Heavy handed mods

[M&D2021 44]

I've been noticing what seems like some pretty heavy handed overreach by some of the mods on the forum. For instance, here is a recent mod comment closing a thread: "~~Thread locked to further replies. THe OP has been given all the advice members can offer. Do not restart or refer back to this thread in any shape or form~~ "

 

Who is the mod to say that all of the advice that members can offer has been provided? Other members who have not yet had a chance to respond may have had other thoughts to share. Plus, what is with the empty threat to not refer back to this thread in any shape or form? Is this site meant to be an authoritarian one ruled by a small group of elite mods or an open one, where all members are valued and conversations aren't shut down simply because one mod decides it should be?

 

While mods should be shutting down illegal or threatening comments, I don't see any value to them shutting down threads or deciding that the discussion is over. Now let's see if the mods will allow discussion of their actions to be discussed or if this thread will be shut down as well.

[TBoneTX 43,419]

Thread is moved from Off Topic to the Site Discussion forum.

[Captain Ewok 1,859]

On 7/7/2021 at 7:25 AM, M&D2021 said:

I've been noticing what seems like some pretty heavy handed overreach by some of the mods on the forum. For instance, here is a recent mod comment closing a thread: "~~Thread locked to further replies. THe OP has been given all the advice members can offer. Do not restart or refer back to this thread in any shape or form~~ "

 

Who is the mod to say that all of the advice that members can offer has been provided? Other members who have not yet had a chance to respond may have had other thoughts to share. Plus, what is with the empty threat to not refer back to this thread in any shape or form? Is this site meant to be an authoritarian one ruled by a small group of elite mods or an open one, where all members are valued and conversations aren't shut down simply because one mod decides it should be?

 

While mods should be shutting down illegal or threatening comments, I don't see any value to them shutting down threads or deciding that the discussion is over. Now let's see if the mods will allow discussion of their actions to be discussed or if this thread will be shut down as well.

What thread?  I would agree that on the surface this seems to be something we can do better on.

[moxy 1,051]

Yeah. Some moderators have forgotten that their job is literally to moderate discussion, not to be the gatekeepers of discussion. There is definitely room for improvement.

[M&D2021 44]

On 7/10/2021 at 2:02 AM, Captain Ewok said:

What thread?  I would agree that on the surface this seems to be something we can do better on.

It was this thread, although I've noticed such heavy handedness where mods take it upon themselves to shut down discussion because they feel the case is closed. This was just the one that prompted me to make this post, particularly due to the mod seeming to threaten users against referring to that thread again.

 

18 hours ago, moxy said:

Yeah. Some moderators have forgotten that their job is literally to moderate discussion, not to be the gatekeepers of discussion. There is definitely room for improvement.

Great point!

[moxy 1,051]

6 hours ago, M&D2021 said:

Great point!

For example, over in the Current Events and Hot Social Topics forum, back in April am moderator just up and decided that, effectively, you cannot criticize the source of an article or other news source. (for example, if the basis behind a post is a link to a far-right or far-left website, you can't use that as a basis to argue against the post's topic) Or at least that's my take and others' takes, because we can't actually ask for, or receive an explanation for the action. Members are not allowed to discuss a moderator action in the open, and some moderators will not explain their actions, even in PM.

 

So the environment that's been created over the years is that some mods take actions based on some nebulous criteria, and members are cut off from understanding those actions. And so in the Current Events forum at least, there is a tacit understanding that criticizing sources is verboten, and will possibly result in moderator action, or possibly not. Who knows. In any case, it's action that has been seemingly taken, despite not being against the TOS.

 

And just so we're clear, Hashtag notallmods

Edited July 12, 2021 by moxy

[Prizm123 1,084]

2 hours ago, moxy said:

For example, over in the Current Events and Hot Social Topics forum, back in April am moderator just up and decided that, effectively, you cannot criticize the source of an article or other news source. (for example, if the basis behind a post is a link to a far-right or far-left website, you can't use that as a basis to argue against the post's topic) Or at least that's my take and others' takes, because we can't actually ask for, or receive an explanation for the action. Members are not allowed to discuss a moderator action in the open, and some moderators will not explain their actions, even in PM.

 

So the environment that's been created over the years is that some mods take actions based on some nebulous criteria, and members are cut off from understanding those actions. And so in the Current Events forum at least, there is a tacit understanding that criticizing sources is verboten, and will possibly result in moderator action, or possibly not. Who knows. In any case, it's action that has been seemingly taken, despite not being against the TOS.

 

And just so we're clear, Hashtag notallmods

agreed 100%

 

[Mike E 11,727]

On 7/12/2021 at 4:53 PM, moxy said:

For example, over in the Current Events and Hot Social Topics forum, back in April am moderator just up and decided that, effectively, you cannot criticize the source of an article or other news source. (for example, if the basis behind a post is a link to a far-right or far-left website, you can't use that as a basis to argue against the post's topic) Or at least that's my take and others' takes, because we can't actually ask for, or receive an explanation for the action. Members are not allowed to discuss a moderator action in the open, and some moderators will not explain their actions, even in PM.

 

So the environment that's been created over the years is that some mods take actions based on some nebulous criteria, and members are cut off from understanding those actions. And so in the Current Events forum at least, there is a tacit understanding that criticizing sources is verboten, and will possibly result in moderator action, or possibly not. Who knows. In any case, it's action that has been seemingly taken, despite not being against the TOS.

 

And just so we're clear, Hashtag notallmods

Criticizing sources is weak debating on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement.  It is especially lame when the criticism is leveled at a member or reference the member uses because the source is known to sometimes or even most of time have bias. So if FoxNews reports something that is factual, that fact is discounted until say MSNBC reports the same fact.  

[seekingthetruth 1,219]

On 7/12/2021 at 10:31 PM, M&D2021 said:

t was this thread, although I've noticed such heavy handedness where mods take it upon themselves to shut down discussion because they feel the case is closed. This was just the one that prompted me to make this post, particularly due to the mod seeming to threaten users against referring to that thread again.

I think that is a fairly canned response to close a thread when a poster is just wasting people's time.  I just read the thread and I think the moderator did the right thing.  You can see that some of the posters were trying to help the OP but the OP was either playing games or lying.  Such a ridiculous story with so many holes in it.  Respected posters basically said "I give up" and "I'm out", so it was time to close it.

 

The part about "do not reopen" etc. is not aimed at the posters giving advice; it is aimed at the OP who is just wasting everyone's time.  I don't think he was a troll but close to it.

[M&D2021 44]

6 hours ago, seekingthetruth said:

I think that is a fairly canned response to close a thread when a poster is just wasting people's time.

People have a choice whether to respond or not. If they feel it is a waste of time, then they should not waste said time by responding. In any case, this example that I selected is probably not the best one but I have seen what I consider a heavy handed approach by some mods on a number of posts. This just happened to be the one that led me to create this post. If the mod response was canned, then perhaps the mods need to change their canned responses because I do not appreciate being told to "not restart or refer back to this thread in any shape or form". If I want to do so for a reason that I feel is valid, then that is my choice, as long as I am not breaking the TOS of VJ.

[seekingthetruth 1,219]

1 hour ago, M&D2021 said:

People have a choice whether to respond or not. If they feel it is a waste of time, then they should not waste said time by responding.

Of course, but many responders, like in the example post, genuinely try to help EVERYBODY, to a point.  No matter if the OP seems ill informed, or strange, or even like a troll, there are so many helpful people here that will try their best to answer questions, or if needed, ask for more information.  So typically, they will invest some time before they give up and don't respond any longer, like in the example post.

 

I have seen the line "Do not restart or refer back to this thread in any shape or form" used before. That is why I thought it was part of a "canned" response.  If your example was not the best, perhaps you can find others to discuss.  As I said before, I don't think it is directed at the productive and helpful posters; it is directed at timewasters and people who refuse to take advice given by very knowledgeable posters.  If a timewaster thread is shut down, we certainly don't want them starting the whole process over.

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

On 7/16/2021 at 8:46 AM, seekingthetruth said:

 

I have seen the line "Do not restart or refer back to this thread in any shape or form" used before. That is why I thought it was part of a "canned" response. 

the above is to prevent transportation of drama from one thread to another, which has happened in the past.  member A posts something, thread is locked for one reason or another.  member A starts another thread later on regarding another aspect of their journey and member B uses the old thread to transport old drama into the new thread.  
the above is a preventative measure used by moderators to keep future threads from going sideways.

charles 
vj moderation