Current Events > What if moderations had to be overturned if the mod failed to address the real..

(+) Yeah! (+)

... reason that your post was deleted?

Like say you made an offensive post about Muslims, and the mod said "Please do not make offensive statements about race." But Islam is a religion, not a race.

I know it can't be this way, because the purpose of mods and having posts modded is so the site can function the way it is intended to, so it doesn't necessarily matter if the mod knows WHY your post was offensive, as long as the offensive post was deleted.

Obviously, I don't think someone should be able to get away with making an offensive statement about Islam on this site. But it's just a cool thought, I think, if mods were held more accountable, and had to know WHY a message was being modded for it to be counted as a valid moderation.

In fact, this is the way our court system works. If it is proven in court that police obtained evidence illegally, that evidence is no longer permissible for that trial. Even if it is direct proof of murder.

Maybe don't say offensive things about race or religion then. Really weird this is the kind of hill you want to die on.

---

That would be too hard for them.

I tried with my last moderation and Ive still yet to really understand why I was modded, and why it warranted a warning. Buuuut thats life here and you just gotta play the game.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Maybe don't say offensive things about race or religion then. Really weird this is the kind of hill you want to die on.

You didn't read my whole post. Or if you did, you ignored a vital part of it.

Obviously, I don't think someone should be able to get away with making an offensive statement about Islam on this site.

tag

---

You seem to want to get off scot free for making offensive posts about muslim because the mod used the wrong wording in their description.

---

it would be simple to do this in a way that would improve moderation policy.

force every moderation to be evaluated by an admin.

they won't do it though.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

You seem to want to get off scot free for making offensive posts about muslim because the mod used the wrong wording in their description.

I don't have a moderation in my history where this could be the case. Yet you are again ignoring the crucial part of my initial post:

Obviously, I don't think someone should be able to get away with making an offensive statement about Islam on this site.

JustMyOpinion posted...

Honestly, just shut the fuck up and obey the rules.

There aren't any rules, really, just a sort of Miller Test standard.

Some of the funniest posts are offensive. People these days are just sensitive and weak.

Then why are you suggesting that perfectly fair mods be overtuned because the mod made a tiny mistake in the mod reasoning? The only reason anyone would suggest this is because they got fairly modded, but want to play semantics instead.

---

JustMyOpinion posted...

Honestly, just shut the fuck up and obey the rules.

I will not shut up because I'm not breaking the rules. I'm not even talking about a post in my moderation history. I am simply proposing a hypothetical scenario where mods would be required to delete messages in an intelligent manner, rather than haphazardly. You ignored a vital part of my OP, just like Tmaster.

Tmaster148 posted...

Then why are you suggesting that perfectly fair mods be overtuned because the mod made a tiny mistake in the mod reasoning? The only reason anyone would suggest this is because they got fairly modded, but want to play semantics instead.

That's the ONLY reason? There can't possibly be another? Like maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Therefore, I made this topic because I knew there'd be other people who agree.

Honestly, just shut the fuck up and obey the rules.

lol

---

Why would you want a moderation being offensive towards muslims overtuned because the reasoning used the wrong word when anyone with half a brain would understand the context? Sounds like you just want to shitpost about muslims and then hope you get to play semantics.

---

Tmaster is mad because some people possess an ability which he lacks -- that is the ability to discuss hypotheticals. Not unusual for people who lack imagination to be unable to comprehend the idea that other people do have one. I'll pay closer attention to your posts in the future and see if this "everything is black and white" is a trend in your thought behavior.

Wewillrocku posted...

lol

What are you laughing about? I already shut his post down.

I wouldn't take Tmaster seriously at all. He takes any chance he gets to tell you you're wrong against the mods unless the people getting modded are the usual suspect group.

---

The only black and white thought process is the one where you think an offensive post should be overturned because of semantics.

---

Ic3Bullet posted...

What are you laughing about? I already shut his post down.

that user posts that exact sentence in every topic about moderations. they mad.

---

JustMyOpinion posted...

Did you read my post? Was it not clear? Because you're not shutting up from what I see. Do that and obey all the rules in the future, kid.

Look. This is me not shutting up. I'm not going to shut up, because I don't have to, because I'm not breaking any rules. You have no ability to make me shut up. If I'm wrong, and you CAN make me shut up somehow, then please do. I challenge you. But that will be a challenge unfulfilled because you literally possess no power to make me shut up. You can't even have this post deleted because there's not a TOU violation in it. And for the last time, THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE OF MY OWN MODERATIONS.

I'm not breaking the rules. I don't have to shut up, and you can't make me shut up. I bet that makes you steaming mad, doesn't it?

What a meltdown in post 23.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

What a meltdown in post 23.

Not a TOU violation to have a meltdown. Since you can't be correct about anything else in this topic, that's the subject you had to avert to.

Conflict posted...

Congratulations, you gave him exactly what he was looking for with this temper tantrum

What he wanted was for me to shut up, which I'm still not doing.

