Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
You can’t tell me that there are no mods in here who after a bad day won’t use their position to stick it to someone on the other side.

I think I would actually. No, seriously. I can honestly say, that having spent half a decade flicking through the various odd mod actions here and there, that I don't believe that a single one of the general mods would 'use their position to stick it to someone on the other side'. They're actually not that petty. We all get a bit heated from time to time, or trip up here and there, but that tends to be reflected in arguments or tone of post; not in official moderator/disciplinary action.

You must of course, believe what you like, but let me put it like this. In this thread alone I've seen at least two cases referenced where apparently the mod team did nothing, when in actual fact, I know as a fact that they did. But because moderation on here is private, nobody but the general mods see it for the most part.

As Insaniak said above, you read stories outside of Dakka about the terrible unfairness/bias/actions taken against a (often banned) user. Then you review the case file and see exactly what happened without the internet tough guy/persecution complex/only telling it like is public persona. And (perhaps unsurprisingly), the two rarely match.

No, official disciplinary actions here are usually well warranted, and when it's a borderline case? The soft touch is preferred. Generally speaking, the mods interact with those who interact well back. People who honestly put their hands up, genuinely recognise that they were being rude/inflammatory/whatever and try not to do it again get a lot of leeway.

But then you have the people who send back sarky messages, do it another five times, insist repeatedly that it's either a) the other guy's fault, or b) everyone does it so why are they getting picked up on it (not knowing of course about messages going elsewhere), and then start the chain of ever-increasing ban lengths because they refuse to adjust their behaviour. Because they believe all the problems are on everyone else's end.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I've noticed from several threads of this nature over the years a certain degree of correlation between those people and the most vocal critics of the mod team.

This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.

Anecdotally, I've been on this site for a decade, only gotten a single warning in that time (which I 110% earned and it was well deserved) and I am definitely saying in my opinion at least the moderation has taken a turn recently. I'm not including the most recent flap that started this thread which honestly was more funny than irritating. I don't really have a dog in this fight and until recently was a huge cheerleader for the site.

I will 2nd that I had a better opinion of the moderation of this site when I was getting bans and alerts than I do now.

 Ouze wrote:
This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.

I'm not saying it is /only those people. Very explicitly not. As you say, your own record is spotless. No quarrel on that score, and the mod team does generally try and pay attention to positive constructive input from long standing members of good repute. It's where the modteam is drawn from, after all. One retires, another steps up, yadda yadda.

Ouze - Actually none of that is OK or at least, none is something we really want on this site... but trying to stop all of it while letting a political discussion continue is really difficult!

Your reaction kind of illustrates the problem with politics threads on a wargaming forum. You think more criticism of Trump's supporters should be allowed, and less against the examples you pointed out, while others feel the opposite way, and as mods we don't want any of it . It's so hard to keep emotions in check when talking about the "Big 2"' (politics and religion) especially without physical body language cues.

I'm very sorry you feel like we've got the balance wrong on that front, but in the end, like I said we don't want any of what you posted to happen - but however we come down, someone is going to feel like they got the short end of the stick! Either they person posting the borderline comparison (if we moderate it) or they person offended by it (if we don't). That's why we still seriously consider not having a politics thread at all...

 Ketara wrote:
You must of course, believe what you like, but let me put it like this. In this thread alone I've seen at least two cases referenced where apparently the mod team did nothing, when in actual fact, I know as a fact that they did. But because moderation on here is private, nobody but the general mods see it for the most part.

You know, I was re-reading what you said and I was thinking about it.

That time I did get a warning, it was for rudeness. And I was rude - super rude.

I was surprised to see that the rude comment that I left wasn't removed. And now I am seeing what you're saying about how people are perceiving that the mods do nothing but moderator actions are private and you know for sure that action was taken.

If something is said that breaks the rules and it's moderated upon, is it normal policy to leave said rule-breaking post visible? I know you won't if it's something really above and beyond like racism or what have you, but just "hey, you're a jerk blah blah blah"?

