Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

Discussion in 'Support Questions' started by sue, May 24, 2010.


Which of the following statements are true to you ? MULTIPLE CHOICE

Poll closed Jun 2, 2010.
1) Moderators need to take an active and neutral role in discussions. 78 vote(s) 61.4%
1) Moderators should not post and only infract, ban or move posts. 13 vote(s) 10.2%
2) Moderators should troll less. 52 vote(s) 40.9%
2) Moderators should troll more. 35 vote(s) 27.6%
3) Forum users should do their part on making the community better 98 vote(s) 77.2%
3) Only moderators can make the community better. It is their responsibility. 9 vote(s) 7.1%
4) O$a, Dav1d Miscarriage punchbag are wordplays i can appreciate, they add value to one's comments. 33 vote(s) 26.0%
4) Insistently repeating O$a, Dav1d Miscarriage punchbag is annoying and should not be encouraged. 54 vote(s) 42.5%
5) Flaming each other on the forums helps prepare someone for dealing with bullbaiting. 37 vote(s) 29.1%
5) Flaming each other over non issues, has no value, is unpleasant and should not be done. 62 vote(s) 48.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. sue Administrator

    Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Thought this discussion was worth continuing so copied a few posts to kickstart the thread.
  2. Anon3Mouse Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    And yet I notice you do not dispute my assertion that the community is fucking retarded.

    Honestly sue, and I do ask this in all seriousness, what's the point of hiring new mods if they won't actually moderate the community? Look at the shitposting from isupeonedDavidmiscaviage in this thread alone. That guy is a perpetual shitposting engine, who not only fails to grok that content of posts > number of posts or who posted, but he doesn't even seem to want to learn. He's content to be a shitposter, because he's not been properly moderated into recognizing his bad behavior.

    Every time Herro posted, these lame fucking exes would come out of the woodwork, not to debate whatever point he was trying to make, but to honestly accuse him of being OSA, with little to no infractions or bans going their way.

    Enough tinfoil has been deployed on these boards to create a small aluminum planet, and the same mongoloids continue to drag the forums into the OCMB vortex of Suck with no fear of being stopped, because no one ever fucking stops them.

    The assholes posting Marty threads are either looking to start drama, or if they claim they don't realize that any Marty Rathburn thread is going to turn into a hurricane of fail, they're just too stupid to be allowed to post outside of YSOSRS/Dome.

    So unless the new mods are going to actually start moderating content, what's the point? To continue this slow, steady decline that will end with the community becoming a cancerous, digital version of Typhoid Mary?
  3. sue Administrator

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    You seem to be an intelligent individual, i hope you understand that i can not in the position i am answer to a rather inflammatory assertion with : you are right the community is retarded, nor that i can refute it. Such statements would besides a personal opinion be an open door for those wishing to if at all possible further divide the community; "see sue says this about the community, and by that he referring to you, now go away".

    Since you made the effort of raising this issue in a more argumentative manner i'll address your concern hopefully to your satisfaction. If not, i invite you to further discuss this in this thread.

    I do not believe the community as a whole is retarded. Yes there are individuals whom are unquestionably stupid, naive or purposefully posting uninformative, unintelligible, derailing content -- and i agree that that to many is considered to be a problem, which occasionally leads to people leaving in disgust. I believe that part of this behavior is to blame on misguided beliefs on how to "fit in" with the rest of the community, for example : being rude, inappropriate is mandatory to fit in with the anon crowd. Decency and a sense of reflection are not to be shown or expressed etc. I believe that we have reached a point where such beliefs perpetuate themselves through the behavior of a few yet frequent posters.

    It is intrinsically hard to explain this without getting resentful comments that:
    that is an attempt at defining anonymous
    that it is against the anonymous credo
    that is an attempt at stomping forum users right to express themselves the way that they feel like it.

    The baffling thing about the above is that when you think of it, many submit to this form of peer pressure without caring much about it or even realizing it, yet when someone attempts to explain it, that individual is a manipulative evil and hellbent control freak.

