpful, but it is only one tool used.
post #205 of 240
I really don't see the point of pointing fingers in either direction.

Neither side has the monopoly on inappropriate posting.

post #206 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoife View Post
I understand that. But that idea was formulated under the assumption that reports are the only way some of us moderate (or did moderate) a forum, and it is incorrect. A report is only one tool used.
This is true, we do read the forums.


If we didn't read them and only responded to reports that would be a HUGE reduction in the workload for moderators. However most N&CE/Politics posters do not report posts. Most of the UAVs are found through reading.
post #207 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
This is true, we do read the forums.


If we didn't read them and only responded to reports that would be a HUGE reduction in the workload for moderators. However most N&CE/Politics posters do not report posts. Most of the UAVs are found through reading.
This is good to know. I guess I was of the understanding that UAV's were only dealt with if they are reported. Sorry for misunderstadning that.
post #208 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by nursemummy View Post
Bolding mine.

So you ~are~ asking for the mods to jump on posts that are perceived as offensive to the minority? And isn't 'large minority' an oxymoron? I kid, I kid - I get what you mean. Personally, I just don't think the mods have the time (from what we've read here) to so minutely comb through threads like that.

nursemummy,
Well, that should have been a hyperbolic redundancy and instead turned out to be an oxymoron due to a typo which I have corrected (thanks for pointing it out).

Agreed. They don't have the time. Which is why I would argue in favor of more Mods.

On the other hand overreporting by the majority could easily be mitigated by by the manner in which the UA is applied:

Font size, editing style, smilies? Really?

It's a matter of perception. If enough people report a perceived infraction then it is treated as disruptive even if doesn't quite reach the level of an actual UAV.

In contrast, I wouldn't even bother reporting those types of things myself. Which is one less voice in an already teeny tiny quintet. So even if one or two people in that small group were to report a comparable violation --on principle alone-- then it seems extremely unlikely that the arguable violation would be perceived as problematic. In fact, its probable that they will be perceived as complainers.

So not only is the minority under reporting on the basis of size, they are less likely to report technical UAVs. And if they are anything like me they have a tendency to agonize over that final edit before hitting the send button, which can be time consuming.

~Cath
post #209 of 240
We do not moderate for "disruptive" we moderate for violations of the User Agreement.
post #210 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoife
I understand that. But that idea was formulated under the assumption that reports are the only way some of us moderate (or did moderate) a forum, and it is incorrect. A report is extremely helpful, but it is only one tool used.
And even if reporting *were* the only tool used, how is it unfair not to have an army of conservatives to report UAVs by liberals? I would like to know how Cath's suggestion would work on a micro scale. The way things are now, if a conservative is reading a thread, and they see a UAV, they can report it. A mod will read the report, and if it is a UAV, it will be removed. I guess I just don't see what's unfair about that.
post #211 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post

It's a matter of perception. If enough people report a perceived infraction then it is treated as disruptive even if doesn't quite reach the level of an actual UAV.
This is simply untrue.
post #212 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac
It's a matter of perception. If enough people report a perceived infraction then it is treated as disruptive even if doesn't quite reach the level of an actual UAV.
I doubt that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac
In contrast, I wouldn't even bother reporting those types of things myself. Which is one less voice in an already teeny tiny quintet. So even if one or two people in that small group were to report a comparable violation --on principle alone-- then it seems extremely unlikely that the arguable violation would be perceived as problematic. In fact, its probable that they will be perceived as complainers.

So not only is the minority under reporting on the basis of size, they are less likely to report technical UAVs. And if they are anything like me they have a tendency to agonize over that final edit before hitting the send button, which can be time consuming.
I don't think mods base their decisions on the number of reports received about the post. I think they read the post for themselves and use their own judgement to determine if it's a UAV.
post #213 of 240
Cath--I do remember some of that creative editing. It's actually pretty simple to edit a piece to be deliberately inflammatory and that's against the UA.
post #214 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I really don't see the point of pointing fingers in either direction.

Neither side has the monopoly on inappropriate posting.

I tried my best!
post #215 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by avent View Post
As someone who usually disagrees with CathMac's point of view, I'm also trying to understand what she is saying. I have seen and participated in threads that were pretty hard on her point of view but within the UA. Some definitely pushed the boundaries though.

I think what she's saying is that she would like the mods to read the posts sooner and moderate more quickly ("proactively") rather than waiting for reports. It's not so much "affirmative action" for conservatives as much as a lopsidedness which naturally happens if reporting is the main mechanism for zeroing in on posts. So not giving additional benefit to the minority point of view, but giving a nod to the fact that if a situation is greatly lopsided and reporting is the main way to find offending posts, it will be unbalanced. It doesn't mean paying more attention to minority posts or reports, but rather getting in front of the problem by not waiting for reports.

At least I think that's what she's saying.
Avent,
Thanks for making the extra effort to try and see where I'm coming from.

I think you come closest to understanding what I'm getting at but I can't make it any clearer without using actual examples which would clearly violate Rules 7 & 8.

But I will ever so slightly tippy toe out on a limb and hint that somewhere, not to far from here, is an example of the type of playful jab that some members seem to get dinged for and others don't. Which is especially unfair if it's more "playful" than "jab".