Because if you're leaving that stuff up even as the person is warned for it, and not removing it and redtexting "post removed" or some such genericness, it goes a long way towards the perception the mods are willing to let rulebreaking sometimes stand.

 RiTides wrote:
Your reaction kind of illustrates the problem with politics threads on a wargaming forum. You think more criticism of Trump's supporters should be allowed, and less against the examples you pointed out, while others feel the opposite way, and as mods we don't want any of it .

Well, not really. I know that's what I said in that thread but I know you're right, starting off on a bad foot with like 40% of the posters is not a productive way to have a discussion. It was just infuriating that there was such a (apparent) loose leash in some other threads nearly simultaneously for some really vile stuff, but it was OK when it was feminists and not republicans. At least, that was how it felt.

 Ouze wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
And now I know why. Because as said right here in this very thread, mods are under no obligation to be impartial. So they do have a licence to dick with people who’s politics they don’t like. Let them be mocked and insulted whilst hammering them over every little thing. At least now it’s being openly admitted, and I won’t feel so bad when February rolls around and I don’t renew my DCM.

That's the boat that I'm in. At this point you have a few mods that are good, most that are indifferent at best, and a few that are aggressively bad. At one point a poster repeatedly referred to this community as "pathetic incels" and that was apparently OK. It's OK to refer to feminist posters as being as bad as ISIS, and a cancer, as long as you don't also generalize about Trump voters. Unbelievable.

Yeah, the things that are sometimes allowed to stand are surprising, considering the US politics thread would get an immediate lock. Its really noticable in Geek Media atm. Feel like one specific thread in the off topic is warming up to be a real doozy too.

 Ouze wrote:

You know, I was re-reading what you said and I was thinking about it.

That time I did get a warning, it was for rudeness. And I was rude - super rude.

I was surprised to see that the rude comment that I left wasn't removed. And now I am seeing what you're saying about how people are perceiving that the mods do nothing but moderator actions are private and you know for sure that action was taken.

If something is said that breaks the rules and it's moderated upon, is it normal policy to leave said rule-breaking post visible? I know you won't if it's something really above and beyond like racism or what have you, but just "hey, you're a jerk blah blah blah"?

Because if you're leaving that stuff up even as the person is warned for it, and not removing it and redtexting "post removed" or some such genericness, it goes a long way towards the perception the mods are willing to let rulebreaking sometimes stand.

I think you'd need to ask the people who do it to get a precise answer; but my impression has always been that it varies. It varies on the offensiveness of the comment, the time the moderator has available to deal with the matter, the extent to which the comment has proliferated throughout the thread (has it been quoted ten times, etcetc). So swear filter circumvention, homophobic or anti-semitic slurs, copyright infringement and the like get nailed and purged extensively. But a backhander comment about SJW's that's been quoted ten times over eight hours before a mod got a look in? No, it probably wouldn't be. Action might be taken against one user, and if there's a lot of heat underneath it, a general message left warning people not to do it again and calm down, but the post wouldn't be deleted.


I certainly think that you are right in that it probably affects perceptions of these things.

Looks like we had a bunch of simul-posts but I was also going to say that, you can't always see when a post generates a warning, unless it requires a full in-thread warning. Something terrible being posted doesn't mean we support it, and sometimes it's too much to edit out, particularly in a big rapidly moving (and quoting) political discussion.

Anyway, not sure we'll win you over, but we certainly don't support those things you posted at the bottom of the last page. The fact that you got the impression we do just because the posts weren't all edited out makes me think maybe we really should just not have a politics thread on Dakka, as cleaning it out (including quotes) when things go awry really would be an epic undertaking

 Ouze wrote:
This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.

Anecdotally, I've been on this site for a decade, only gotten a single warning in that time (which I 110% earned and it was well deserved) and I am definitely saying in my opinion at least the moderation has taken a turn recently. I'm not including the most recent flap that started this thread which honestly was more funny than irritating. I don't really have a dog in this fight and until recently was a huge cheerleader for the site.