    The thing is, that otherwise interesting individuals to argue / debate or discuss things with, adopt such behavior. Banning people for "being stupid" is the easy option, warning them repeatedly has so far had a higher success rate, but what really might be necessary is more discussion and for some a wake up call, i have currently no idea how to get there.

    The volume of such posts is at this time too high, people are reluctant to report such posts. Mods also have to walk an incredibly thin line when moderating, being called out to be humorless at every occasion a poop joke got domed.

    Which is one of the reasons why applicants are encouraged to submit links to three random posts they consider to be both of an informative or undesired nature. This will hopefully give us a clearer idea of what the community wants.

    Herro has become a beast of its own, i dare say herro has become a meme, i fully agree that in general the content of his comments were entirely disregarded in favor of "herro post = bad". I do not say that Herro is never wrong, and never provocative, but he at times had a point. Often, i must admit the points he raised were likely an uncomfortable truth to some, so the easy solution of "shooting the messenger" is what we could witness. I find it unfortunate that you feel mods have taken sides.

    Regarding the increasingly speculative nature of some of the threads and posts that are being submitted such as : This individual is a Scientologist because he used a word that is in the dictionary but also has been used by L.Ron Hubbard, or : This individual is pro Scientology because they blog about a product that could be related to Scientology.

    I believe there are various reasons for why the speculation is increasing.

    1. We already have uncovered a lot of information about the cult, and it is getting harder to find new information. To keep the satisfaction of uncovering cult activities, some people resort to speculation, and or make things up.
    2. Individuals that want to take away the credibility of real information that has been made available, speculate and submit erroneous information to make us all look like narrow minded fanatics that will believe anything as long as it sheds a negative light on Scientology.
    As you can likely tell point 1 is harder to resolve as point 2, point 1 being stimulated by the subconscious of individuals, I do not have an explicit source to back this claim,and if it is not convincing; read a little about psychology you'll find it to be true.

    I might agree depending on the nature of the subject and not purely because it involves Rathburn, some threads are indeed irrelevant to most interests, some others are. This too is a thin line to draw.

    I and the other mods do not have the intention to "poison" the community. I think you should at least feel relieved that we are trying to solve certain problems, and doing so the best we can with the resources we have.

    I'd add another few paragraphs of polite closure and invitation to debate but i think this post is turning out to be a little long already, if you have more concerns, comments, ideas. Anything really, i'll happily read / respond to them.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    I would suggest that moderation is going to be your best bet here. Warnings and infractions make users feel like they're being singled out, or persecuted by nazi mods. What should take place is more obvious more active more public moderation. Mods should be calmly posting in threads to keep discussion rational. Not to voice opinions, but to act as a referee between the forces of rational critical thought and moonbat kneejerk derailing forces.

    Moderation needs to be more obvious. I would like to see infractions be very obvious in threads. Both the point value and the reason should be stated where everybody can see it in the thread the post occurred in. If people don't see examples of what kind of thing is frowned upon it's difficult to expect them not to do it. It would also be nice to get a notification if one of your posts gets domed and why.

    Having Herro in the fray usually meant that any discussion he was involved with at least something besides an internet circle jerk. Despite the fact that Herro's ego prevents him from making his points in any manner besides using them as a bludgeon, the community suffers from not having his input. It seems to me that he did more to curtail moonbattery than the mods are currently doing. He provoked discussion and independent thought, even if it came in the form of heated argument and insults.

    I think moderators need to fill more of this roll. Not by bombastically gushing their opinions at every possible opportunity, but by gently prodding discussions out from under their tinfoil wrappers.

    I think your take of the situation is very accurate.

    The whole culture of this community needs to change away from a tinfoily echo chamber to a place where real rational discussion can take place. Mods need to help change the tone of discussion to a place where people can feel free to express opinions that differ from the hivemind. Right now if you post anything less than 100% anti-scientology rhetoric, you get labeled as an infiltrator and it's extremely annoying. It stifles any productive discussion and it turns rational and intelligent users away and discourages them from posting.

