traed said: Even if it becomes off topic from the other person leading it off? The person who starts it is at fault yeah. I said preferred because like I said the rule seems redundant of the intent of a similar rule before it. If it's enforced it should only be if the title is obviously misleading. You can't expect everyone would see a moderately biased title as biased or clickbait automatically. I do occasionally see articles using titles that don't even describe the event at all though because they tried to be caitchy or cute or edgey which seems more common on good sources than excessively biased clickbait. Yeah, we'll just have to see how this goes. If it becomes an issue, we'll have to change things. Well if you're not changing it to a black list at the moment at least white list sites for major cities and have some broad sweeping ones such as allowing all local sites of major news sites without having to list them individually although some fake ones might exist but that is unlikely because using a trademarked and copyrighted brand risks them of being sued. Also the rules don't state what happens if a user uses a source that isn't always reliable but backs it up with another source that is very reliable. Also I hope the focus is accuracy of reporting rather than bias since there are no unbiased sources just more or less bias. Also users should be able to use sites not white listed if they or a mod can show some reason it's a good source since you couldn't expect to have a full list right away and it would seem ridiculous for users with good sources not white listed to get same treatment as users using sites that would have been blacklisted. There is one issue I forgot to mention. Sometimes on occasion I make a thread in CE with a questionable source or a source I can't find info on and can't find it mentioned on other sites and ask users if so and so actually took place. The new rules make it so that can't be done by anyone. Only the controversial stories need these proper sources. I know it might weed out some good things, but that's something that's unavoidable. We ofc want to lower the collateral damage as much as possible, but time will tell how things go. I don't see how. Reporting on racist events is in no way the same as reporting something with intent of supporting racism or being outright racist. If that is how it's enforced it silences the existence of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, religious bigotry and so on which plays in to the hands of bigots to shelter them from any disapproval and social accountability. So if we had a massive genocide MALs stance is to silence it like it never happened? So reporting terrorist attacks are also banned now even if the OP doesn't generalize a race or religion? If it's enforced like that then that's the most absurdist rule yet and has a pro right wing extremist bias. I hope that's not the case. I understand your point, but this is one website. We aren't the entire internet. Reporting on things like terrorist attacks is allowed. This is one of the examples that we felt even though controversial, has to be allowed to report about. It falls under rule 7, but it is of significance. So if you source a good site, it's fine to post. We'll have to keep a close eye on it to keep the "you know who I'm talking about here" comments about immigrants and whatever out. I would think it's possible to write a code that deletes all instances of a post you delete so long as the post ID number exists in the quote. That would have to be tested and perfected because if it is buggy it would be a disaster. Sounds like a really cool feature, but we don't get much dev time for modding tools. We've been begging for a better ban system and tons of other things forever now :/ Yes but many people agreeing aren't seeing the flaws and are only agreeing to the general premise especially if they focus on it banning people who opposes their views. You saw that already with Nyu who is a major offender of these new rules agreeing to the rules not realizing it effects him. Though he's a bad example really but point is some people are just giving their knee jerk reaction not a thought out analyses and critique like I'm trying to do and a few others may be trying to do though I seem to be going into most detail but I haven't been reading every post. But to make such a thread would require a current event with new info on a subject or at least an article with an op-ed which is no older than two weeks so it's not far off from entirely banned which btw the rules seem to leave how an op-ed can be used so idk if that's not allowed now. A lot of people don't think things through, sure. I also see a lot of mindless hate for the new rules from people who I expected nothing less from. I am glad that you're at least having a proper discussion and are actively trying to get the best for the site. I do appreciate that. But how is liability of rule violations judged? Like I pointed out earlier sometimes how the OP is written influences responses. Shouldn't one at least wait for first few responses to get an idea of what kind of reaction people have to a thread if it isn't blatantly trollish or agressively hateful? Some topics don't get discussed often and on rare occasions topics never spoken of before can appear. You can have people be civil about really controversial topics or really agressive with really mundane topics. Like one could make people lose their shit over waifu tastes or taste in food or music if you call them as having shit tastes and being a sicko or a psycho although i suppose that violates older rules as is. Yeah like you said that already breaks existing rules. As for what incited trolling, we added: "This includes, but is not limited to, topics relating to: gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, abortion, sexual assault, immigration, hate groups, political ideologies, controversial public figures/leaders, etc." I know people can discuss these things civilly, but unfortunately it seems the average user here can not. It's gotten out of hand and something had to be done. Never seen that before on any site that I recall but it's possible to do but I imagine it would be buggy. Besides that you could copy and post the whole group of quotes and then get out of quick reply go to normal reply page post it then hit preview to help with finding things within by using "find" in your browser of series of words you're locating. Too much effort :P So I think for now we should wait and see how things go. Keep an eye on the good and the bad. Things that break rules but might be good are something we'll be keeping an eye on too to see if we need to loosen up on the rules. |
