Rule discussion - 2/14/2018 (pizzagate)

submitted ago by Crensch

I know it's not been the whole 6 months we discussed last time, but it is indeed time to talk about the RULES.

As you all know, we have a place for meta talk about the rules and the mods, /v/pizzagatemods. It's not overly public, and it's not the most elegant solution to cluttering the front page here, but that's what we have.

This sticky is here because the usual monthly concern-trolling, and @Millenium_Falcon attacking by @ESOTERICshade gathered enough notice to warrant one.

This was the deleted post. This is the post I made with my findings on the issue.

As always, mods serve at the pleasure of the users of the subverse. Please make your voices heard.

This sticky is both a polling and a discussion. Discuss whatever, wherever, but the polling will function like this:

POLLING

On a base-level comment, type any of these numbers you agree with, in any order.

1 - Rules are fine, don't change them

2 - Mods are doing a good job, don't remove them

3 - Mods aren't doing enough, and need to recruit more mods, and remove more submissions.

4 - Mods are not doing a good job, we need to talk about removing them

5 - Rules are not fine, we need to change them

6 - Mods need to lighten up and let more things slide, let's talk about that.

7 - Try no rules and no moderation for a couple of weeks

8 - No rules and no moderation in perpetuity.

Millennial_Falcon

Millennial_Falcon seems to be a popular whipping boy here. Those that show up in /v/pizzagatemods with complaints tend to target him almost exclusively. The people attacking him seem to think they're not alone, but fail to provide any evidence of wrongdoing.

Keep in mind, your accusations and support for them will not just be taken at face value, like every accuser so far seems to have expected. They will be researched thoroughly, and if there is merit to them, something WILL be done. Please feel free to be the first to provide evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

And by all means, comment on any other mod you have an issue with. Hell, if you guys want ME gone, I'll hand over the reigns to whomever you think is worthy.

Poll will end on the 18th.

Oh,

9 - Stop asking us this crap for 6 months FOR REAL this time!

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

think- ago

@heygeorge suggested to crosspost my comment from Crench's previous thread in v/pizzagatemods, so here it is:

I don't think the rules are a problem in general.

The only thing I'd like to be changed is that OPs should be granted some time to fix a post, instead of deleting a post and require reposting.

Reason for this:

Often posts already have many comments when a mod deletes and asks to fix and repost.

Comments won't show on a repost, and discussions get interrupted by requiring to repost, even if its a minor issue that needs to be fixed.

I'd suggest to give OPs 30 minutes or so to fix, shouldn't they do so, delete and ask for repost.

This, of course, depends on whether the mods have the time to look at a post again in the given time period, I'm aware of this.

Crensch ago

I'm not overly opposed to such a thing. More demand on the mods, but if that's what the users agree on, we can find a way to make it work.

Maybe a comment by the mod pinging other mods capable of removing - if they have to go, the next mod can see what/when/where/how the grace period started, and remove if unedited.

Happy to hear other takes on this, but at first glance, a great idea!

Vindicator ago

Another possibility would be a flair of some kind flagging it for removal if not fixed.

jangles ago

Yes, and letting some slack on rule 3 with a flag "poorly explained/not clear " and leave it up

Vindicator ago

We could have flairs for each of the rules, and flair first so people can edit, then remove the flair when they do, or delete if they don't.

think- ago

We could have flairs for each of the rules

That's a good idea. What time period would you like to give OPs, if any?

Vindicator ago

Good question. Experimentally, I want to say 24 hours in case they're in a radically different timezone. That also gives time for other users to contribute links and explanations the OP can use to edit his post -- making the whole process more crowdsourced and collaborative.

think- ago

Experimentally, I want to say 24 hours in case they're in a radically different timezone. That also gives time for other users to contribute links and explanations the OP can use to edit his post -- making the whole process more crowdsourced and collaborative.

When thinking of doing posts in the future as OP, I'd say: great, go for it! :-)

Considering the quite shilly climate these days however (...), I just imagined some very happy resident shills having a feast day and spamming the sub so bad that good posts would pushed down the thread into oblivion. :-/

How can we prevent this? Maybe give it a two weeks trial period?

If we assume everybody would play fair, this would be really great, and could lead to some enthusiastic teamwork. People are always glad to help with links and ideas.

Vindicator ago

Everyone would need to button on their self-moderation sweaters and start downvoating. I think we'd want to try it as an experiment, first.

think- ago

Everyone would need to button on their self-moderation sweaters and start downvoating.

Yes, I feel it adament to stress this.

I get a bit nervous these days when I see the Sarah alts farming SCP, because people don't realize who she/he is, and might upvoat posts just for a clickbaity headline.

Vindicator ago

The last suggestion in this comment I just make on the sticky would take care of "Sarah" et al.

think- ago

To prevent a tsunami of shill spam, we can further stipulate that posting more than two threads at a time earning rule violation flairs will get your deferred removal privilege revoked and they all get removed.

That's a very good idea. This really made me a bit nervous and I couldn't think of a way we could prevent the spamming.