But often that is in the eye of the beholder, or more specifically, the member reporting it. And that gets magnified by the number of people reporting it or de-emphasized by the lack of reporting. (It's a tree in the forest kind of thing only with one or two people there to witness it instead of none)

Slightly off topic but once upon a time I indulged in a little bit of McCain humor (originating from the number of houses and cars he reportedly has) that might have seemed to be at his expense but was meant more to satirize some criticisms of him, here and elsewhere. There were any number of technical UAVs in those two threads that most certainly would have been reported --and disciplined-- if Obama, and not McCain, had been the subject. Despite the fact that it was so clearly a complete and over the top goof from start to finish, replete with two links to pictures of the Flintstones' car (although one member missed that ) along with references to Dino to make the not so subtle point that McCain isn't a spring chicken. (see how carefully I avoided calling him old ... oops )

Trust me, there was plenty of Obama material to work with. I never "went there", except perhaps for the occasional remark partly out of respect for the fact that the boundaries for what was safe to have a chuckle over were very clearly set. The occasional affectionate reference to the size of his ears being the only example I can distinctly remember.

I can almost guarantee you that if there had been anywhere near the number of McCain supporters on the Politics board as there were Obama supporters, and especially if had I been an Obama supporter, then several people would probably have reported one or both of those threads and there's a good chance I would have received an Alert.

Context, perception, and reporting power might not be everything. But it's pretty darn close.

Quote:
McCains own 13 cars, Obamas own 1
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...t=yabba&page=2

Posts # 25
“This abnormal contravention of natural law would not bode well for his longevity in office except that he's half past ancient as it is. His unnatural abilities might suggest he could only get older, since the hands of time might actually start unwinding. Did I mention that he’s old? Like really, really, really old? Old, old, old.”

Post # 42: Does anyone know the average age of these cars?
The dinosaur's tragic death could have been easily avoided, if only McCain hadn’t let his infamous temper get the best of him and he had simply yielded the right of way. There are unverified accounts of how he careened through the intersection, and shouted epithets at innocent bystanders. ... You know, it occurs to me that if he suffers from any debilitating long term injuries we might want to reconsider the whole POW spiel. He was probably injured in this accident and it’s his own darn fault.
...
It’s all true, I found it on Cath Po and verified it on CathCheck. I can PM the links if anyone is interested.

Well, I admit I made up Bruno's name, but that’s just a little bit of artistic license.

Yabba dabba do.
In contrast, here is a parody I created of a particular posting style that I was advised against starting a thread with because it might be perceived as too inflammatory.

Quote:
Obama’s Wizbang and YouTube nightmares

Ah, the sweeping rhetoric express! Too bad it's a train wreck. Like most proverbial train wrecks, one can’t help but watch in stunned horror. You shouldn’t, but you just can’t help it.

Wizbang - What Happened When Obama’s Teleprompter Broke. Live appearance in Bristol, VA (appxly 3 months ago) -- Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: September 19, 2008 - 2:45 PM
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...pter-broke.php


Ok, and this is just too fun a smack-down not to include:

YouTube - Letterman: Barrack Obama “Uh” Count:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw&NR=1

There’s plenty more where these came from but, as scary as they are, they get a little old.

I’m going to shut my eyes real tight and hope and pray he was just having a really bad day. After all, you can’t take the teleprompter when you sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unless you make it part of the preconditions, er … pre-arrangements.
~Cath
post #216 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
But it should be obvious that if you enforce the UA based on the perception of Passive Aggressive posting then you should do so evenly.
Cath, in utter sincerity I say that if I were a mod and I pulled passive aggressive threads, I would have pulled just about every thread you started in politics during the election, because they seemed very passive aggressive to *me*. My perception is that most of your threads and posts survived, but that could very well be wrong. Do you feel like your stuff got targeted for passive aggressiveness and edited, while other passive aggressive responses to you did not? You might very well be right, but from a third party perspective, that did not appear to be happening at all.
post #217 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy View Post
Cath--I do remember some of that creative editing. It's actually pretty simple to edit a piece to be deliberately inflammatory and that's against the UA.
Missy,
In my hypothetical it is clear that it was edited for length. A cursory check using "word count" would make that abundantly clear.

And if I had the time and inclination to expand further on this hypothetical it would be equally clear that in the example given the poster was vindicated by another hypothetical poster that actually took the time to read the article, see what was cut out, and conclude that the meaning had not been affected.

I suspect that any hypothetical people that found it inflammatory would have found the article itself inflammatory if they'd actually read it.

All of this being purely hypothetical.

~Cath
post #218 of 240
Ok this point of this thread is not to complain about the mods.

The mods were NOT acting improperly.

The point of these threads are to discuss the closures.

We need to move on to actual productive discussion.

If people cannot participate in a manner that will work on a future solution, and not throw blame around please continue. I will NOT stop the discussion about this, I will just start removing people from Q&S.
post #219 of 240
FYI: If any of this has to do with this thread (not sure, but just in case!) please contact admin. All policy threads are moderated by admins, not mods.
post #220 of 240
Getting back to the purpose of this thread now...

Where can we discuss issues of racism and bigotry without being in violation of the UA?

For example, Limbaugh's recent interview. Normally, that would be in Politics. I think it needs be discussed somewhere because it contributes to a climate that has a direct impact on my parenting.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Site Help
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Welcome to Mothering! › Site Help › Could we move the Israeli War threads into Politics?