Ardanaz said: Yeah, we'll just have to see how this goes. If it becomes an issue, we'll have to change things. Alright Only the controversial stories need these proper sources. I know it might weed out some good things, but that's something that's unavoidable. We ofc want to lower the collateral damage as much as possible, but time will tell how things go. Not everyone views the same things as controversial in a bad way so that has to be kept in mind there are grey zones. And again that goes back to how are sources picked to be white listed? Has it not been fully thought out and agreed on yet? Since all you said before is how there are a lot of available sources to check what sites are good. I understand your point, but this is one website. We aren't the entire internet. Reporting on things like terrorist attacks is allowed. This is one of the examples that we felt even though controversial, has to be allowed to report about. It falls under rule 7, but it is of significance. So if you source a good site, it's fine to post. We'll have to keep a close eye on it to keep the "you know who I'm talking about here" comments about immigrants and whatever out. And it's not the only anime list site so if rules are too strict or difficult to follow there will be people that will leave and/or less new people will not show up. In turn cutting funds to keep the site from expanding or in case of an extreme even running. There are at least two others. So it's important for users and Xinil and whoever else has stake in the site to get it right. Then that falls back on how is significance determined? Since sometimes the smallest events have the biggest significance. There has to be an actual guidline. You couldn't expect everyone to just ask a mod first before every thread they make and all that does is push the question away from the user to the moderators to ask themselves and to act even then would require an answer to that question still. Although yeah sure making a general guidline can't be all encompassing so point is it should ve treated as such with grey zones so people have some wiggle room for judgement of individual events in some way. Also it said something about unexpected events. Again what is even considered unexpected needs to be somehow explained. Different people can interpret that totally differently from differing expectations. I would think it's possible to write a code that deletes all instances of a post you delete so long as the post ID number exists in the quote. That would have to be tested and perfected because if it is buggy it would be a disaster. Sounds like a really cool feature, but we don't get much dev time for modding tools. We've been begging for a better ban system and tons of other things forever now :/ Well if it did become possible on second thought it replacing the text with a message how it was a quote of a deleted post might be better since a quote dissapearing with no context would screw up how posts are interpreted. Though it probably wouldn't work well I imagine if someone messes up quotes and leaves a quote opened their reply would be wiped out by mistake. I guess I didn't think that through enough. So just highlighting those posts for mods would be smarter. A lot of people don't think things through, sure. I also see a lot of mindless hate for the new rules from people who I expected nothing less from. I am glad that you're at least having a proper discussion and are actively trying to get the best for the site. I do appreciate that. Yes both exist. I sort of implied that somewhere iirc but I am a bit ill and have been drinking so I may be imagining that. Yeah like you said that already breaks existing rules. As for what incited trolling, we added: "This includes, but is not limited to, topics relating to: gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, abortion, sexual assault, immigration, hate groups, political ideologies, controversial public figures/leaders, etc." I know people can discuss these things civilly, but unfortunately it seems the average user here can not. It's gotten out of hand and something had to be done. Well a user certainly can bait with those but I wouldn't say all instances should be automatically considered inciting of rule violations. That makes it sound like blaming the users who brought such sibjects up. Kind of comparable to victim blaming. Different users are set off by different things. If a user hates a particular user no matter what thwy post any post they make would be inciting to the user that hates them. While that doesn't break rules to have enemies on the site it uses a similar logic in a way. It's a bit hard to put into words though. Just seems a little too broad. You yourself did say there are some topics that are exceptions although in different wording. I wouldn't say average user. I mean that makes it sound like they are a majority but most users just leave one to two or three posts in a thread and even if they aren't good at discussion and act overly emotional they at least don't try to start anything with other users...although that's more a feeling. I didn't try to keep stats. So I think for now we should wait and see how things go. Keep an eye on the good and the bad. Things that break rules but might be good are something we'll be keeping an eye on too to see if we need to loosen up on the rules. Does that mean that some rule breaking threads will be left alone if they don't seem bad or they will be unlocked later after discussion among mods or based on how users rwact? |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Clebardman said: Woaw, you're not allowed to race/gender bait on MAL anymore? *Claps really hard* I can't wait to read further down that thread and read all the ancap/alt-right posters whining about their "free speech" (read: right to be an ass withoutconsequences) being taken Good thing, thx mods. It includes much more than just minority baiting and hate threads though. At least in the way this role is worded at the moment. They should seriously consider rewording this rule to something that makes sense. Majority of all discourse that spawns debate can be interpreted as social issues, and whatever is highly debated or not changes on time, place and so on, hence is forbidden under part b. This makes cd not fitting anymore for almost any serious discussion. And I am pretty sure many people like myself sees that as main appeal of CD, especially considering that MAL has many really smart individuals like yourself or traed. The problems is not the rule itself but vague wording of it which might mislead many people across MAL. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
| Buddy, look on the bright side - any of these mods aren't me. If I were mod or an admin I would have burnt this place to the ground. :) |
  xx0:44 ─🔘────────────── 04:44x ◀ xxxxxxxxx ❚❚ xxxxxxxxx ►xxxx |
Lunafleurette said: Buddy, look on the bright side - any of these mods aren't me. If I were mod or an admin I would have burnt this place to the ground. :) Wouldn't that be a good thing though? |
 |
| @GhostOutOfShell thanks, but I'm not especially proud of my posting history here, and I more or less stopped posting because of the amount of smartass incels and other dishonest nazi supporters who veil their insults and hide behind forum rules. I'd say ban them all and lets talk about anime a bit. I'll be chilling in the anime/manga suggestions subforum, dun wanna get caught in the incoming purge >_> @traed we'll see how it goes. CD and CE need a big, unsubtle fix, and collateral damage is inevitable. |
DeathkoApr 28, 2018 10:36 AM
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
Clebardman said: @GhostOutOfShell thanks, but I'm not especially proud of my posting history here, and I more or less stopped posting because of the amount of smartass incels and other dishonest nazi supporters who veil their insults and hide behind forum rules. From what i remember it was always a pleasure to exchange few forums posts with you. I honestly only use mal because of people i met here, haven't watched anime in quite a while. From what I observer lately there are a lot of people pushing far right agenda here, though people like Nyu are very easy to debate with. I remember back in the day we had people like IhmaNoob that had at least some argumentation skills. I'd say ban them all and lets talk about anime a bit. I'll be chilling in the anime/manga suggestions subforum, dun wanna get caught in the incoming purge >_> That's the real solution for this problem, it's stupid when mods lock topics for trolling, racist bating and so on while leaving people who actually moved conversation there with their hate speech unpunished. I will test my luck, hopefully will not get purged any time soon, I mean I did nothing against comrade Stalin. ^^ |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