Have you had any issue outside of the politics thread?

I don't think it needs cleaning out. Just a more visible "this kind of language is frowned upon" statement would help. More general thread warnings always feel directed against everyone instead of the people using said language. I can't imagine the one line of red text was the only time a mod looked inside that specific thread before the lock came.

Incels and feminists have gotten wide ranging rule 1 violations without any visible warning, topics around religion as well, it’s not isolated to politics and sometimes MODs are as guilty of the violations as other users when other topics are involved.

When it comes to certain topics it seems like MODs have their own biases and sides, which is something to be expected, but it seems like sometimes these biases are reflected in their moderation. And that is not okay.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.

Anecdotally, I've been on this site for a decade, only gotten a single warning in that time (which I 110% earned and it was well deserved) and I am definitely saying in my opinion at least the moderation has taken a turn recently. I'm not including the most recent flap that started this thread which honestly was more funny than irritating. I don't really have a dog in this fight and until recently was a huge cheerleader for the site.

Have you had any issue outside of the politics thread?

Ouze's last example was from a Dakka Discussions thread at least, not the US politics one.

 RiTides wrote:
Anyway, not sure we'll win you over, but we certainly don't support those things you posted at the bottom of the last page. The fact that you got the impression we do just because the posts weren't all edited out makes me think maybe we really should just not have a politics thread on Dakka, as cleaning it out (including quotes) when things go awry really would be an epic undertaking

Yeah, I get that. I keep swinging between "being really frustrated by a few outliers I should just learn to ignore", and "remembering that when I got that Squiggoth with all the miscast chains, Insaniak is who taught me how to resculpt those chains in greenstuff".

 Frazzled wrote:
Have you had any issue outside of the politics thread?

Yes, in Geek Media and Dakka Discussions.


I kind of expect the OT to be really bad because no one wants to moderate it, and I totally understand that; imagine having a full time job doing whatever and then coming home to talk about army men and space fungus soccer hooligans and instead you have to click though a bunch of alerts from people saying Trump supporters are literally Hitler. I'd find another section of the boards to hang out in too, believe me.

The way the US currently is perma-closing the US politics thread is probably a really good idea. Either the people that hang out there will start posting h-h-hobby stuff or they will leave and either outcome is probably a net positive.

 d-usa wrote:


When it comes to certain topics it seems like MODs have their own biases and sides, which is something to be expected, but it seems like sometimes these biases are reflected in their moderation. And that is not okay.

God, yes, this. And if you have the audacity to bring this up you get labeled a problem poster, well unless you are on the special list mentioned below.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.

I'm not saying it is /only those people. Very explicitly not. As you say, your own record is spotless. No quarrel on that score, and the mod team does generally try and pay attention to positive constructive input from long standing members of good repute. It's where the modteam is drawn from, after all. One retires, another steps up, yadda yadda.

Lots of conditions there for the mod team to *maybe* pay attention to input. Legitimate question: if the "positive constructive input" came from a newer member, or a member with a track record of suspensions, would it be given any consideration? From your wording it sounds like you guys will only consider feedback from specific posters, and this thread is playing out that way too.

Just my opinion, but if there is a ban on US politics threads, how about making it a flat ban on ALL politics threads?

Because apparently US politics is too "toxic", aka people the moderators disagree with post in it, despite the fact UK politics is just as toxic.

Sorry for being so blunt, but the mod team does themselves no favours in the PR department. How the team is perceived is important and right now the mod team is not perceived well by non-mods.

I am going to agree with the previous sentiment by An Actual Englishman regarding the lack of any real alternatives as what is keeping DakkaDakka alive right now, it's the last of the old style Wargaming forums that actually means anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

Stuff

I don't really disagree with your viewpoint on the politics thread, but this was about the conduct presented in it, rather than the topic itself.

While you are in a sense correct, The mods still fall under Yakface, and this is almost certainly the exact opposite of his vision for how the community of Dakka should operate. He has said in the past that he generally favors a looser style of moderation, and that it fits the community much better than fear oriented style. Dakka is still a very welcoming and, for the most part, well moderated community that is generally open to suggestions. I feel comfortable enough here to post an issue I found with moderation, regardless if anything will be done about it. I am sorry that your past experience has caused to you to be so bitter about moderation teams, but I would like to think that the Dakka team hold itself to a higher standard.

See, I could swear that I once read Yakface (or another moderator) claiming that DakkaDakka was actually more heavily moderated and that is what people liked about it. I may have imagined it, so feel free to ignore me if I don't manage to find the snippet somewhere.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Lots of conditions there for the mod team to *maybe* pay attention to input. Legitimate question: if the "positive constructive input" came from a newer member, or a member with a track record of suspensions, would it be given any consideration? From your wording it sounds like you guys will only consider feedback from specific posters, and this thread is playing out that way too.

I hate to admit it, but generally speaking, those who've issued death threats against the mods, have three posts to their name, issued faux-legal threats, are sock puppets, and so on are sadly less well received.

There's nothing wrong with being a newer user, or making positive suggestions generally. I'm literal living proof of that, I'd only been here a year or so when I started trying to help clean up the Swapshop, and I was very well received and treated. Nobody is counting those things against you. But naturally, if someone knows the place better, or has been here longer, or has contributed more in terms of content and community spirit, or caused fewer problems needing cleaning up, has a recognisable tag, is known for being levelheaded, is polite, and so on? All of these things can add a slight touch of additional gravitas to a suggestion.

It's how things work in any community or organisation after all.

I feel I should also probably start adding the caveat here that I'm not speaking for the mod team in any official capacity, I'm not even a general moderator. Just as someone with a little more insight than the average user.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
t DakkaDakka was actually more heavily moderated and that is what people liked about it.

It depends on what you're used to. Compared to Heresy Online, this is a veritable Judge Dredd dystopia. To Warseer? Not so much.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Because as said right here in this very thread, mods are under no obligation to be impartial. So they do have a licence to dick with people who’s politics they don’t like.

Those two statements are not synonymous.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Lots of conditions there for the *maybe* pay attention to input. Legitimate question: if the "positive constructive input" came from a newer member, or a member with a track record of suspensions, would it be given any consideration? From your wording it sounds like you guys will only consider feedback from specific posters, and this thread is playing out that way too.

Only? No, we'll consider feedback from any source if it is felt to have merit. But here's the thing : a visitor to your house tells you that your house would look better painted a different colour. Are you obligated to consider that feedback if you like the house just fine the colour it is?

Now consider that two visitors have told you that your house would look better repainted.. But one of them is a long time friend who has spent time helping you build the house into what it is now, and the other has wandered in off the street, got into a fight with the first friend, and then declared that your house is the worst house in the street, that you're horrible painter, and twists your words into the worst possible interpretation and dismisses any explanation as being 'defensive'...


Whose feedback are you going to be more receptive to?

Which one am I? Actually, probably best not to answer that.

I feel like all I’ve done is poison the well a bit here.

BaconCatBug - We definitely aim for as light-handed of moderation as possible here. Whether we succeed is another matter but that's the goal!

Also, we're just frankly discussing things in here - no one would ever face any consequences for expressing disagreement with how we moderate, especially in a thread made for discussing such things like this one!

A fresh US Politics thread is open here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/758999.page

In response to feedback in this thread, I have volunteered to not participate in the discussion and posters should feel free to PM me in addition to the usual options, such as using the yellow triangle buttons.

Thanks!

Thanks for taking one for the team Manchu!

I appreciate it.

 Ouze wrote:
That's the boat that I'm in. At this point you have a few mods that are good, most that are indifferent at best, and a few that are aggressively bad. At one point a poster repeatedly referred to this community as "pathetic incels" and that was apparently OK. It's OK to refer to feminist posters as being as bad as ISIS, and a cancer, as long as you don't also generalize about Trump voters. Unbelievable.

This community, or tabletop gaming in general? Which feminist poster was called 'cancer'? As I recall, the discussion was about an idea- are we not allowed to dislike, criticize, or even ridicule ideas? The last I checked, even religion isn't a protected thing.

Let me clue you in, and help you out though: "Feminists are subhuman" is an insult, flaming, etc. Just like "Trump voters are racists". However, "Feminism's ideology is dumb" and "Republican policies are useless garbage" are not insulting people, but intangible ideas. Ideas are NOT protected.

Isn't this also the thread where you were hurling insults as well? I could be mistaken. Then again, you misrepresenting an argument is hardly a new thing, but I like to take a leap of faith and just assume you misunderstand or rush through reading things. Despite you openly making it known that you're trying to get me banned. By all means, keep at it.

Or maybe it was just an honest oversight. We'll never know, shall we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Because if you're leaving that stuff up even as the person is warned for it, and not removing it and redtexting "post removed" or some such genericness, it goes a long way towards the perception the mods are willing to let rulebreaking sometimes stand.

But kudos for pointing something like this out.

If 'Bob' is going to get red-texted for an insult, 'Jim' should as well. Or neither, and establish a criteria- red-text/remove things like slurs, outright inappropriate language and words, etc. Because an ENTIRE post was removed, only part of which could be considered insulting (and was directed at someone long overdue for my ignore list).

If I call you a poopsmith, but then go on to explain how to remove mold lines with an old spoon... probably makes sense to remove only the offending part of the text.

That’s pretty decent of you Manchu.

P.S: I feel like I’ve been a bit of a dick, having a go at the staff. I think I’ve let a minor misunderstanding snowball into an unnecessary grudge. And not for the first time either.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That’s pretty decent of you Manchu.

P.S: I feel like I’ve been a bit of a dick, having a go at the staff. I think I’ve let a minor misunderstanding snowball into an unnecessary grudge. And not for the first time either.

All of the staff here I've had a discrete 'go' with knows where I stand. I'm never one to drag them out or name specifics, or even try to discuss actions openly (thought I've done it here, figured it was the place).

Not sure if the solution is to add more moderators or review some of the moderation policies. If it were my site to run, I'd go with a little of both. But that's not my call.

I cant say that I personally have ever really had a major problem with the mods here and Ive been in all sorts of arguments and locked threads and whatnot. No, theyre not perfect, but theyre pretty damn good here. OT appears to generate and drive a majority of the mod action and backlash. Thinga could be a whole lot worse, witness how the Reddit warhammer subreddit allowed itself to be strangled to death by its abusive mods for years until user activity basically collapsed and they had to reboot the whole thing. I think Manchu's route here was well thought out, and I think overall the mods on Dakka do their job well.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Things could be a whole lot worse, witness how the Reddit warhammer subreddit allowed itself to be strangled to death by its abusive mods for years until user activity basically collapsed and they had to reboot the whole thing.

You mean the Subreddit where you could get your peepee slapped for doing something as simple as saying you didn't like a model, or had anything other than praise for other members' ideas? I remember people got banned for absurd things. It was during 7th Edition, I think- and people would go on about how great other editions were and you'd get kicked for even asking if they played that edition.

I still don't understand the problem here.

If you don't like it, leave.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I still don't understand the problem here.

If you don't like it, leave.

I think a lot of this would be better discussed privately. But then again, it seems like it's where some folks are electing to air dirty laundry. Sometimes people have to make a little noise to make a few changes. Sometimes private talks stay private and resolutions aren't met, or maybe folks may think that way.

TBH, "if you don't like it, leave" would be a great idea for some folks. Though forums do that, there's an exodus at a certain point and it just makes a rift.

Given the specific issue in this case has been resolved, at least for the time being, I am going to lock the thread. If anyone has other specific issues about the moderation, please feel free to start another N&B thread. Thanks!