    If we want Chanology to be taken seriously, WWP needs to be a place where serious discussion can take place, and right now it could be a lot better.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    this, and even though i'm a hypocrite for saying it, constantly flaming/putting others down is counter-productive and drives people away. besides the true, chonic moonbats who actually deserve it (magoo is a perfect example), most of the tinfoilfags tend to be newfags. at this critical point in the campaign, can we really afford to alienate every possible new person who wants to help the cause just for making the same mistake we all made in the early days of chanology?
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    I agree with this, but the simple fact is despite being a total dick, Herro was right quite a lot of the time.
    Not alienate, educate. Newfags are gentle creatures that can be shaped and formed by your own actions. I believe there exists a happy medium between allowing the moonbats who have no sense of perspective to go on unchallenged like we more or less have now, and the spiteful anger of Herro. We just need a little help bringing people down to earth by gently suggesting they actually think about what they are saying and cool their jets.
  7. Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    I'll speak for myself.

    I think a clear discussion on what that actually means needs to be explored. It's a fine line between moonbattery and the actual truth when you are dealing with Scientology. Everyday, we hear another story of total mindfuck. We are talking about a group that has a front group which promotes each anon is paid $150,000 to help the evil psychiatrists from trying to rule the planet. I don't want to sound condescending and it's not my intention, but people here have to get use to it. I am not talking about unknowns. There are hundreds, if not thousands of stories of people who are attacked for criticizing the cult. It is written in their policy. Likewise, everyday we see those stories on these boards. The second proposition is that they are very insidious about what they do. A lot of protesters have experienced this. We here all the other stories daily as well.

    So, rather than trying to draw a conclusion from the above two propositions, perhaps I am suggesting, that people think about it and put the context of their discussion within "knowns".

    So we know this is what Scientology does and we know anon are the biggest force that they have ever had to face with the probable exception of the FBI in the Mary Sue days. I therfore propose that it is not moonbattery to at least suggest that CO$ has an active plan of insidious attack, infiltration and influence, especially here on WWP. There's no dox, there's no proof, but using the power of assumption we can almost guarantee it. Or am i missing a vital piece of evidence that has not been presented yet? If anyone disagrees with the above can you please state your reasoning. Please use actual evidence and propositions that join together otherwise, it will be ripped apart and deservedly so.

    The next proposition is that they have a set of policies they can't change so their modus operandi will almost always be the same. We have these policies available to us. Just one example for instance is "attack the attacker".

    I am amazed that a board which is against the dangerous and damaging cult of Scientology is so profoundly eager to worry itself over wether someone calls someone OSA or not and has a "rule" for that, yet totally lets a situation where a teenager trying to come to help because their parents are scientologists get thrashed and called troll. It's this kind of hypocrisy, however innocently applied, which is begging to be ridiculed. Everybody likes to know the rules in the game they are playing. My personal stance is that i can play by the rules presented and i take that on a case by case situation. In other words if you are polite to me, i'll be polite back. If you use proper argumentation and structure then i will respond accordingly. The way i see it, If you ridicule me and then i ridicule you back then why so butthurt? Maybe you should look at your own rules that you have applies to yourself or at least take some responsibility if this is the case at hand? Rather than digress, the point I am trying to make here is maybe the rules should be looked over?

    Herro was too actively into dissension to offer valuable input at least towards the end when s/he chose to get some space. This clogged up WWP just as much as any other clog. Not that clogging is always bad.