| So not only did the mod team give up on doing actual moderation where they single out posts and users and punish them individually, they also don't enforce the destructive rules that they set properly. Then MAL needs more manpower for that I don't expect them to delete and ban users individually where 80% of CD are either clickbaits or shitposting with 13 forum moderators and it's not like CD is the only one that has this problem, it's more extreme here. People argue without reaching any conclusion and it starts an all out war, if only people would argue peacefully and civilly but they are too stubborn with their ideals for that. Sure you could say mods are lazy but even so this is called casual discussion for a reason I don't know why people are so interested on making controversial and sensitive topics which would very well start a shit storm. |
  |
traed said: Not everyone views the same things as controversial in a bad way so that has to be kept in mind there are grey zones. And again that goes back to how are sources picked to be white listed? Has it not been fully thought out and agreed on yet? Since all you said before is how there are a lot of available sources to check what sites are good. Gray zones exist everywhere though. That's why we have a team to discuss things. We haven't made a specific list, just require the site to be unbiased. There are plenty of ways to check whether the site you find something interesting on is biased or not. We have not made an exact list of sites as that would take forever. I don't know what more you want to hear from me about this tbh. And it's not the only anime list site so if rules are too strict or difficult to follow there will be people that will leave and/or less new people will not show up. In turn cutting funds to keep the site from expanding or in case of an extreme even running. There are at least two others. So it's important for users and Xinil and whoever else has stake in the site to get it right. Then that falls back on how is significance determined? Since sometimes the smallest events have the biggest significance. There has to be an actual guidline. You couldn't expect everyone to just ask a mod first before every thread they make and all that does is push the question away from the user to the moderators to ask themselves and to act even then would require an answer to that question still. Although yeah sure making a general guidline can't be all encompassing so point is it should ve treated as such with grey zones so people have some wiggle room for judgement of individual events in some way. Also it said something about unexpected events. Again what is even considered unexpected needs to be somehow explained. Different people can interpret that totally differently from differing expectations. I understand that, but lately this place has been MyPoliticsList, so we'll see what the effects will be. We have some internal guidelines to determine significance, but I have no idea why the hell we aren't adding those to the rules for everyone to see. I'll ask about that. Well if it did become possible on second thought it replacing the text with a message how it was a quote of a deleted post might be better since a quote dissapearing with no context would screw up how posts are interpreted. Though it probably wouldn't work well I imagine if someone messes up quotes and leaves a quote opened their reply would be wiped out by mistake. I guess I didn't think that through enough. So just highlighting those posts for mods would be smarter. Would be sweet Well a user certainly can bait with those but I wouldn't say all instances should be automatically considered inciting of rule violations. That makes it sound like blaming the users who brought such sibjects up. Kind of comparable to victim blaming. Different users are set off by different things. If a user hates a particular user no matter what thwy post any post they make would be inciting to the user that hates them. While that doesn't break rules to have enemies on the site it uses a similar logic in a way. It's a bit hard to put into words though. Just seems a little too broad. You yourself did say there are some topics that are exceptions although in different wording. I wouldn't say average user. I mean that makes it sound like they are a majority but most users just leave one to two or three posts in a thread and even if they aren't good at discussion and act overly emotional they at least don't try to start anything with other users...although that's more a feeling. I didn't try to keep stats. Too many people can't handle it. We remove posts and ban people and 5 new people jump on it for the same reasons. It feels like this:  Does that mean that some rule breaking threads will be left alone if they don't seem bad or they will be unlocked later after discussion among mods or based on how users rwact? Not sure. I can't speak for the whole team. We'll have to discuss that. |
I'm all for Rule #7. The only people whining about it under the guise of "lack of free speech" are the racist and homophobic incels who can't vomit their hatred in the forums any more. |
  |
alias08 said: The Name is absolutely unfit for the Job Description. You wouldn't expect a TV Moderator to only step in to admonish People when they break Rules or to just post their own Opinion at best and leave away. There is no Focus on guiding Discussions.Then MAL needs more manpower for that I don't expect them to delete and ban users individually where 80% of CD are either clickbaits or shitposting with 13 forum moderators and it's not like CD is the only one that has this problem, it's more extreme here. In MAL's Case, it's even worse, since "Forum" Moderators also have to be idle on IRC as much as possible and deal with Ban Queries + Account Problems there and have to also make sure that the IRC stays clean. Not sure about the official Discord Chat, but I can imagine that there also have to be "Moderators" there to filter the Content that goes against the Rules. SpongySquish said: "casual" is rather subjective. I could "casually" talk about many Topics, since I'm fairly open-minded. This is a casual discussion. So we should discuss over casual things rather than heavy controversial and possibly offensive topics. If there has been a Problem with "heavy controversial and possibly offensive" Topics, then it's not just the Fault of the Topics and the ones who create them/post Posts with such Content, but also the Fault of those, who get provoked that easily. It takes at least two to continue a heated Conversation. Just because something was perceived to be heated, it doesn't mean that someone else has to add Fuel to the (perceived) Fire. At this Point, I'll have to put a short Disclaimer, since what is considered "controversial" and/or "offensive" for one User could be considered perfectly normal for another one. Instead of complaining about "baitish" Topics, one could simply not reply there. Or at least not to the "baitish" Parts or at the very least, one could stay calm. After All, Words only have as much Power as you give them. Of Course, you should be allowed and able to say something to criticize what others have written, but it should be ideally in a civil and "matter-of-factly" Manner. It's because the Reactions are that strong that a Topic can get "toxic". Like some People take Things way too personal and are unable to follow the Discussions, while those, initiating those Conversations by having posted their "heavy controversial and possible offensive" Topics and/or Postings, tend to have their own Glasses through which they regard the World. Now when someone comes and reacts strongly to something, they don't tend to follow the Discussions. The ones who had posted their "controversial" Postings might get the Impression that the other Party simply didn't understand them, so they attempt to explain it again and again, which in Turn infuriates the other Party even further. To get out of those Deadlocks where one gets triggered that much and the other simply wanted to express his Standpoint as clear as possible is one of the Situation where active Moderation would be needed. Instead of just admonishing People and/or deleting Content, one could try to act as a Middleman between both arguing Sides. |
