Moderation in PPR

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah..... that's kind of how I feel about moderators as well, honestly. I mean, 91 is basically Bismarck's cigar, and the results are pretty easily seen, especially since he probably does whine to the mod squad about every infraction, even though posts between us usually skirt the line close enough anyway. (I rarely see a mod unless someone summons them)

Basically, this is just the kind of thing that happens with formal rules that is avoided with some degree of informality. I prefer informality, rather than some game of skirting the line.

I prefer quasi-formal rules administered by people with discretion and good judgment - an eye to context and upholding the intention of the rules more than the strict letter.

I would actually agree, most of the problems with moderators in PPR over the years seem to have had more to do with rigidity and unfamiliarity with the forum norms than with the concept of moderation per se. I like a balance somewhere between 4chan and Singapore when it comes to forum rules myself, I don't like stupid /b/tard behavior anymore than I like suffocating regulations.

Not to get too off topic, but this topic brings me back around to what I see as the problematic historical lack of PPR experience on the mod teams, which leads to the aforementioned issues. PPR operates so differently than the rest of WP that there really needs to be a forum specific "mini-mod" to handle the occasional actual problems that arise while not being inflexible about the ToS. It seems that all of the mods since I've been here have been picked from the users of the General, Haven and L&D forums rather than the News or PPR users, and thus they're often unprepared for PPR and how it functions and want to get all literal about the ToS, which simply doesn't work here.

I know you and 91 have your issues AG, but most of what I get from him is more along the lines of demanding more debate commitment than I'm willing to give than deliberate provocations. I remember he got bent out of shape some time back about you posting a picture of an embryo or something, which isn't something I'd go to the mods for, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt there as he seemed genuinely offended. I'm trying to get better about that myself, extending the benefit of the doubt, as few things drive me crazier than having false motives assigned to me because someone made assumptions.

*EDIT* Okay, I just looked through the Why You Should Believe thread and saw the very personal tone 91 took with you AG. I've always gotten along at least okay with him so I was unfairly discounting your personal experience there.[/*EDIT*]


Now I'm sure we could agree on a handful of posters who really do seem to employ the Bismarck's Cigar tactic, as well as a host of other Stupid Debate Tricks, but that probably wouldn't be terribly productive, though possibly entertaining.

Personally, I try to only involve the mods in things if there is something unambiguously over the line like physical threats being made or deliberate bullying, though I also try to do my part reporting stupid stuff like spam or porn being posted. Certainly in here you're almost never going to see a mod unless they've been summoned, none of them were active in PPR before being tapped, so I doubt they browse much in here for fun.

There seems to be quite a few structural problems with WP moderation. There are too few moderators who are expected to moderate *way too many* forums. This has resulted in moderators, like quite a few public administrators, emphasizing responsiveness to complaints over proactive action or preventive de-escalation of conflicts.

I apologize to AG if I insulted him, it is not my primary intention, but it does happen. He has made just about every effort to offend me. AG has a highly aggressive, personal and confrontational style, I should not let it get to me, but sometimes it does.

Here are a few insults from him that he has dished out in the last 30 days.

Mon Nov 28, '91, planting your lips so firmly on WLC's posterior that your mouth is stained brown and your breath stinks of fecal matter doesn't make you an authority. '

'This isn't just "how I see you", you are intellectually dishonest and a jerk.'

'91, what makes you an awful person is that you are an awful person. Not everyone sparks that reaction from others, and saying "oh, everyone else is bad" just ends up with absurdity. Lots of people seem to strongly believe and even feel psychologically disturbed by the apparent notion that something is deeply wrong with how you think. I've never seen a person get quite that reaction'.

Thu Dec 01
1) We should not believe what rapists say.
2) 91 is a rapist
3) Therefore we should not believe what he says.

Fri Dec 02 'No. 91, you're blustering. You're full of sh**, '

Sun Dec 25 'I don't even know what your mental damage is'

I personally don't mind intellectual combat, a good debate is enjoyable and I don't pull my punches, but AG goes too far.

welcome to your new topic. i split off your posts to a new thread so as not to derail the existing topic.

i know exactly how you feel about moderation. IIRC, when i warned you, your response was that i should "f**k myself", which is an interesting response. you weren't the first, and you probably won't be the last.

i have an easy fix to avoid getting warned by a moderator: don't break the rules. you admit in your post above that you are sometimes in violation of the rules, so i imagine that you are quite aware when it happens. therefore it should not be hard to avoid.

if you feel like other people's infractions are getting missed and therefore you are receiving warnings when others are getting away with things, feel free to contact a moderator yourself.

to all: we are in the process of bringing other moderators on board if at all possible.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 25 Dec 2011, 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

You know, I actually suggested some time ago that they add more mods, only to be told that 4 was enough and that they didn't want too many cooks in the kitchen or something to that effect. I can't remember who that was in particular that said that, I do seem to remember throwing out 10 as a possible number of mods though. I almost think they ought to go 1 per active forum at this point, L&D in particular sure seems like a full time gig these days.

