I think this is the legitimate point you are referring to, who are you talking about? Can you point to posts you think need attention? Is that person still active on the site?
I agree moderation was wanting, but that’s changed significantly in the past 6 months. Are you talking about an ongoing problem with someone?
Flag a post and I will review it.
Yes… but this isn’t about that person, per se…
.
The ongoing problems had fizzled itself out, no thanks to the active moderator policing the site, but he’s happy to police me over nothing.
That is my complaint!
.
Done!
My issue is stated here, onwards: If you had put this much effort into moderating the Twit and his entourage, posters wouldn’t have been shunning the boards for the last 3 years. You questioned me about my behaviour in DMs, rather than do your job and moderate and give them time out, but you did nothing. F you!
.
Also… is it possible to reopen this [ongoing topic] thread: Global matters II? as it seems rather silly for me to continually create a new thread to post in…
If so, can it be joined to Global Matters 1?
To be clear, any failures of moderation of the past three years are mine. I had set a site policy that tied the hands of moderators, and I was too inattentive to see how badly it had gone awry.
Part of fixing that has been to untie the hands of moderators, and let them moderate. For some time, that will mean incongruity between what was ignored in the past and what is discouraged going forward.
I apologize sincerely that my administration of the site led to you being harassed, it is my fault and I mean to prevent it going forward. If you see anything like that still going on, please flag it.
From context I gather the conversation began in a DM, so I don’t have the full story, but I would guess that you were admonished again not to post links and images without clearly connecting them to the conversation.
Given the policy of the last few years, I can see how this feels unfair, others have been given carte blanche for much worse. It is unfair: their behaviors should have been addressed and they weren’t.
But this is the work of raising the quality of discussion on the site. We don’t want to be Twitter or Facebook, we’re not the place to re-post things tangential to a dialog. If we want to be a place for deep discussion, we need to discourage posts that don’t add depth.
This is a change in policy and a change in moderation practice, but I think it’s correct. Please know that we are not trying to single you out, we’ve talked to many users about it over the past few months to try and shift the norm.
That seems to be recreating the Current Events category as a topic? The posts aren’t clearly related: misogyny in the UK and then the Pope’s take on technology and then immigration and then a supreme court decision etc. There’s no overarching idea being discussed to which each post is contributing.
Why not create a new topic to discuss each one? Or, if they are related, a thread in which you explicitly present the argument or idea to which you think they add support?
Sure…
.
No, it started here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/trump-enters-the-stage/45625/1489?u=magsj not in a DM… I don’t know why he was [previously, way back when] messaging me, to ask me about somebody else’s trolling behaviour instead of asking the people in question directly… 
I get all that^ and have no qualms with it, but what’s with his tone?v
You posted a lot of stuff in that screenshot. The first quote of mine in the screenshot doesn’t look like it has any tonal problems to me. You developed some personal annoyance about something happening elsewhere on the forum, and brought it into that thread - is that not a correct description of what happened?
The second one certainly has a sharp tone to it, but the thing I think you maybe haven’t understood yet is that I wasn’t saying that as a moderator. I was sayig that just as a poster trying to understand why another poster posted a picture of Mike Tyson saying what he said, without any explanation. You didn’t post it and say, for example, “Mike Tysons words here are really meaningful and profound because such-and-such”, you waited until much later to actually explain the relevance of the picture to the rest of us. You might not have been aware of how weird just posting a picture like that with no explantaion is (weird, coming from another poster perspective, not saying that as a moderator). If I posted similar pictures of heavily brain-damaged people saying political things, with no explanation… well, I hope Carleas would ask me why I’m spamming the forum with meaningless images without any text explaining why.
I didn’t remove your post, ban you, or give you an official or unofficial warning. Your problem with that post, thus, wasn’t about me abusing moderation powers, since I did not use any moderation powers against you.
Now, speaking as a moderator, you’ve already been spoken to about just posting memes and pictures without any of your own text to go with it, so it is disappointing that you did that again so soon. Other posters don’t just want your silly pictures, they want to know what you think about them and why. So some picture has Mike Tyson with a quote that he said… what does that mean to you? Why are you posting it? What should other readers take away from it? Please, when you post pictures, provide to the other readers of the forum some inkling as to WHY you’re posting the picture.
That’s what I have to say about it as a moderator.
It must suck wearing two different hats at a time.
.
Regardless of both your posts, still OTT in the proverbial punishment not fitting the crime… no matter what you have to say.
A couple of images, nothing inflammatory or obscene, so save your words for another time where they will actually hold weight, and count.
what punishment ? Do you believe you have been punished? Can you describe the nature of the punishment?
Do you not know what the word ‘proverbial’ means?
.
…so proverbially speaking your initial -as you put it- sharp’ response.
I don’t think it means what you think it means
I suppose the important thing is that you understand you weren’t being punished, or moderated, and thus there was no abuse of moderator powers. You seem to understand that. I’m satisfied.
Being addressed to do or not do something is being moderated. Even if not by a moderator. Doing or not doing that stuff without external moderation is self-moderating. I assume by moderated, you meant self-moderated. Unless the action addressed was not a real violation, and so did not need moderating. But … if that were the case, would this thread exist? Is the public nature of it perceived as proverbial punishment? I have been accused of such in a different, though similar, context. Years back. Still do it unofficially. Erm. And officially, if public address can’t be avoided.
I used it correctly!
.
…moderating and abusing moderating powers are not mutually inclusive… seeing that you were not moderating you were then being, I repeat, OTT down-right-rude.
I’m out! 
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