    As far as i read it there is no community other than a group of individuals who are seeking to place their input into a means of their own value. As far as i can see Sue, your biggest task, if you have any problems, is to look at the community of moderators. We have the case of the Sparrow thread wherby some moderators openly admitted trolling because they wanted to bring salvation to the "call OSA" rule. If we are talking about "community" can we go back to the propositions presented in the first paragraph here and at least get feedback to what extent this trolling took place so as to give some clarity. I personally don't mind being trolled and agree it comes with the territory however, its a confusing mindfuck which really does little to give confidence when it stops us from fully utilizing our services towards our objective, especially when coming from a mod. Also, to those who play these games don't get butthurt when you get trolled back. It's one thing playing a game by your own rules as espoused by your own actions but it is another baaawing about it after you get the same action back. The mods using their privileges in order to troll? I suppose thats up the administrators to decide wether that is cool or not. Hypocrisy is not an attribute i personally like. Perhaps the administrators are unaware of the full extent to which that is happening in which case maybe they should examine it a bit more??

    This year has without a doubt been a roller coaster of wins after wins perhaps culminating so far with the australian enquiry. I know a lot of Scientologists and am lucky to be in a position where I get a lot of feedback. They are digging in and preparing for war. They are focusing almost all attention on keeping those in Scientology in. The rest is on attack. That is their game plan and we are starting to see this surface. That is what is happening. Take what you want out of it. I trust the hive will surpass.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    This doesn't mean that OSA is peeking around every corner and sitting in every bush, and it certainly doesn't mean that people can't have disagreements without being an infiltrator.

    Who cares if OSA posts here? If you can't stand up to their criticism on our home turf what good can you possibly be doing elsewhere?

    The simple fact you're missing is that people can disagree with you and it doesn't mean they're ridiculing you. It doesn't mean that they're an infiltrator. It just means they disagree. Or they're trolling you.

  9. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    My 2 cents:
    - Having enough staff is critical for any forum. Overworked, unhappy, reluctant staff is more likely to make brisk and unadapted decisions.
    - The rational thinking vs. moonbattery debate is meaningful, but keep in mind it also served and probably will serve again as a mean in more "political" debates.
    - Trolling has many different faces.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    Weird, I think the tinhattery issue has been improving over time, and the OSA-OSA-OSA wails are the only form of common tinfoil I ever notice around here anymore (outside the Dome, perhaps). This place has come a long way since the old Enturb days of running around screaming "SCIENTOLOGY KILLED MUDKIPS THE CAT!!" without proof.

    Now when there's speculation, you at least get a debate, as happens whenever there's a big current event. There are also random other things, like the LRH racism quotes, that get called under scrutiny. Even in something like the AnonSparrow thread, a bunch of people were laughing and saying y'all getting trolled. Speculation rarely goes unchallenged around here now.

    If anything, I feel the community cracks down on outright tinfoil pretty hard now. Look at what happened in the Boris Korczak "puppy murder" thread. Stuff like that just can't persist here anymore.
  11. Anon3Mouse Member

    Re: Want to be a WWP Moderator ?

    Woo momma, this is gonna be one long as hell post.

    I never actually expect you to agree or disagree, it was just the opening line to the rest of my post, and much more tongue-in-cheek. But, since you delve further into it, I'll happily pretend it was much more serious commentary.

    I absolutely agree, much of it does have to do with people desperately trying to fit in with "Anon culture", but not taking the assimilation route that repeated "Lurk Moar' responses provides. Instead, they learn some memes and be silly/rude, and so they miss the more complex parts.

    Maybe a variation of the Dome Lock, if they want to post in the important sections of the Forum, they have to demonstrate that they have something of value to contribute to the greater discussions, and when/if they do, then they'll be let out of Chit Chat.

    I think question being missed is "Why are people reluctant when the unwanted behavior is greater than before?" You would imagine people would be reporting more, unless either they approve of the behavior, or in the more likely scenario, they don't feel that reporting it will bring about any kind of useful result. To me, that's a plea from the community for harsher moderation.

    I don't disagree so much as think that the Mods won't go near the line anymore out of fear of crossing it. All this erring on the side of caution in moderating the boards' content has led us to this position we're now in, and maybe it's time to move that line a little bit and let the Mods get more harsh.

