moderation open thread
#97
Suraj, reading the comment you had posted ("So girls dressed provocatively are going to march for their 'freedom, equality'? I don't think that helps a lot"), I think Lalit was far too patient in explaining why it is wrong. The fact that you decided certain way of dressing is provocative means you think there is a decent way to dress and that is you telling women what kind of dresses are suitable for them. If you still don't get it and think of some extreme counter examples like "so should nudity be allowed'? to justify yourself, ask yourself when was the last time you used the adjective "provocative" for men's dresses. Equality and freedom mean not having double standards.
[+] 2 users Like Lije's post
Reply
#98
Okay. I understand now. I did not understand why what I said was considered sexist and why your were saying so. LMC's post and the above one makes it easy to understand. Appreciated.
Reply
#99
Why are you trying to make an acharya matt/church/mosque along with your own definition of "atheism"? and with your list of commandments!.
Where every person should be "perfectly" in line with the views of the admins/forum rules(as you call it) just the way the Quran/Casteism/Bible is implemented in various communities.
I don't understand how you call this a "society" of "atheists" where people can debate and discuss; But the moment anyone disagrees with an admin's views even "slightly" or fails to comply with the rules even "unintentionally" then the people who run the "society" (Admins) will behead the person (Ban).
So there you have it; you're trying to redefine the term ''atheism" using your very own views/opinions; And you expect everyone to comply with 'YOUR DEFINITION" of atheism, anything short of that you'll burn him/her at the stake! (Banning is as good as that in an online forum)

I'd like to mention that this definition of atheism you have is more like pumped up ANTI-THEISM.

I used to think atheist-activists promote rationality by helping people grow out of faith;
But when did this turn into attempting to destroy faith and leaving a horde of people offended?
And the best part is you also have your own set of political views too! which you expect people to
agree with, else, again they'll be banned.
So I think you should remove & replace a few words in your cover picture.
Don't you agree?.
Would I be banned for even saying something like this ^^ ??.
Reply
(02-Jul-2013, 11:10 AM)shashank Wrote: So I think you should remove & replace a few words in your cover picture.
Don't you agree?.
Would I be banned for even saying something like this ^^ ??.

That's just my opinion; and I'm reasonable enough to change it, if at all you ever reply to this.
Reply
(02-Jul-2013, 11:10 AM)shashank Wrote: So I think you should remove & replace a few words in your cover picture.
Don't you agree?.

Do you know what is the meaning of Freethought?

(02-Jul-2013, 11:10 AM)shashank Wrote: Would I be banned for even saying something like this ^^ ??

And do not indulge in trolling (flame baiting) in the MOT!
Reply
(02-Jul-2013, 11:10 AM)shashank Wrote: Why are you trying to make an acharya matt/church/mosque along with your own definition of "atheism"? and with your list of commandments!.
Where every person should be "perfectly" in line with the views of the admins/forum rules(as you call it) just the way the Quran/Casteism/Bible is implemented in various communities.
I don't understand how you call this a "society" of "atheists" where people can debate and discuss; But the moment anyone disagrees with an admin's views even "slightly" or fails to comply with the rules even "unintentionally" then the people who run the "society" (Admins) will behead the person (Ban).

Ridiculous hyperbole doesn't get you anywhere. It's not like someone is holding a gun to your head and asking you to comply to everything we say. This explains why we moderate the way we do:

http://nirmukta.com/trolls-and-other-dis...st-groups/

If you don't like it, you are free to go someplace else.
Reply
(02-Jul-2013, 08:13 PM)Lije Wrote:
(02-Jul-2013, 11:10 AM)shashank Wrote: Why are you trying to make an acharya matt/church/mosque along with your own definition of "atheism"? and with your list of commandments!.
Where every person should be "perfectly" in line with the views of the admins/forum rules(as you call it) just the way the Quran/Casteism/Bible is implemented in various communities.
I don't understand how you call this a "society" of "atheists" where people can debate and discuss; But the moment anyone disagrees with an admin's views even "slightly" or fails to comply with the rules even "unintentionally" then the people who run the "society" (Admins) will behead the person (Ban).

Ridiculous hyperbole doesn't get you anywhere. It's not like someone is holding a gun to your head and asking you to comply to everything we say. This explains why we moderate the way we do:

http://nirmukta.com/trolls-and-other-dis...st-groups/

If you don't like it, you are free to go someplace else.


My humble suggestion would be that you(Admins) can just delete the "wrong" comment and say-"that was a comment which promotes certain X, which is unacceptable, and hence the comment was deleted"
Delete say 'one or two' of his/her comments which are unacceptable and then if the person repeatedly makes similar comments then ban him/her.Instead of outrightly banning him/her on the first instance itself.It does feel like a gun to the head which is triggered at the first instance of misconduct(Specially when it is unintentional).
Reply
I raised a question about limiting the use of language on the FB group. I come here not from a point of ignorance, I have an understanding of regional opposition to Hindi, but I ask not just of Hindi but any language. My question to the group was - in limiting ourselves to English, are we not perpetrating just a different heirarchy and elistism? What is the group objection of leaving posts in other languages around and requesting admins and group members to help translate as necessary because there may be people who are less comfortable in English, but simultaneously science-minded, freethinking and secular humanists. Are we not being just differently restrictive in requiring that each poster translate themsleves into English (there is a redundancy here, but please bear with me - if a person was comfortable enough in English, they wouldn't be writing in a different language).