That's a good term BTW, preventative de-escalation. That's another area where a mod that came from and stays active in PPR would be helpful, as most users here aren't going to report something that *might* get ugly and risk mod overreaction and forum ire if it got out that they brought the mod into it.

I Volunteer, If your taking Volunteers. Just putting my name out there.

alex does not take volunteers.

Alrighty then, What do I need to do?

Oh good
Then I volunteer

alex does not pick people who want the job.

I'm surprised you keep a record. I do not keep a record of any comments, especially since in many cases, these comments were removed by me.

'91, planting your lips so firmly on WLC's posterior that your mouth is stained brown and your breath stinks of fecal matter doesn't make you an authority. ' (Note: The context was that 91 basically was making a distinction on authorities on a matter to suppress the opinion of another poster.

'This isn't just "how I see you", you are intellectually dishonest and a jerk.' (This is correct. At least I firmly believe it.)

'91, what makes you an awful person is that you are an awful person. Not everyone sparks that reaction from others, and saying "oh, everyone else is bad" just ends up with absurdity. Lots of people seem to strongly believe and even feel psychologically disturbed by the apparent notion that something is deeply wrong with how you think. I've never seen a person get quite that reaction'. (You were going on about how you were victimized for "just making your argument" and that all of the people who didn't like what you did were just somehow entirely irrational. So, when you said something along the lines of "I just make great arguments, so they think I am an awful person", I dissented. People actually really just don't like certain qualities you show, not a matter of your quality of arguments. You've earned the most enemies when your arguments appeared the worst, so I was just speaking honestly here.)

"1) We should not believe what rapists say.
2) 91 is a rapist
3) Therefore we should not believe what he says. " (The context is that 91 misstated something as an ad hominem fallacy. I created this to show an example of what an ad hominem fallacy looks like. I do not know whether or not 91 rapes people, and to say that this is really how I feel is ripping it out of context. I also think this is an example I edited before a mod stepped in, because I recognized later that someone would take this as a personal attack when it was just an example of how an ad hominem works, as while 3 follows from 1 and 2, the informal fallacy is based upon how the world doesn't really work that way and Hitler is capable of being right in a subject area.)

"No. 91, you're blustering. You're full of sh**" (Frankly, you act obnoxious, and you were acting in a manner that appeared full of bluster.)

'I don't even know what your mental damage is' (You accused another poster of intellectual dishonesty for behaviors that did not show intellectual dishonesty. Specifically, you upheld Telekon for the claim that binary created a strawman through the statement of the conclusion: "C) Therefore the universe has a cause, and we call it god ", even though creating a strawman requires that the misrepresentations are material for an argument, and that right there, was not actually relevant. He could have literally dropped that point of contention and his point would not altered. I do not regard an accusation on fallacious grounds to itself be honest, and I cannot comprehend why somebody would seriously do that. Maybe binary doesn't argue against the KCA well(and thus make strawmen there, but not necessarily be vulnerable to a claim of intellectual dishonesty) but that particular point is utterly trivial. If he had intentionally and rhetorically misrepresented it, like say "C) Therefore the flying spaghetti monster did it", I would not consider that dishonest, just a point of rhetoric.)

Long-story-short, 91, I really and truly do not understand the behavior. Both sides are personal against the other. You make claims on the level where I want to believe you are just trolling. I mean, the comment I made about "other posters" which you cited is actually a factual comment, in that at one point you did famously reject the basic laws of logic.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 25 Dec 2011, 2:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Alex picks people that Do not want the job, Therefore making people do something they dont want to do, Therefore putting the site in jeopardy??? Seriously?

If thats what floats his boat.

Frankly, you know it is quite obvious that there is a high level of personal animosity between myself and 91.


Your reasoning doesn't follow at all. I mean, here's how my posts work. I type something. I post it. People comment later. Sometimes this includes a mod. If someone is playing a victim, being obnoxious, or anything else, I will probably take the natural negative response, which may or may not cross any rule.


Honestly, if you're going to be regulating interpersonal behavior, you're probably going to want to handle this as relationships. I actually just don't want moderators getting involved as a general rule. Unless someone is outright trolling, I really don't care. I really don't want much moderation except if someone is literally and obviously trolling. So, contacting a moderator is really not how I'd want to handle things. Not only that, but if someone is just being obnoxious, and being "Bismarck's cigar", it'd be very hard to prove anything from a moderator standpoint, which is partly the basis of the comment in the first place. Not all things wrong can be against the rules. Not all things against the rules are wrong.