    If people want to just bullshit, there's places for that not only in the rest of the Internets, but even here. In the parts of the Forum that are used for the Scientology War, I think the moderation needs to be harsh and brutal. If people wanna call each other OSA or theorize that some blip on a television show is really connected to some retardedly complex theory about Scientology, let 'em do it in YSOSRS or the Dome. The second that shit gets pulled in a srs bznz section of the Forum, a mod should put their foot up that poster's ass. I think that will help breed the thought of "I should really think about this before I post, because it might get me banned or locked for stupidity."

    I don't think the mods took sides deliberately so much as I feel that by the inaction of the mods, they favored a side. Herro frequently had an excellent point that for all the bemoaning and crying about the terrible things the Scientologists do, they are tactics that we ourselves employ (not all of them, but certainly some of the fair game tactics fit quite nicely in the /i/ playbook), and we have to reconcile ourselves with that hypocrisy. An uncomfortable truth for many of the ex-culties that have come here, but it being uncomfortable doesn't excuse the cries of OSA that would flock to Herro's posts, and it certainly doesn't excuse the lack of action on the Mods to keep the discussion on the content of the posts, and not who's posting it or even the wording it's posted in.

    I don't disagree with your reasons, they're pretty spot on, but how do you keep it from dragging down other threads? I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think harsher moderation would help curb some of the speculation. The people most likely to speculate are also the people most likely to really become invested in their account, and so will be most susceptible to changing their behavior out of account preservation.

    I never said nor do I think you guys are trying to poison things, I just think you guys are a little too soft, and the boards suffer for it. I think WWP could use a little W.T. Snacks form of moderating for awhile.
  12. sue Administrator

    re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I must say that i agree, not to justify every mod that hasn't done so, but this approach was for a long time perceived as "leaderfagging" and caused a lot of butthurt, maybe that now if introduced properly people will see the benefits of that.
    Note taken on making infractions more obvious. I think you are spot on in your observation.

    Maybe, besides the more active participation of moderators in discussions we could help this by changing some of the forum layout, allowing speculation in one forum whereas the other would cater more to rational debate. This would need some thought and would need to be made clear where what behavior is desired or tolerated.


    I agree that Flaming is counter productive, and only drives certain people away. Some of the individuals that you might want to really turn away wont leave no matter how much you flame and insult them, those that you might want to keep around however might be ticked off by repeated flamewars / insults.

    I do not think it is only about appealing to new people, it is the entire message that is tainted, regardless i think most would agree that the community makes it quite easy on scientology to prove their claims of bigotry and hatespeech.


    I find the statement of shaping new people eerie and cult like, no offense but that is one of the many things we inherited from Enturb. I think that in all its reality the community attracts its own. What i mean by that is that if acting like deranged individuals, the community attracts more deranged individuals. If the community acts like care bears, care bears will come.

    If the community wants to attract more open minded individuals the community has to be open minded as well, this means that discussions should as expressed by several not solely be about how evil scientology is, and how every scientologist is evil, and that whomever disagrees with that is a plant, spy or troll.

    Moderators need to do their part towards whatever common goal we have, but so does the community, and i hope that in the end the moderators wont be blamed if the community fails to be responsible as well.


    I'll give you credit for your argumentation on the likelihood of OSA and Scientology keeping an eye or participating in the forums, i can not within reason say that that is not the case. I will also not refute that it is to be expected seeing how it is as you put it part of scientology's modus operandi.

    The problem in my opinion lies not so much in OSA and scientology trying to harass critics online, on these very forums, as you stated yourself it is to be expected. The real problem is that as moderators it has become intrinsically difficult to tell apart agent provocateurs and legitimate critics.

    The rules of the forums at this time are if anything relatively vague, a new set of rules is in the works, but we're holding back with its release till they are finished and we covered most of the currently perceived problems.

    I'll post a mockup of the introduction and explanation of how these rules came to existence and why we think they are needed, thing which you might find interesting and may make clear if we are talking about the same subject / conduct. And if we are addressing the same problem.