My thread was deleted because it was seen that I was discussing 'moderation' rather than asking for opinions. I will truly admit I was doing both - but I think it is a valid question which deserved discussion.

There was another post asking why the tone on the FB page has changed so much - it was deleted too.

I understand safe spaces - both posts were very respectful and questioning of how open we are willing to be while simultaneously adhereing to group policy about not allowing discrimination. Both were active threads with reasonable debate occurring, for and against and enlightening to other readers too, or so I thought. Both were removed by moderators / admins. (Because I frame this in light of the principles of the group and rules of the group, I will not name the moderator, I don't know if it was an individual thing, so will not assume it)

So though my first question was about language, I now also want to ask about transparancy in moderation and judgement between sticking only to a prescribed letter of the law rather than to understanding and working with the spirit of it. Also, I would like to know if moderators 'police' each other, if so, how?

I value the group and its discussions, so I am here - I do not consider myself a troll, I am and have always been very respectful in tone, if I have erred, it is out of ignorance and being unaware, never intent or beligerence. But I have a very long rope on questioning and being questioned because I see that as the only path to growth, and I'm starting to feel that introspection and questioning are values that this group is forsaking. We, as people, can be very broad-minded on some things and very narrow on others and sometimes this does not create cognitive dissonance for an individual - but we ought to retain the right to question each other and ourselves. Question respectfully, allowing the other to keep their dignity - yes, but have the right to question neverthless.

Hence I'd appreciate feedback on both the language issue and the issue of admin / moderator transparancy.
Reply
I have been a member for years, lost my password and have relogged in as a new member because I'm also having e-mail issues. Just putting this in context...
Reply
@Sooty,

As a rule we do not allow discussions of group guidelines in the facebook groups. Our past experience has been that nothing useful ever comes out of it with discussions veering off in a hundred different directions. Facebook isn't like the forums where there are a number of features that aid moderation like splitting off-topic posts into a new thread, warn users, temp ban, put users in moderation etc..

We've also seen that any discussion about group guidelines pretty much becomes an invitation to question everything about Nirmukta's stances. To give an example, since you say you understand safe spaces, we do not allow gendered slurs in the group. Now imagine we took some moderation action based on that stance. There will always be people who think that was unfair. So one of them will start an innocuous looking post of why moderators shouldn't be so heavy handed. Another will see that as an invitation to question what is so bad about gendered slurs. Some troll will ask "what about misandry?". So now we have to deal with the situation where we have start from scratch explaining why gendered slurs are bad, how they can make a space unsafe. Again if this was on a forum, such discussions can be split off into other threads (within reason. Topics that veer into something like MRA territory might still not be allowed).

That was the reason your posts were deleted on the initial thread. The other two threads were deleted to stop them from becoming an invitation to start discussing every moderation action.
[+] 1 user Likes Lije's post
Reply
(09-Jul-2013, 10:30 AM)Lije Wrote: @Sooty,

As a rule we do not allow discussions of group guidelines in the facebook groups. Our past experience has been that nothing useful ever comes out of it with discussions veering off in a hundred different directions. Facebook isn't like the forums where there are a number of features that aid moderation like splitting off-topic posts into a new thread, warn users, temp ban, put users in moderation etc..

We've also seen that any discussion about group guidelines pretty much becomes an invitation to question everything about Nirmukta's stances. To give an example, since you say you understand safe spaces, we do not allow gendered slurs in the group. Now imagine we took some moderation action based on that stance. There will always be people who think that was unfair. So one of them will start an innocuous looking post of why moderators shouldn't be so heavy handed. Another will see that as an invitation to question what is so bad about gendered slurs. Some troll will ask "what about misandry?". So now we have to deal with the situation where we have start from scratch explaining why gendered slurs are bad, how they can make a space unsafe. Again if this was on a forum, such discussions can be split off into other threads (within reason. Topics that veer into something like MRA territory might still not be allowed).

That was the reason your posts were deleted on the initial thread. The other two threads were deleted to stop them from becoming an invitation to start discussing every moderation action.

Fair enough. But does that mean that my question about language elitism just gets ignored because it is difficult one to administer?
Reply
Also, I ask that a link be put right in when such issues arise - in the case that I mention, I was repeatedly told this is not the right place - I get that, OK, but when I asked repeatedly where I ought to go, I didn't get an answer for quite a while. Pasting a link right then and there would solve it because when I ask where to go look, telling me 'Go look' is no solution.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)