General Moderation Topic


#120

I think he’s just having fun, at this point. I expect this comment to be deleted. C’mon live a little: disemvowel me or perform floral appliqué to my post or something new and exciting.


#121

Let him have fun if he needs it. I’m still processing the thread message that my fellow Liberals have lost their love of basic free expression. It’s heartbreaking. The Right has said it for a while, but I didn’t believe.


#122

Let’s please keep this thread on-topic for moderation. Thanks.


#123

https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/the-freq-show-feminist-frequencys-new-crowdfunded-series-about-today-s-most-pressing-social-issues/101364/45?u=emo_pinata&source_topic_id=99309
The OP of the topic says “Feminist Frequency is bad because Tropes Versus Women in Video Games is bad” and that “BoingBoing is worse for authors liking Feminist Frequency.” Then he makes exactly zero reference to any work outside Tropes Versus Women in Video Games. Then he goes on to talk about the nature of online forums themselves, and claims to regularly visit reddit and other sites without even knowing anything about GamerGate. Then he goes on to (again) criticize BoingBoing and claim that he is being unfairly targeted because we’re the close minded ones.

Using your analogy as best I can, Cory posts about liking Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the top post was “BoingBoing just looks foolish recommending a Jim Carrey vehicle because even in Liar Liar he isn’t a believable lawyer.” And then the posts become about how movie representations of lawyers should adhere to reality better with no mention about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind at all.

So I’m wondering how far does the topic need to stray off topic before it is considered off topic at all.


#124

You’re being a little selective in interpretation aren’t you?

The post has an issue with BB covering FF videos in general, then defends that the TvW videos have “a point”, but that they are, as a whole, found wanting by the OP as a whole. How is that not an on-topic critique of FF videos being discussed by BB, using TvW as an example?


#125

I covered that in my comment in it’s entirety.

He says “Feminist Frequency is bad because Tropes Versus Women in Video Games is bad”

And he says “BoingBoing is worse for authors liking Feminist Frequency”

And then he:


#126

We’re not seriously going to start suggesting every comment needs citations, right? Especially when it’s someone’s opinion? I’d have no interest in a forum like that, I might as well spend more time editing Wikipedia.

His opinion that FF videos should be covered by BB isn’t offtopic regardless of his choice of reasons (and frankly, dislike of other similar works by the host is a pretty fair justification IMHO).

I disagree with him, I’m nearly positive all the BB Authors would disagree with him, but the poster has a right to that opinion.

Th fact that the responses digressed into further discussion of the TvW videos I think has more to do with pedantic disassembly of that commenters posts than anything else.


#127

No, that’s where you went. What I said was that the topic was off the rails. It was off the rails when you first posted, and it stayed off the rails another 20 posts in.

As an aside, maybe citations should be something to talk about since this is 2 minutes early into Thunderf00t’s critique:


#128

[quote=“orenwolf, post:42, topic:101364”]
Again, I’ll note (to everyone) that this topic isn’t about one poster, or past topics. If you disagree with a reply, offer your counter argument or ignore it.
[/quote]The topic isn’t about Feminist Frequency Tropes Versus Women in Video Games either, but you let that one go.

EDIT

Fixed


#129

[quote=“emo_pinata, post:44, topic:101364, full:true”]

[quote=“orenwolf, post:42, topic:101364”]
Again, I’ll note (to everyone) that this topic isn’t about one poster, or past topics. If you disagree with a reply, offer your counter argument or ignore it.
[/quote]The topic isn’t about Feminist Frequency Tropes Versus Women in Video Games either, but you let that one go.[/quote]

Of course I did. It’s the same group. That’s like saying you can’t criticize Jim Carrey based on his other sillier works just because he did a few serious movies. You can choose to take issue with the entire body of his work based on his approach to them as an actor.

This topic isn’t about my comments either, though.


#130

That’s not what happened in this case. This is more like, “I can’t believe this website would even mention the existence of this new Jim Carrey movie! Didn’t you know he’s a lying liar who tells lies?! He even made a movie about it!”


#131

That’s something that’s said in nearly every post we’ve ever had about anything remotely controversial (just look at the uproar when we posted recent kurzgesagt videos). My moderation isn’t going to stop folks generalizing like that.

To answer your original question, if the responses to a post became nothing but a discussion about whether or not we should even consider an author or group, I’d be far more likely to split that into a new topic than to remove the discussion.


#132

I would love for there to be a general Anita Sarkeesian (or more accurately a TvWiVG) thread that you can dump those conversations into. Then the people interested in the new work she is doing can discuss that without the entire conversation focusing on a series that ended last year.


#133

You’re welcome to start one! :wink:


#134

@orenwolf, if you though dress code was worth discussing, perhaps you should have actually tried moderating the ad hominem attacks or warning the participants before closing it down. Especially after they were called to moderator attention.


#135

I do think it’s worth discussion (I commented myself), but as I said before, I’m not going to start editing comments themselves, and more than half the comments in that topic were users going at each other. So what do I do? Delete 50% of the topic? In situations like that there’s little alternative but to close the topic.

This, yet again, is why it’s important to flag and not engage.


#136

Which I did for the post I considered most egregious, after letting the previous aggressive post go. But no action was taken nor “cool it” said, making me a little regretful I didn’t respond. I know how these threads go and was being scrupulous to not be personal and only comment on the arguments.


#138

The progression of that thread was entirely predictable after the early mod intervention.

If you enforce civility of presentation without enforcing civility of content, all you do is create a safe space for minimally-disguised bastardry. A Klansman is still a Klansman even if he knows which fork to use.

We’ve all been to this rodeo before. Every Sarkeesian thread pops up on GG Google alerts, and they dispatch a few people to repeat the same tedious, disingenuous, slanderous sealioning bullshit. The level of thinly-disguised misogyny involved is usually more than would be tolerated in an analogous race or religion thread.

Recently, those threads have seen the early deployment of justified mass public scorn, which has on occasion disinfected the thread sufficiently to allow a productive conversation to arise. But that doesn’t happen when the gators are running free; few posters worth reading are willing to bother with a thread full of that crap.


Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies!
#139

Suspended @Sagoli at their request.


Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies!
#140