    I was not present when the sparrow thread drama unfolded, all i know is i was surprised that when leaving the thread seemed to be doing just fine, i still have no clear idea of exactly what happened. Regardless of that occurrence, i agree that in general, if not always Mods should act within the rules, be as far as possible irreproachable, which means that trolling with mod powers is not something that should be done. Again not to justify any actions, but you must understand that for some what once was a enjoyable task has become a burden, i am not sure if trolling from moderators increases or has decreased over time, but it might be one of the many symptoms of "shit posting". I do not think it is the best approach, but that doesn't make that reaction incomprehensible. I think we are going to sit it out till the new rules and several fancy features are introduced to better determine whether mods actions were caused by a lack of guidelines and burn out or (temporary) ineptitude.

    As for community i think i must disagree. Yes it is fact that obviously not everyone holds hands and sings happy songs. There are many different individuals from different origins catering differing opinions. Nonetheless, i think that is a community, and i hope the majority wants to make it better for everyone.


    I think this post reflects a little bit how a part of the community feels. It is unfortunate that in all likelihood some do not express those feelings.

    I also agree that in a perfect world moderators should be objective and impartial, we'll see if this goal is more attainable in the future.

    Concise and to the point, i could not agree more.

    Interesting to see that Speculation even though of a different kind might have declined over time, and that it may be that it overtime only has become harder to bear. I think that also comes into play, having been exposed to ridiculous speculation over and over again, the tolerance of any form of speculation lowered over time. Of course this is pure speculation but imho something to consider.


    I think somewhere above i already explained how i perceived it, i agree.

    I wish to hear more about this subject, i really would like to know what the communities consensus is, both from a passive / lurking perspective as an active poster perspective.
    I think that part of the problem is that it is still unclear where serious conduct is expected and where not. Thought it would be self explanatory but unfortunately it is not.
    If you are talking psyops, i think it is safe to presume several concurring psyop attempts are made against the community at any time. Be it from disgruntled protesters or scientology.
    Account preservation is relatively hard to enforce since it is easy to make a new account on WWP, if you have any suggestions on how to make accounts worth anything to the holder i am all ears. It is a fact that moderating a place where people sherish their account is far easier to moderate, since people tend to not take the account for granted, and wont venture into purposefully disturbing the community.
    Got it.
  13. Biden Member


    it's quite possible that the reason people don't report posts is because they are either bad enough for the mods to notice them on their own or they are ignorable, although I am rather partial to the dome call

    really the only things that don't get handled rather quickly are really stupid conversations, and no individual post might be worth reporting

    also, there isn't a box for MODS = FAGS, I am insulted
  14. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Food for thoughts. Thanks.
  15. timthephoto Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    how come there's no vote choice for "mods need to stop actively seeking the slightest reason to piss off forum users with pointless infractions/warnings" ?
  16. Biden Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    because they almost never give out infractions/warnings?
  17. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I think, from a lurker point of view, that the reporting isn't widely used because there is little or no feedback or effect visible. If I, for example, would report a post, and nothing happens, no feedback is given (you were right/wrong for reporting), I'd be less inclined to use that feature.

    I have no clue how many posts are reported on a daily basis, and I assume the number is too great to give feedback on each and every one of them. Maybe a bigger moderator staff could address this problem?

    My 2 cents.

    p.s. I might add that the report button is kind of tucked away on the left from the Quote/Multi Quote/Quick reply buttons on the right. From a designing point of view, wouldn't it be better to group them all together? Maybe make the button larger? Add text? I don't know.
  18. El Diablo Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Saw the call for new mod applications. I can't say I didn't think about throwing my hat in the ring, but soon remembered my post about it being masochism.

    "Maybe I am a masochist?" I thought. "Nah! Even if I am, I'm not THAT much of a masochist!"

    Also, my getting off topic-ness is involuntary and probably not really mod material even if I wanted to be. (Also, BIG-sorry for the whole more-than-occasional tangents...I appreciate the absence of infractions for this tendency).