| @Nooboru I'd agree with you to some extent, but then there's smartasses who test the limits of rules. If the mods forbid me to smack them verbally, then they should deal with them. Lets be honest, the whole "Him saying transexuals are abominations and degenerates is an opinion, you calling him a piece of shit is a direct insult. Eat a ban, sorry, that's the rules" moderation was baffling, and lots of users here abused it as much as they could. Is this a step in the best direction possible? Probably not, but it's still better than leaving these subforums like this. |
DeathkoApr 28, 2018 2:47 PM
Prophetess of the Golden Era |
| Come on people the new rule is so much fun. At least i'm enjoying it. |
 |
nicethings said: Clebardman said: Lets be honest, the whole "Him saying transexuals are abominations and degenerates is an opinion, you calling him a piece of shit is a direct insult. Eat a ban, sorry, that's the rules" moderation was baffling, and lots of users here abused it as much as they could. Is this a step in the best direction possible? Probably not, but it's still better than leaving these subforums like this. I remember those types of rulings, the “i won’t ban the Nazis but I’ll ban people who insult or dare to post rebuttals against the Nazis” clause. Not gonna lie, I wouldn't want their place. Just thinking about how horrible the ban system is here, I get a headache. They're not payed, they're the only ones to take the blame when something sucks, and I suspect the owners of this place subtly tell them to go back to IRC when they ask for some interface upgrades. Swagernator said: Come on people the new rule is so much fun. At least i'm enjoying it. Making that report button overheat? Damn, I knew I should have stayed out of CE for a while :'^) |
Prophetess of the Golden Era |
Clebardman said: There may be Users like that, but the Problem is that there has to be Proof for it. And there's still "in dubio pro reo": when in Doubt, for the Accused. That's one of the most basic Principles for any Law and Justice System.I'd agree with you to some extent, but then there's smartasses who test the limits of rules. If the mods forbid me to smack them verbally, then they should deal with them. Instead of "smacking" those "smartasses" verbally, there is the Option to try to convince them, to leave it be when you recognize that your Words cannot reach them and to simply post your Opinion where you state that you don't agree with them and leave it at that. nicethings said: There is no Rule forbidding to be a "Nazi". One cannot break a Rule just by having a completely different Mindset. We haven't reached Thought Crimes yet.I remember those types of rulings, the “i won’t ban the Nazis but I’ll ban people who insult or dare to post rebuttals against the Nazis” clause. |
NoboruApr 28, 2018 3:03 PM
Swagernator said: Come on people the new rule is so much fun. At least i'm enjoying it. Of course you would. You never had a real opinion, so it's only natural you'd condone the rule. Sonal1988 said: I'm all for Rule #7. The only people whining about it under the guise of "lack of free speech" are the racist and homophobic incels who can't vomit their hatred in the forums any more. I'm neither. But I'm something else you may hate equally: A great proponent of clarity. Even if nothing bad would ever come out this rule, I would still be against it for the sole reason that it is ambiguous and allows for any interpretation the enforcer chooses. |
Clebardman said: Swagernator said: Come on people the new rule is so much fun. At least i'm enjoying it. Making that report button overheat? Damn, I knew I should have stayed out of CE for a while :'^) I knew they gonna rat on me for that! Thanakos said: Of course you would. You never had a real opinion, so it's only natural you'd condone the rule. Oh dont you worry my dude, mods knows my opinions and that all that matters in discussions ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) |
|
Ardanaz said: traed said: Even if it becomes off topic from the other person leading it off? The person who starts it is at fault yeah. I said preferred because like I said the rule seems redundant of the intent of a similar rule before it. If it's enforced it should only be if the title is obviously misleading. You can't expect everyone would see a moderately biased title as biased or clickbait automatically. I do occasionally see articles using titles that don't even describe the event at all though because they tried to be caitchy or cute or edgey which seems more common on good sources than excessively biased clickbait. Yeah, we'll just have to see how this goes. If it becomes an issue, we'll have to change things. Well if you're not changing it to a black list at the moment at least white list sites for major cities and have some broad sweeping ones such as allowing all local sites of major news sites without having to list them individually although some fake ones might exist but that is unlikely because using a trademarked and copyrighted brand risks them of being sued. Also the rules don't state what happens if a user uses a source that isn't always reliable but backs it up with another source that is very reliable. Also I hope the focus is accuracy of reporting rather than bias since there are no unbiased sources just more or less bias. Also users should be able to use sites not white listed if they or a mod can show some reason it's a good source since you couldn't expect to have a full list right away and it would seem ridiculous for users with good sources not white listed to get same treatment as users using sites that would have been blacklisted. There is one issue I forgot to mention. Sometimes on occasion I make a thread in CE with a questionable source or a source I can't find info on and can't find it mentioned on other sites and ask users if so and so actually took place. The new rules make it so that can't be done by anyone. Only the controversial stories need these proper sources. I know it might weed out some good things, but that's something that's unavoidable. We ofc want to lower the collateral damage as much as possible, but time will tell how things go. I don't see how. Reporting on racist events is in no way the same as reporting something with intent of supporting racism or being outright racist. If that is how it's enforced it silences the existence of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, religious bigotry and so on which plays in to the hands of bigots to shelter them from any disapproval and social accountability. So if we had a massive genocide MALs stance is to silence it like it never happened? So reporting terrorist attacks are also banned now even if the OP doesn't generalize a race or religion? If it's enforced like