Stop feeding into the usual suspect's trolling tactics LMAO.

---

What a fucking stupid idea. Let an offensive racist/stereotyping/etc post stay up just because a mod used the wrong word in the explanation to the user.

---

I would argue that a user who continuously argues against a moderation because of semantic reasons like "Islam is not a race!" or "She's 15, so that's ephebophilia and not pedophilia!", their moderation should automatically be increased to a suspension.

---

Error1355 posted...

What a fucking stupid idea. Let an offensive racist/stereotyping/etc post stay up just because a mod used the wrong word in the explanation to the user.

You didn't read my whole post.

Obviously, I don't think someone should be able to get away with making an offensive statement about Islam on this site.

and...

I know it can't be this way, because the purpose of mods and having posts modded is so the site can function the way it is intended to, so it doesn't necessarily matter if the mod knows WHY your post was offensive, as long as the offensive post was deleted.

BUT the majority of the users on this site agree that you are one of the less competent moderators on this site. So nobody will be surprised to see that you don't bother to read/comprehend posts before responding to them. You have a reputation for unfairly moderating users' posts for that same reason. This topic is about mods like you.

Musourenka posted...

I would argue that a user who continuously argues against a moderation because of semantic reasons like "Islam is not a race!" or "She's 15, so that's ephebophilia and not pedophilia!", their moderation should automatically be increased to a suspension.

Or just, you know, add "ephebophilia" and maybe also "blasphemy" to the naughty list.

JustMyOpinion posted...

If you can't even coherently present your idea without having a melty, then your idea probably isn't worth investing in.

Yet you have made counter arguments to zero of my specific statements ITT.

Musourenka posted...

I would argue that a user who continuously argues against a moderation because of semantic reasons like "Islam is not a race!" or "She's 15, so that's ephebophilia and not pedophilia!", their moderation should automatically be increased to a suspension.

I used an extreme example to make a point. There are less extreme examples of this happening, which is why I'm proposing the hypothetical where it would be cool if mods had to know why something was a TOU violation in order for the moderation to be valid. Once again....

Obviously, I don't think someone should be able to get away with making an offensive statement about Islam on this site.

TC sure does sound like someone who is upset over a moderation.

---

What if I misspell a word in my explanation? Should the whole thing be thrown out?

---

Conflict posted...

"Majority of the users on this site" lol

What? He one time deleted a guy's message because the poster called a pro wrestler by a name that he didn't recognize. After the poster proved that name WAS a valid name for that wrestler, he not only continued to uphold the moderation, but refused to acknowledge or understand what he was doing wrong. People have been complaining about this guy abusing his power for years.

Ranting Nord posted...

What if I misspell a word in my explanation? Should the whole thing be thrown out?

Ahem....

I know it can't be this way, because the purpose of mods and having posts modded is so the site can function the way it is intended to, so it doesn't necessarily matter if the mod knows WHY your post was offensive, as long as the offensive post was deleted.

But it's just a cool thought, I think, if mods were held more accountable, and had to know WHY a message was being modded for it to be counted as a valid moderation.

Tmaster148 posted...

Maybe don't say offensive things about race or religion then.

I'm not racist, I just don't like certain people because of their race


---

Lol you can talk shit on Christianity or any other religion, but Islam is off limits eh.

---

Ic3Bullet posted...

What? He one time deleted a guy's message because the poster called a pro wrestler by a name that he didn't recognize. After the poster proved that name WAS a valid name for that wrestler, he not only continued to uphold the moderation, but refused to acknowledge or understand what he was doing wrong. People have been complaining about this guy abusing his power for years.

I have zero memory of such an event, any more context to give?

Was the name something offensive? Was the moderation off-topic?

...Are you upset over an off-topic moderation from years ago?

Need some info here duder.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

The only black and white thought process is the one where you think an offensive post should be overturned because of semantics.

Basically.

The premise of this thread is not based in reality.

---

Ok I'll bite. Yes it would be great if it was this way. But it's not. Echo chamber achieved.

---

Ic3Bullet posted...

Ahem....

Mixing up race and religion in the explanation of an offensive post still means the mod knows why you were moderated. At the core of the issue a poster made an offensive post, which was appropriately marked by the the users and then moderated as an offensive post. What sort of discipline do you think the moderator would suffer?

---

Conflict posted...

Do you even have evidence that it was him in charge of that moderation

Not anymore, unfortunately. But he and the user that got modded were in an argument about it on this board. During that conversation Error denied none of it -- continued to affirm it, in fact, and proceeded to just make dismissive "LOL" comments every time someone called out his behavior about the ordeal.

Error1355 posted...

Was the name something offensive?

I doubt it. I remember the specific reasoning for you deleting it had to do with you thinking the poster was misleading others by calling him the wrong name. He proved the name wasn't wrong, yet out of pride you would not acknowledge that it was an unfair moderation.

Funny, I don't see any of the users that agree with TC

---