    Really, I do not envy you guys. That you guys give us enough leash so that the whole of the forums aren't constant infractions/bannings...yet they don't become a free-for-all, is something I appreciate and admire. I have no doubt you guys have a tough job balancing these things.

    Anyhow, over the time I have been at WWP, I think the ratio of good (or at least value-neutral) posting, to shitposting, has totally improved.

    ...that or my small ignore list is catching most of it and/or I've just gotten used to the place. :p

    Anyways no real critique of how things operate. I don't expect discussions to be awesomely productive 100% of the time...but wading through hundreds of pages of crap to get to the occasional diamond is very frustrating. It's been a long while since I've noticed the latter, so you all must be doing something right! :D
  19. Biden Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    there's a bit of feedback
  20. sci and tell Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I quit reporting most posts because the mods never paid much attention to my opinion.

    Just as I think Anon3Mouse is too opinionated (in a direction almost diametrically opposed to my own) as to where WWP should be going (what flavor of postings are ok or not) I have my own opinions. After reading this thread, I see that so many people have such varied ideas about what WWP should be.

    WWP is what it is. There is a possibility that the mods can keep it corralled somewhat and gently goaded towards a certain direction, but in reality WWP (or any forum) will take on the flavor of the participants despite mod intervention. IMO, only removal of posters (banning) who are trying to steer WWP away from the goal would be effective.

    Sue mentioned mods not posting in threads because they were accused of leaderfagging so instead the mods were doing infractions. Maybe it's my ex-scio status that makes me rankle to any infraction, even if it's someone else's post. (And defending someone who got infracted will get you double-infracted on WWP.) Scientology encourages reporting people and those reported get slapped hard for little to no reason. The infraction system smacks of that style.

    Infracting makes me want to quit WWP and go find a friendlier playground. And no, I'm not talking about ESMB (which makes me puke).

    I have found another playground and will likely be playing less on WWP because of the drama -- not drama by WWP general posters, but by mod interventions.

    Sorry, guys. I have no real constructive comments for the mods except to suggest ditching the infraction system entirely.

    I can take in stride the flamers, the tinfoilers, the OSA-callers, even the Herro's, but the INFRACTORS get my goat every time.
  21. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    My apologies, it seems that on this vBulletin there is feedback. Cocks, etc.

    But where would these forums go if people would not report posts? I don't think it is the same as Scientology's policy. It is needed to keep these forums from becoming a shitstorm of trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls, IMHO.
  22. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Illegitimate comparison is illegitimate.
  23. Biden Member

    IMO we need to be able to see how much infraction posts everyone else has

  24. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I'd say they will look into it.
  25. Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    1. Retards, pretending to be rational, intelligent people


    2. Intelligent, rational people, acting like retards (sometimes letting their actual self shine through)

    1. is unwanted, 2. is wanted.

    Clear and visible moderation is more effective that hidden and invisible moderation: Fucking up the black sheep will make the rest act whiter.

    You should clearly formulate a somewhat clear set of rules, corrosponding to the purposes of the respective forum the post was made in: Moderation style should serve to further the stated goals of the respective forum the post was made in. Perhaps the goals of the forum could even be the guideline in moderation.

    Most importantly: Moderation should not apply when someone is saying something uncomfortable, but rather when someone is saying nothing at all, and using a lot of space to do so.
  26. Biden Member

  27. Crappy Member

  28. Biden Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    they're pretty good imo
  29. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Did you read Sue's last WALLOFTEXT? I noticed you started your post with tl;dr, so I'll help you out:

  30. Biden Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    what's vague?
  31. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I think adding examples would help a lot of new users out. I can imagine someone creating an account, reading the rules and going "Wtf is a dome call? What is considered tinfoil?" .

    Other than that, you'd have to ask Sue.
  32. Biden Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    if they are that stupid then they deserve what's coming to them
  33. El Diablo Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Very much agree with you there!

    See, I don't see that there's been all that much infracting, but I see where you're coming from.

    I do think that the "report this post" function is pretty important though. We have spam deleted almost as quickly as it appears (perhaps a "spam" button, or check-box for spam could help streamline this process). The more "subjective" type of reporting is always difficult territory.