that then that's the most absurdist rule yet and has a pro right wing extremist bias. I hope that's not the case. I understand your point, but this is one website. We aren't the entire internet. Reporting on things like terrorist attacks is allowed. This is one of the examples that we felt even though controversial, has to be allowed to report about. It falls under rule 7, but it is of significance. So if you source a good site, it's fine to post. We'll have to keep a close eye on it to keep the "you know who I'm talking about here" comments about immigrants and whatever out. I would think it's possible to write a code that deletes all instances of a post you delete so long as the post ID number exists in the quote. That would have to be tested and perfected because if it is buggy it would be a disaster. Sounds like a really cool feature, but we don't get much dev time for modding tools. We've been begging for a better ban system and tons of other things forever now :/ Yes but many people agreeing aren't seeing the flaws and are only agreeing to the general premise especially if they focus on it banning people who opposes their views. You saw that already with Nyu who is a major offender of these new rules agreeing to the rules not realizing it effects him. Though he's a bad example really but point is some people are just giving their knee jerk reaction not a thought out analyses and critique like I'm trying to do and a few others may be trying to do though I seem to be going into most detail but I haven't been reading every post. But to make such a thread would require a current event with new info on a subject or at least an article with an op-ed which is no older than two weeks so it's not far off from entirely banned which btw the rules seem to leave how an op-ed can be used so idk if that's not allowed now. A lot of people don't think things through, sure. I also see a lot of mindless hate for the new rules from people who I expected nothing less from. I am glad that you're at least having a proper discussion and are actively trying to get the best for the site. I do appreciate that. But how is liability of rule violations judged? Like I pointed out earlier sometimes how the OP is written influences responses. Shouldn't one at least wait for first few responses to get an idea of what kind of reaction people have to a thread if it isn't blatantly trollish or agressively hateful? Some topics don't get discussed often and on rare occasions topics never spoken of before can appear. You can have people be civil about really controversial topics or really agressive with really mundane topics. Like one could make people lose their shit over waifu tastes or taste in food or music if you call them as having shit tastes and being a sicko or a psycho although i suppose that violates older rules as is. Yeah like you said that already breaks existing rules. As for what incited trolling, we added: "This includes, but is not limited to, topics relating to: gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, abortion, sexual assault, immigration, hate groups, political ideologies, controversial public figures/leaders, etc." I know people can discuss these things civilly, but unfortunately it seems the average user here can not. It's gotten out of hand and something had to be done. Never seen that before on any site that I recall but it's possible to do but I imagine it would be buggy. Besides that you could copy and post the whole group of quotes and then get out of quick reply go to normal reply page post it then hit preview to help with finding things within by using "find" in your browser of series of words you're locating. Too much effort :P So I think for now we should wait and see how things go. Keep an eye on the good and the bad. Things that break rules but might be good are something we'll be keeping an eye on too to see if we need to loosen up on the rules. On threads that relate to Mass Immigration, I mention Mass Immigration because it is relevant. nicethings said: Clebardman said: Lets be honest, the whole "Him saying transexuals are abominations and degenerates is an opinion, you calling him a piece of shit is a direct insult. Eat a ban, sorry, that's the rules" moderation was baffling, and lots of users here abused it as much as they could. Is this a step in the best direction possible? Probably not, but it's still better than leaving these subforums like this. I remember those types of rulings, the “i won’t ban the Nazis but I’ll ban people who insult or dare to post rebuttals against the Nazis” clause. People who I disagree are Nazis and should be banned is what your saying. |
| @Noboru But society is what its citizens make of it. I've read the most heinous shit here and I am often ashamed. I was spending my days talking with lady_freyja back when the boards were flooded with dozens of disgusting, rehashed threads about public bathrooms, degeneracy, the decadence of the occident and every insult there is in the english language. That's a shit feeling, opening the boards to see that dump and think that your friend is seeing it too. You can have a rational discussion with someone who's willing to have one, but when people are only here to anonymously dump their hatred in an uncontrolled landfill, what's the point? And is shrugging it off and ignoring it really the best choice as far as society goes? |
Prophetess of the Golden Era |
| Like i said and have been saying... CD is dying. If mal didn't have a pragmatic purpose the website as a whole would probably be dead. It happens to every forum for various reasons. In this case it seems the decay of posts is expedited by the lack of any type of common sense in the higher ups. |
 |
Clebardman said: You're right with your first Sentence, however, what follows after that is a subjective Perception followed by something that looks to me like an Appeal to Emotion.But society is what its citizens make of it. I've read the most heinous shit here and I am often ashamed. You can have a rational discussion with someone who's willing to have one, but when people are only here to anonymously dump their hatred in an uncontrolled landfill, what's the point? And is shrugging it off and ignoring it really the best choice as far as society goes? Well, it seems to be both easier and harder to shrug something off on the Internet. Easier, because you can simply choose not to react to it or even use technical Stuff like the Block Function, and harder, because the Inhibition Threshold to argue with someone might be lower when you don't have to do so in Person from Face to Face.I wouldn't say Ignoring would be the best Choice, but it seems certainly better than any "Activities" where People demonstrate their "Solidarity" or than just being more strict with the Reading of the Rules. The former is more often than not abused to leave a better Impression of oneself, while the latter might leave Martyrs. Both don't exterminate the Root of the Problem, but rather make everything worse. At this Point, I cannot offer a simple Solution as to what really is the best Choice, since there might not even be one that is generally valid or universal/absolute. Something that helps in a specific Scenario where multiple Users are arguing over something might not help in another one. What can be done is to rise Awareness that the other Party can think and feel differently than yourself. |
| @Noboru It's not an appeal to emotions. I never understood how "people shouldn't be treated like shit"=appeal to emotions. It's a perfectly logical stance. I don't want to be treated like shit so I don't treat others like shit, expecting that they'd do the same in return. If they don't, I see no reason to manage their sensibilities. It's not about "demonstrating my solidarity", it's in my own interest. Not only is it logical, it's also a very efficient strategy in many aspects of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat The middle part of my post was here for context. You probably remember what the forums looked like back then. A part of that thing being a mess of heinous one-liners isn't "subjective", and the block button isn't going to help when it's on that scale. Then there's also the thing about monetization. Surely, letting some obsessed MALers use this place as a propaganda blog can't be good advertising. |
Prophetess of the Golden Era |
| lmao those shitty threads are best off banned and I'm glad we have rules in place for it... Rule 7 is by far the most helpful rule at removing generic bait threads and awful trolling. |
 |
Ardanaz said: Gray zones exist everywhere though. That's why we have a team to discuss things. We haven't made a specific list, just require the site to be unbiased. There are plenty of ways to check whether the site you find something interesting on is biased or not. We have not made an exact list of sites as that would take forever. I don't know what more you want to hear from me about this tbh. Unbiased sources don't really exist. What is important is all the information is correct and not so biased it is misrepresented in presentation to give false impressions of what took place and why. There is literally only like three sources that are raw information such as Associated Press. All the examples listed in the rules were partially biased sources even. I understand that, but lately this place has been MyPoliticsList, so we'll see what the effects will be. We have some internal guidelines to determine significance, but I have no idea why the hell we aren't adding those to the rules for everyone to see. I'll ask about that. Politics are an integral part of society to be removed from politics you must remove yourself from society and that includes using the internet and watching anime. Yes politics effect anime and the internet. Copyright laws and government enforced censorship and net neutrality and the wages of animators and the state of the economy and so on all effect it. Not to mention how it effects every other aspect of everyone's lives. Too many people can't handle it. We remove posts and ban people and 5 new people jump on it for the same reasons. It feels like this: But I've seen heated debates break out on anime episode discussion boards even though. It's kind of impossible to talk about episodes if you can't talk about certain contents of an episode. I expect if users actually started reporting no mod would would be able to handle sich wide sweeping rules. Not sure. I can't speak for the whole team. We'll have to discuss that. So it wasn't thought out and some mods decided to fire bomb the forums instead of a controlled burn of banning Nazi sympathizing and race baiting and also excessive threads about Trump in CD. Plenty of forums ban Nazi posting. I never saw a forum go to such a wide sweeping method. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Clebardman said: It's not because of the Statement per se, but your Mentioning of your Friend makes it as such. Like, I get it that you wish your Best for your Friend and I do so, too, but Examples like these make it seem that you only or mostly want to convince others because of your Friendship or rather use it to convince others.@Noboru It's not an appeal to emotions. I never understood how "people shouldn't be treated like shit"=appeal to emotions. Clebardman said: I didn't perceive anything as "heinous". The only annoying Stuff I ever saw report-worthy were Bots and Postings showing extreme Violence and primary Reproduction Organs.The middle part of my post was here for context. You probably remember what the forums looked like back then. A part of that thing being a mess of heinous one-liners isn't "subjective", and the block button isn't going to help when it's on that scale. There's the Option to hide whole Threads, too. As to Monetization, I wonder whether or not this will hit back, since more Forums Activity is better than less or almost none, because it lures more Visitors. |
Unbiased sources don't really exist. What is important is all the information is correct and not so biased it is misrepresented in presentation to give false impressions of what took place and why. There is literally only like three sources that are raw information such as Associated Press. All the examples listed in the rules were partially biased sources even. I mean reputable instead of unbiased. I agree they'll all be biased to some degree. Politics are an integral part of society to be removed from politics you must remove yourself from society and that includes using the internet and watching anime. Yes politics effect anime and the internet. Copyright laws and government enforced censorship and net neutrality and the wages of animators and the state of the economy and so on all effect it. Not to mention how it effects every other aspect of everyone's lives. I think those are two entirely different things. Removing politics, doesn't remove you from society. It just cuts off one part. You can get your politics fix elsewhere (or on MAL if it follows the rules) But I've seen heated debates break out on anime episode discussion boards even though. It's kind of impossible to talk about episodes if you can't talk about certain contents of an episode. I expect if users actually started reporting no mod would would be able to handle sich wide sweeping rules. We get plenty of reports on episode discussion threads. At least then we're doing what we signed up for. Moderating anime related stuff. I don't want to feel like an r/politics mod anymore So it wasn't thought out and some mods decided to fire bomb the forums instead of a controlled burn of banning Nazi sympathizing and race baiting and also excessive threads about Trump in CD. Plenty of forums ban Nazi posting. I never saw a forum go to such a wide sweeping method. It was definitely thought out. We've been working on these rules for months. We'll see if it was too wide of a sweep or not. |
Ardanaz said: I think those are two entirely different things. Removing politics, doesn't remove you from society. It just cuts off one part. You can get your politics fix elsewhere (or on MAL if it follows the rules) I didn't mean it removes people from society or but that it is acting in a way that these things have no importance and can be hid from. We get plenty of reports on episode discussion threads. At least then we're doing what we signed up for. Moderating anime related stuff. I don't want to feel like an r/politics mod anymore Well I meant the more wide sweeping the rules you all can get swamped with reports if people reported every instance and I just brought up the episode discussion to demonstrate how engrained and intertwined these things are with everything and how it means there are hundreds and thousands of threads that could potentially require moderation. Too much of a back log would stop mod effectiveness by creating slow reactions. That's part of why having rules too wide sweeping and strict can have a negative effect. Though i don't know if it will overall work more positive or more negative but I don't think collateral damage is something to not try to avoid. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
complice said: LOL OF COURSE ITS BIASED. if you are friends with mods/have supporter on mal you get a no ban card. cite: me Well that just isn't true. I'm a MAL supporter and I got a warning (next step would be a ban) from a mod because I called anime otaku "filthy basement-dwelling neckbeards" or something, which is a standard joke-insult for otaku that has been around for as long as there has been the internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
  |
| The moderation on MAL hasn't been the moderation users have wanted for a long time now, but it is definitely the moderation deserved. |
| |
Ardanaz said: sounds like something you should have considered before signing up to be a mod this is an error on your part We get plenty of reports on episode discussion threads. At least then we're doing what we signed up for. Moderating anime related stuff. I don't want to feel like an r/politics mod anymore |
 |
traed said: Ardanaz said: I think those are two entirely different things. Removing politics, doesn't remove you from society. It just cuts off one part. You can get your politics fix elsewhere (or on MAL if it follows the rules) I didn't mean it removes people from society or but that it is acting in a way that these things have no importance and can be hid from. We get plenty of reports on episode discussion threads. At least then we're doing what we signed up for. Moderating anime related stuff. I don't want to feel like an r/politics mod anymore Well I meant the more wide sweeping the rules you all can get swamped with reports if people reported every instance and I just brought up the episode discussion to demonstrate how engrained and intertwined these things are with everything and how it means there are hundreds and thousands of threads that could potentially require moderation. Too much of a back log would stop mod effectiveness by creating slow reactions. That's part of why having rules too wide sweeping and strict can have a negative effect. Though i don't know if it will overall work more positive or more negative but I don't think collateral damage is something to not try to avoid. You were spamming threads, so don't act like its my fault that rule 7 was enacted. |
Nyu said: traed said: I didn't mean it removes people from society or but that it is acting in a way that these things have no importance and can be hid from. Well I meant the more wide sweeping the rules you all can get swamped with reports if people reported every instance and I just brought up the episode discussion to demonstrate how engrained and intertwined these things are with everything and how it means there are hundreds and thousands of threads that could potentially require moderation. Too much of a back log would stop mod effectiveness by creating slow reactions. That's part of why having rules too wide sweeping and strict can have a negative effect. Though i don't know if it will overall work more positive or more negative but I don't think collateral damage is something to not try to avoid. You were spamming threads, so don't act like its my fault that rule 7 was enacted. Moreover, extremely trivial threads that were obvious bait. Your threads probably inspired this more than traed's, but that simply speaks to the fact that certain viewpoints are taboo to the point that the mods feel a huge pressure to suppress them. I disagree with much of your worldview, but there's no question that your threads tend to be honest expressions of it. The only trolling and abuse starts when the left rolls in and starts demanding that you be banned. For example, what was wrong with the "racial superstate" thread? It may be an out there idea, but why can't we consider it? The left immediately rolled in with their "I can't even" responses. These crybullies are why this shit is happening, and it's why free speech is being eroded generally. |
traed said: Well I meant the more wide sweeping the rules you all can get swamped with reports if people reported every instance and I just brought up the episode discussion to demonstrate how engrained and intertwined these things are with everything and how it means there are hundreds and thousands of threads that could potentially require moderation. Too much of a back log would stop mod effectiveness by creating slow reactions. That's part of why having rules too wide sweeping and strict can have a negative effect. Though i don't know if it will overall work more positive or more negative but I don't think collateral damage is something to not try to avoid. Fair point, but I don't think the rules are that hard. Most of the behavioral rules are common sense and the board rules don't seem too hard to me. Rule 7 might be a bit tough at first, but again, we'll see how things go. Lo-Lee-Ta said: sounds like something you should have considered before signing up to be a mod this is an error on your part No. It wasn't even half as bad when I signed up over 2 years ago. |
Nyu said: Nyu did nothing wrong. He was only trying to stand up for his people!traed said: I didn't mean it removes people from society or but that it is acting in a way that these things have no importance and can be hid from. Well I meant the more wide sweeping the rules you all can get swamped with reports if people reported every instance and I just brought up the episode discussion to demonstrate how engrained and intertwined these things are with everything and how it means there are hundreds and thousands of threads that could potentially require moderation. Too much of a back log would stop mod effectiveness by creating slow reactions. That's part of why having rules too wide sweeping and strict can have a negative effect. Though i don't know if it will overall work more positive or more negative but I don't think collateral damage is something to not try to avoid. You were spamming threads, so don't act like its my fault that rule 7 was enacted. |
 |
Ardanaz said: That's very arguable, Immahnoob alone rustled much more than what you can collect now, plus CD used to be much more active, arguments were far more common then. No. It wasn't even half as bad when I signed up over 2 years ago. But regardless your modding preferences shouldn't be a factor in how the rules are designed. Imagine rules set on the basis of what moderators like and don't like to mod on! The community's interests and needs are what they should be designed for, not a moderator's personal disinclinations. :/ There's a lot of talk about mods in this thread primarily about a rule and there's good reason for that. Don't burn the boat because maintaining it is too personally demanding for the mods. :/ |
|
Lo-Lee-Ta said: That's very arguable, Immahnoob alone rustled much more than what you can collect now, plus CD used to be much more active, arguments were far more common then. I started after his reign But regardless your modding preferences shouldn't be a factor in how the rules are designed. Imagine rules set on the basis of what moderators like and don't like to mod on! The community's interests and needs are what they should be designed for, not a moderator's personal disinclinations. :/ I never said they were... It's just my opinion. There's a lot of talk about mods in this thread primarily about a rule and there's good reason for that. Don't burn the boat because maintaining it is too personally demanding for the mods. :/ Might want to read more posts of mine in the thread. I answered this more detailed there. |
Ardanaz said: It was still more active then but nevermind.Lo-Lee-Ta said: That's very arguable, Immahnoob alone rustled much more than what you can collect now, plus CD used to be much more active, arguments were far more common then. I started after his reign But regardless your modding preferences shouldn't be a factor in how the rules are designed. Imagine rules set on the basis of what moderators like and don't like to mod on! The community's interests and needs are what they should be designed for, not a moderator's personal disinclinations. :/ I never said they were... It's just my opinion. There's a lot of talk about mods in this thread primarily about a rule and there's good reason for that. Don't burn the boat because maintaining it is too personally demanding for the mods. :/ Might want to read more posts of mine in the thread. I answered this more detailed there. Which post? There's almost 200 posts in here. |
|
Lo-Lee-Ta said: Which post? There's almost 200 posts in here. Pretty much all of em. I've been arguing why the rules got implemented with others. |
Lo-Lee-Ta said: @Ardanaz You haven't addressed why improved modding can't deal with the problem. A rule isn't even necessary. If it's a workload thing why not just recruit more mods. There are always volunteers ready. I have. It's creating a very toxic atmosphere and is scaring many users off. Point me to those volunteers please. |
Ardanaz said: Is it hard to see everyone complaining?Lo-Lee-Ta said: @Ardanaz You haven't addressed why improved modding can't deal with the problem. A rule isn't even necessary. If it's a workload thing why not just recruit more mods. There are always volunteers ready. I have. It's creating a very toxic atmosphere and is scaring many users off. In theory, anyone can argue these kind of topics would make things "toxic", but in case of MAL, only proper and consistent modding would fix its issues. Rules like that are one of the main reasons why users quit. Users that are "scared" or "offended" are a tiny minority, for obvious reasons.. |
FragMentizedApr 29, 2018 10:53 AM
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
Ardanaz said: Oh save the children! And no you have not. Basically for the whole thread you make vague concessions about how some part of others' argument is true skipping by their main points. And then finish it off with "let's see how it goes though". This rule makes very little sense and you haven't said one thing that reasonably justifies it in favour of better options. If you guys wanna steamroll it through that's what is anyway but please don't put up pretenses of caring about community feedback if you won't even properly acknowledge what others have to say. =_=Lo-Lee-Ta said: @Ardanaz You haven't addressed why improved modding can't deal with the problem. A rule isn't even necessary. If it's a workload thing why not just recruit more mods. There are always volunteers ready. I have. It's creating a very toxic atmosphere and is scaring many users off. Point me to those volunteers please. |
|
Fidelium said: Is it hard to see everyone complaining? Yes, because I see a good amount of people agreeing with the rules. In theory, anyone can argue these kind of topics would make things "toxic", but in case of MAL, only proper and consistent modding would fix its issues. We've tried that long enough. It's been toxic as hell for a long time now. We'll see how things go. Rules like that are one of the main reasons why users quit. Users that are "scared" or "offended" are a tiny minority, for obvious reasons.. We'll see. More than you think. Lo-Lee-Ta said: Oh save the children! And no you have not. Basically for the whole thread you make vague concessions about how some part of others' argument is true skipping by their main points. And then finish it off with "let's see how it goes though". This rule makes very little sense and you haven't said one thing that reasonably justifies it in favour of better options. If you guys wanna steamroll it through that's what is anyway but please don't put up pretenses of caring about community feedback if you won't even properly acknowledge what others have to say. =_= Then I suggest you read my posts again if that's your conclusion. Give some decent feedback then? I've acknowledged all of tread's suggestions and those are actually constructive. Most people here aren't giving any constructive feedback. |
Ardanaz said: LOL maybe be a better mod? If my conclusion is incorrect then I'll replace it with a view of you not being able to see reason or use it in your arguments. Fidelium said: Is it hard to see everyone complaining? Yes, because I see a good amount of people agreeing with the rules. In theory, anyone can argue these kind of topics would make things "toxic", but in case of MAL, only proper and consistent modding would fix its issues. We've tried that long enough. It's been toxic as hell for a long time now. We'll see how things go. Rules like that are one of the main reasons why users quit. Users that are "scared" or "offended" are a tiny minority, for obvious reasons.. We'll see. More than you think. Lo-Lee-Ta said: Oh save the children! And no you have not. Basically for the whole thread you make vague concessions about how some part of others' argument is true skipping by their main points. And then finish it off with "let's see how it goes though". This rule makes very little sense and you haven't said one thing that reasonably justifies it in favour of better options. If you guys wanna steamroll it through that's what is anyway but please don't put up pretenses of caring about community feedback if you won't even properly acknowledge what others have to say. =_= Then I suggest you read my posts again if that's your conclusion. Give some decent feedback then? That's if that's your conclusion. |
|
| I'm wondering what you mean with "good amount", really. With rule 7 I don't see anyone, unlike the others which is still a minority. Even with the other rules, MAL hardly accepts any user feedback, despite for the marjority disagreeing. (rule 6, Site Display, Character limit, bugs and glitches, etc). I know that in some case it could make modding easier, but not like if it's an excuse. We've tried that long enough. It's been toxic as hell for a long time now. We'll see how things go. Long enough? Are you kidding me? It's been this way for years now.You will see that will make no difference as long as the staff doesn't get into a general concern. Don't blame the threads for that. I won't deny that the subject of the topic per se may affect in a few, but hardly is its overall. |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
| @Ardanaz - I have a question pertaining to this part of CE's new rule 7: "c. be of significance (e.g. changing legislature, Nature/Science journal articles, unexpected world events, etc.)" At what point is a current event not significant? Would local news be allowed if it follows the rest of the rules? |
|
Ardanaz said: Fidelium said: Is it hard to see everyone complaining? Yes, because I see a good amount of people agreeing with the rules. i mean it's clear the vast majority of people are against it i'm more indifferent towards it tho, rules are rules and mal's a business not a democracy plus i like never break rules so it doesn't matter |
 |
More topics from this board
» Have you ever used a fake referral to get a job?fleurbleue - 7 hours ago |
10 |
by PrinceYuta
»»
27 minutes ago |
|
» any of yall got a car ( 1 2 )fbjim - Jan 17 |
72 |
by CeciliaAda
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» Are you comfortable with dancing with someone?Deathko - Aug 31 |
28 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
46 minutes ago |
|
» Is there anything you tend to hate-watch?PrayToVeseveia - 2 hours ago |
3 |
by FanofAction
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » If you were offered to become a MAL moderator, would you accept? ( 1 2 )Shizuna - Aug 30 |
82 |
by pigdestroyer
»»
2 hours ago |