General Moderation Topic


@larson9999 suspended at user request.


I’m curious about the cleanup on the FBI/Cohen thread. Nobody was defending Christie’s reprehensible original book title, and its existence is a fact of genuine cultural interest. (In my own post I intentionally did not include the actual title, just a side reference to it, so hopefully that wasn’t offensive to anyone.)


The discussion of the book title ended up being more posts than the discussion of the story itself. Worse, most of it was a derail targeting specific posters. I was first going to split it off, but I realized only three or four of the many posts were on-topic (discussing the book) versus arguing about meta, so I, unfortunately, had to remove the entire line of posts.

There was nothing wrong with the post or the discussion of the book, other than that it completely derailed the topic.


The cleanup mainly took place while I was at an appointment; all I saw before leaving was KP’s post, mine, and the one after it with the actual title, all three of which were gone when I got back. If it generated a whole derailing subthread then I understand.

We could always have a new thread about what a despicable person Christie was, but I think that would just be a chorus of “I agree” posts.

A new thread about what a despicable person Christie was

You never know. You’re welcome to start one!


@zaphodbblx anonymized at user request.


I didn’t, but someone else did, and a post where I quote a New Yorker article quoting Christie was was held for moderation. I’m getting a little nervous about BB, as this is the second time in a week I’ve had trouble pointing out antisemitism.


Why? People flag posts. That doesn’t mean the mods approve them, unless you happen to believe the two primary mods (one of which has Jewish ancestry and the other has a partner of the same) have suddenly become antisemetic.

While most users flag with good intentions (and thank all of you for that), many also at least occasionally flag posts where it’s obvious they simply disagree with the position, or just dislike the poster. While this may sometimes result in temporary hiding of a post, most of the time they are disapproved by the mod team, and life goes on.

The purpose of this topic is, in part, to discuss mod decisions one may question. I’m happy to have those discussions here or in a PM if that’s more comfortable (and I’m speaking to all users, not just you!).

The mod “policy” hasn’t changed since the bbs opened, and I’ve tried very hard to be extremely consistent and transparent in my own practices in my tenure here as well.


Well, my post in the Christie thread – the one quoting the New Yorker article – was held for moderation, and that was almost immediately after a post was hidden where I objected to someone essentially doubling down on a talking point that even the Labour left has agreed is spurious and others have found offensive and even frightening. (That post is still hidden, by the way.) I don’t think you can blame me for wondering.


@socialjusticemonk anonymized at user request.


I don’t blame you, that’s why I asked :slight_smile:

Lots of automated & manual processes exist to try and catch “bad posts”, but we aren’t perfect. Please flag potentially objectionable content, and we’ll investigate. If you feel a post is wrongly acted upon (either for or against!) PM a mod or message here and we’ll happily discuss the matter.

The mods are only human, far from perfect, and subject to misunderstanding context or subtle meaning from time to time. That’s part of why I love discourse - it lets everyone help play the role of moderator by flagging posts and, where necessary, explaining the nuances of the issues with the content. (Thank you to everyone who takes the time to do that!)


It’s been my experience that some flags are based on poorly worded-framed posts and flaggers who misunderstood or reacted before fully considering posts.


We are recapitulating the dust-up in the UK Labour Party in miniature The parallel is uncanny, for anyone following that closely. The first step in solving a problem is to acknowledge that one has a problem. And that’s the last thing I’ll say publicly on the subject at this point.


@jeezers has been anonymized (by their request) after being silenced (denied posting rights) for community guideline violations, but continuing to lob insults at users and the mod team in private message for days afterwards.


@strawbale has been permanently banned for lobbing attacks at the Authors.


@PhasmaFelis suspended for 79 minutes. Mentioned Fight Club.


Harsh but… those are the rules I guess.


It is what we got.


I am Jack’s disappointment.

No, wait! I was just kidding!!


Wait, what? I just reread the full Community Guidelines and ToS (probably should get in the habbit of doing that regularly anyway) and I don’t remember anything about that topic–which for safety’s sake I will not mention.

Is this a thing or is this some kind of inside joke I’m missing?