    The "banned" users I've seen (presumably for repeated infractions) were posting some pretty bad stuff...particularly when it's blatantly inflamatory/sexual content on threads about seriously tragic stuff. That isn't robust commentary, that's just being a jerk for the sake of it. Just my opinion, but reporting that kind of stuff - and mods infracting them for it, doesn't do us a disservice at all. It's kept many threads readible, that otherwise would keep degenerating into flurry of shitposting and arguments about the shitposts. Not sure of all their decisions, but I'm pretty sure they'd have in mind legal-issues too...'cause having a bunch of stuff that could get WWP torn down on legal-grounds would be heaps bad!

    I don't know how it works, since I haven't (yet...*touch wood*) been on the receiving end of an infraction...but more "borderline-infraction-worthy" posts could maybe be initially handled with a private infraction, with an explanation, so that the person could have a chance to rectify their posting content/style (or at least air their difference of opinions with the mods/challenge the infraction)...minus the whole public-forum hoopla that goes along with it.

    Anyhow, sorry that you've gotten so disillusioned with WWP. Obviously I'm not, but to each their own. :)
  34. sue Administrator

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I think you pretty much got it. At first we took the "don't be an idiot" approach, which often doesn't work. So this time around we will take the time to spell it out. Giving examples, covering more different types of conduct, and also answering frequent questions people have about the rules.
  35. El Diablo Member


    Lol. I don't think that works if you're a girl.

    I know, I know..."There are NO girls on the internet - I'm on the internet - Therefore I'm not a girl." Point taken. :p
  36. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    You can't expect someone who took a flier yesterday and logged on today to know these things.
  37. Biden Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    yes, but if they aren't a moonbat then it would be hard for them to be infracted, and they cannot dome call if they don't know what the dome is
  38. Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    Some of them are, but let me explain something about rules. Rules are something I work with in my RL. Basically, they are what I do.

    A lot of countries have very few laws, and a lot of rulings which then becomes the future guideline. This works, but it's very hard to predict what will happen in an unforeseen situation, and you have the trouble of the courts being political. This is the sort of thing you will find in countries with a common law tradition.

    Then there is very very detailed rules, trying to foresee every situation. Their ideal is that the judge is simply a machine, enacting what is specifically stated in the law. These rulebooks often become very very complicated, and they will have a hard time foreseeing everything. They have the additional disadvantage, that only very few people will read them, and everything gets very technical. This is how the EU legislates. If you ever had anything to do with EU-law, you will understand just how fucking annoying and useless this is.

    Then you have what I prefer, and what I think this forum should have.
    Rules that in somewhat broad terms set forth what purpose they are put in place for in the first place, and then give some basic guidelines.

    This allows for a flexible regulation; When there is a clear violation of a rule; the appropriate action can be taken. Whenever there is doubt about what to do, one can return to the background of the rule, the purpose, which must be clearly stated.

    Couple this with open styled moderation, where it is visible to the users what is going on, then you will have the best moderation.

    TL;DR version:

    Make few general rules, and give the reason for each rule, the background, the purpose.

    When there is a clear violation; a clear action can be taken.
    When there is doubt, one can look at the purpose of the regulation, and then see if action is needed.

    Since the rules are purpose-based and in general terms, they can be applied to situation that were not predicted when the rules where made, and they also make sure that moderation is not completely random, since they must always be either clearly within the rules, or based on the purpose.
  39. Crappy Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]

    I agree with you on this, but they'd still wonder what it means. In that way they are vague.
  40. RightOn Member

    Re: Community and Moderation discussion [Added POLL]


    If people come here from a flyer or wherever and then get ganged up on... few will come back. What is the sense of sending new people here then?
    I also find "Lurk more" is just plain rude to say to noobs.

    but not so rude for people who have been members for a while and who are too lazy to read , use the search button, or research. even though I am sick of seeing "lurk more" posted

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins