Bait threads

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Asking this question here, since it hasn't been answered elsewhere on the forums or by comment from the moderators concerned.

So last week I posted this thread. Following a post being removed by RyanH and then subsequently restored, the thread was then locked as a bait thread following a 'complete review of this thread by the Moderation Team'.

I'm interested in some explanation from the powers that be as to how the decision was reached that my thread was considered baiting, given that:

• The article was posted verbatim with no editorialising in the OP
• There was no editorialising in the thread title
• Only a handful of replies were posted.

To date there have been several threads about the current Gaza crisis. Here are some examples:

Marco Rubio: Hamas to Blame for Gaza Casualties

Hitler quotes will not help the Palestinians

Sudan editor severely beaten after call for Israeli ties

Moral clarity in Gaza

Why are these considered legitimate for posting on the boards and mine was not? This thread, for example, has been allowed to continue for nearly 10 pages, despite numerous inflammatory images being posted within it. Why is that?

Further, I am interested in understanding why the thread entitled Sweden Goes insane, which I reported as being a bait thread (because the premise of the OP is that muslim immigrants are raping all the women and 'how long until the US is like this') was deemed to be acceptable under the TOS.

Just interested in an honest and transparent answer.

Thank you.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[mota bhai 2,675]

You deserve a thoughtful response but good luck getting that from this crowd.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I got a general response from Kathryn via PM, however she wasn't involved in the decision so couldn't provide any clarity on exactly how the determination was made.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I got a general response from Kathryn via PM, however she wasn't involved in the decision so couldn't provide any clarity on exactly how the determination was made.

I've heard that one before.

It's an act.

[waka1 28]

Quote by Samuel Johnson, 1740, "the Idler"

"Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages."

[mota bhai 2,675]

VJ is not war. What is VJ? It is a business. A business that generates a tiny profit for its owner.

In the universe of message boards, VJ is KMart in the years before Chapter 11.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm just after a reasonable explanation (sans ego) as to why my thread was treated differently to the others on the same subject, or the thread I reported.

[mota bhai 2,675]

You should know better.

You will get one of two things. I believe these are the responses they have documented in their Mod Playbook.

Response Type A: Tell you to take your complaints to VJ's private messenger. Lock this thread.

Response Type B: Carpet bomb your screen with a wall of text, intended to seem thoughtful and intelligent, but in actuality inane and ridiculous. Hope you get overwhelmed with the intellectual firepower of your Mod opponent and go away.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Because they don't have the teeth to follow through on previous warnings for certain posters, and someone must be friends with smoke, because he said it was bait so it must be true.

In other words, to cover up incompetence.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Write Ewok directly.

Asking this question here, since it hasn't been answered elsewhere on the forums or by comment from the moderators concerned.

So last week I posted this thread. Following a post being removed by RyanH and then subsequently restored, the thread was then locked as a bait thread following a 'complete review of this thread by the Moderation Team'.

I'm interested in some explanation from the powers that be as to how the decision was reached that my thread was considered baiting, given that:

• The article was posted verbatim with no editorialising in the OP
• There was no editorialising in the thread title
• Only a handful of replies were posted.

To date there have been several threads about the current Gaza crisis. Here are some examples:

Marco Rubio: Hamas to Blame for Gaza Casualties

Hitler quotes will not help the Palestinians

Sudan editor severely beaten after call for Israeli ties

Moral clarity in Gaza

Why are these considered legitimate for posting on the boards and mine was not? This thread, for example, has been allowed to continue for nearly 10 pages, despite numerous inflammatory images being posted within it. Why is that?

Further, I am interested in understanding why the thread entitled Sweden Goes insane, which I reported as being a bait thread (because the premise of the OP is that muslim immigrants are raping all the women and 'how long until the US is like this') was deemed to be acceptable under the TOS.

Just interested in an honest and transparent answer.

Thank you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You should know better.

You will get one of two things. I believe these are the responses they have documented in their Mod Playbook.

Response Type A: Tell you to take your complaints to VJ's private messenger. Lock this thread.

Response Type B: Carpet bomb your screen with a wall of text, intended to seem thoughtful and intelligent, but in actuality inane and ridiculous. Hope you get overwhelmed with the intellectual firepower of your Mod opponent and go away.

I'm open to the idea that there's a genuine reason why what I posted was treated differently to the other threads I cited. However, even if it was a mistake (whatever the reason) it shouldn't be difficult to admit it and use it to improve future moderation decisions.

Given that the moderation team is supposed to be about making the forums 'family friendly' in the spirit of community that forum members should feel that moderation decisions are being made fairly, transparently and with a degree of consistency. I get that people make mistakes, and this could involve a person being biased in their decision making. I just think not providing that transparency is very dubious and encourages people to violate the TOS or otherwise flood the mods forums with reports to get the outcome they want.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Family friendly means covering up photos of women, nothing more. Many people are confusing family friendly as defined here for being nice or honest or something, and it is not that.

There was a more recent resolution to improve moderation, but it has failed.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well apparently family friendly also means people's eyes not being offended by words like #######, #######, ###### and ####.

I've seen at least three moderators lurking in that Mod Issues thread, over the last couple of days so I know they've seen what was posted there. Not much in the way of comment on it though - apart from TBone and he didn't address it directly either.

It can't be only me that thinks that If moderators were clear and open about their decision making process you wouldn't get threads like this one.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[mota bhai 2,675]

Family friendly means covering up photos of women, nothing more. Many people are confusing family friendly as defined here for being nice or honest or something, and it is not that.

There was a more recent resolution to improve moderation, but it has failed.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed (wo)man is king. But guess what? It's still the land of the blind. There is no way anything thoughtful ever comes out of this mod team. The ingredients simply are not there.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Well apparently family friendly also means people's eyes not being offended by words like #######, #######, ###### and ####.

I've seen at least three moderators lurking in that Mod Issues thread, over the last couple of days so I know they've seen what was posted there. Not much in the way of comment on it though - apart from TBone and he didn't address it directly either.

It can't be only me that thinks that If moderators were clear and open about their decision making process you wouldn't get threads like this one.

Oh, you are right. Family friendly now bans Richard Cheney.

And you are right that if the mods followed through on their own declarations and used common sense than this wouldn't happen. Better to ban chinese communists as a word but let sentiments of hate for a nationality from someone who has had other similar hate speech removed get a pass.

Because if you can hide your racism behind some special words, then the team will get confused and forget the context of previous behavior.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Harpa Timsah