|
Official: Archived: ATRL HQ (2014-2015)
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,070
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eglė
Let me call you out, moderators, just for once.
I personally think that you guys sometimes hand out WPs without overlooking the rules. I'm not sure if you have rules, like, "We don't warn people in HQ", "permaban immediately after posts explicit/racist stuff", but I hope you do, because at this point of view, I think that mods individually decide whether they want to warn the post or not, it feels like it depends what mod warns you, because some mods are more harsh and warn literally every single post, and some mods overlook everything and the stuff they're warning particular person for. I think I have one WP that could be used as an example. Before my one month ban, I posted a post in HQ, and I don't even remember what that post was about, because Phoenix warned me for that post and deleted it immediately after. But then when I got banned (I got another WP shortly after that one and they banned me then), I opened HQ as a guest and I saw this really interesting post, which was posted by the senior moderator of ATRL - Kworb himself. And in that post, Kworb stated that we, members, "won't be warned for breaking HQ rules; they'll (mods) try and stick with reminders and threadbans instead of handing out warning points." And with all of that, I just want to say that you guys should fix your mess when it comes to handing out WPs. You're so strict about them, but I'm pretty sure that you just decide about them individually.
And mods, pay attention to @ATRLFeedback, as well as your personal Twitter accounts. @ATRLFeedback is meant to "Handle ban appeals, login issues, and other issues related to http://ATRL.net . We'll let you know when there's special downtime, server issues and more", but when I tried to contact you, dear moderators, nobody replied to me as I was interested in finding out why did I get the last WP.
Oh, and one last thing - it's time for a change in this place as it's becoming more and more upsetting to participate in this place every single day. I think that this forum might only last for one, or two, more years, because if you continue being so strict about everything and banning people for no damn reason, there will be no one left here. You have to understand that we sometimes don't think as you do. You people seriously find everything warnable.
And wew LORD, I had to wait for a whole month and I STILL have 6 WPs? You all are just CRUEL.
But I'm glad to be back.
|
I agree that it depends on which mods sees the report, and that's not the way it should be. If a post is clearly breaking the rule (just recently I reported a post for circumventing the censor, and I'm pretty sure it was cleared even though that's one of the easiest posts to make a call on) then it needs to get warned, regardless of who's handling the report. I feel like they can be very inconsistent, and I get that they're human and make mistake, but if you have such strict rules in place, you can't give some posts a pass and then warn others.
I've had to send in a help request to make sure that some posts get warned after the report has been cleared (at least that's what it looks like most of the time), even though they contain obvious rule breaking content.
I also sent in a help request to see if a certain nickname was warnable in SYG because it was insensitive, and I got the reply that it was. I then reported like 3 posts containing this nickname and only one of them got warned.
And they really need to include the last WP in the message that gets displayed when you're banned. Less work for the mods to look it up when somebody asks, and that way you're not left wondering for a month.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,102
|
Quote:
but I hope you do, because at this point of view, I think that mods individually decide whether they want to warn the post or not,
|
Yes. What is the issue here?
Quote:
it feels like it depends what mod warns you, because some mods are more harsh and warn literally every single post
|
Yes. Some moderators interpret posts differently as to what they would consider over-the-line or extreme. What's the issue here?
Quote:
and some mods overlook everything and the stuff they're warning particular person for.
|
That depends on the context.
Quote:
And with all of that, I just want to say that you guys should fix your mess when it comes to handing out WPs. You're so strict about them, but I'm pretty sure that you just decide about them individually.
|
This is just redundant now.
Quote:
And mods, pay attention to @ATRLFeedback, as well as your personal Twitter accounts. @ATRLFeedback is meant to "Handle ban appeals, login issues, and other issues related to http://ATRL.net . We'll let you know when there's special downtime, server issues and more", but when I tried to contact you, dear moderators, nobody replied to me as I was interested in finding out why did I get the last WP.
|
Okay.
Quote:
Oh, and one last thing - it's time for a change in this place as it's becoming more and more upsetting to participate in this place every single day. I think that this forum might only last for one, or two, more years, because if you continue being so strict about everything and banning people for no damn reason, there will be no one left here. You have to understand that we sometimes don't think as you do. You people seriously find everything warnable.
|
Yes, we are more strict now and becoming stricter. Tolerance is less and less.
And you're free to leave at any time.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,988
|
Again, I'd like a professional mod to answer me, someone like Kworb, or Retro. Thank you!
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,102
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
I agree that it depends on which mods sees the report, and that's not the way it should be. If a post is clearly breaking the rule (just recently I reported a post for circumventing the censor, and I'm pretty sure it was cleared even though that's one of the easiest posts to make a call on) then it needs to get warned, regardless of who's handling the report. I feel like they can be very inconsistent, and I get that they're human and make mistake, but if you have such strict rules in place, you can't give some posts a pass and then warn others.
I've had to send in a help request to make sure that some posts get warned after the report has been cleared (at least that's what it looks like most of the time), even though they contain obvious rule breaking content.
I also sent in a help request to see if a certain nickname was warnable in SYG because it was insensitive, and I got the reply that it was. I then reported like 3 posts containing this nickname and only one of them got warned.
And they really need to include the last WP in the message that gets displayed when you're banned. Less work for the mods to look it up when somebody asks, and that way you're not left wondering for a month.
|
Clearly rule-breaking post is something that's immediately obvious. That is not always the case, and it doesn't mean it is a mistake.
You're never going to have consistency in human judgment. The same case in a court of law could come with a different verdict depending on the jury selected. That's why jury selection is so important for lawyers.
There's just no way around this, unless one moderator was doing all the reports. And that's never going to be.
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eglė
Let me call you out, moderators, just for once.
I personally think that you guys sometimes hand out WPs without overlooking the rules. I'm not sure if you have rules, like, "We don't warn people in HQ", "permaban immediately after posts explicit/racist stuff", but I hope you do, because at this point of view, I think that mods individually decide whether they want to warn the post or not, it feels like it depends what mod warns you, because some mods are more harsh and warn literally every single post, and some mods overlook everything and the stuff they're warning particular person for. I think I have one WP that could be used as an example. Before my one month ban, I posted a post in HQ, and I don't even remember what that post was about, because Phoenix warned me for that post and deleted it immediately after. But then when I got banned (I got another WP shortly after that one and they banned me then), I opened HQ as a guest and I saw this really interesting post, which was posted by the senior moderator of ATRL - Kworb himself. And in that post, Kworb stated that we, members, "won't be warned for breaking HQ rules; they'll (mods) try and stick with reminders and threadbans instead of handing out warning points." And with all of that, I just want to say that you guys should fix your mess when it comes to handing out WPs. You're so strict about them, but I'm pretty sure that you just decide about them individually.
And mods, pay attention to @ATRLFeedback, as well as your personal Twitter accounts. @ATRLFeedback is meant to "Handle ban appeals, login issues, and other issues related to http://ATRL.net . We'll let you know when there's special downtime, server issues and more", but when I tried to contact you, dear moderators, nobody replied to me as I was interested in finding out why did I get the last WP.
Oh, and one last thing - it's time for a change in this place as it's becoming more and more upsetting to participate in this place every single day. I think that this forum might only last for one, or two, more years, because if you continue being so strict about everything and banning people for no damn reason, there will be no one left here. You have to understand that we sometimes don't think as you do. You people seriously find everything warnable.
And wew LORD, I had to wait for a whole month and I STILL have 6 WPs? You all are just CRUEL.
But I'm glad to be back.
|
You weren't warned for breaking HQ rules but for breaking the rules in general. My post doesn't mean that you can't get warning points in HQ. It had more to do with the move to the new HQ thread and people getting used to the new limitations.
Also, if someone gets banned then it means they have amassed a large quantity of warning points. Even if the last point was somehow undeserved, we're not going to spend a lot of time discussing it. If you break the rules a lot then you know what you're getting into.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
I agree that it depends on which mods sees the report, and that's not the way it should be. If a post is clearly breaking the rule (just recently I reported a post for circumventing the censor, and I'm pretty sure it was cleared even though that's one of the easiest posts to make a call on) then it needs to get warned, regardless of who's handling the report. I feel like they can be very inconsistent, and I get that they're human and make mistake, but if you have such strict rules in place, you can't give some posts a pass and then warn others.
I've had to send in a help request to make sure that some posts get warned after the report has been cleared (at least that's what it looks like most of the time), even though they contain obvious rule breaking content.
I also sent in a help request to see if a certain nickname was warnable in SYG because it was insensitive, and I got the reply that it was. I then reported like 3 posts containing this nickname and only one of them got warned.
And they really need to include the last WP in the message that gets displayed when you're banned. Less work for the mods to look it up when somebody asks, and that way you're not left wondering for a month.
|
Yep every mod is different, and we always look at the situation and context to decide whether something deserves to be warned. The rules are only there to tell you what can be warned, it doesn't mean that every transgression must be warned.
Aside from that, the server issues are affecting our moderating as well, as often pages time out when we try to warn something. This is the main reason some clearly warnable posts have been slipping through unpunished.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,102
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eglė
Again, I'd like a professional mod to answer me, someone like Kworb, or Retro. Thank you!
|
Not Kworb punching with more-or-less my same response.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,102
|
Sometimes, I just give reminders for things I consider "on-the-fence". Maybe another moderator would say that it's definite flamebait.
Sometimes, some moderator warns something that I would have just scrolled over.
We're not bound to anything other than our own individual judgment.
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 2/20/2012
Posts: 17,203
|
Just don't break the rules, that's it.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
The whole "every mod is different and special in their own way" spiel is annoying. Like, why are the rules so hard to interpret that we have 10 different people applying them all differently?
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
I also sent in a help request to see if a certain nickname was warnable in SYG because it was insensitive, and I got the reply that it was. I then reported like 3 posts containing this nickname and only one of them got warned.
And they really need to include the last WP in the message that gets displayed when you're banned. Less work for the mods to look it up when somebody asks, and that way you're not left wondering for a month.
|
very cool.
I've had a similar experience in SYG now that I think about it. I've been hit with multiple "circumventing the censor" points in SYG for other things but when I reported "Lady Faga" [*** is censored; it's also technically offensive to gay people and should be warned - even in SYG - because I learned in Lady Gaga's song "Born This Way" that we're all equal and on the right track. Apparently ATRL is ok with homophobic hate speech, though(?).
Anyway this pretty much scientifically proves my post above about each mod applying each rule in their own special ways. Not trying to nitpick but I don't see how this isn't something that should at least be minimized.
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ezra
The whole "every mod is different and special in their own way" spiel is annoying. Like, why are the rules so hard to interpret that we have 10 different people applying them all differently?
|
The differences in application are comparatively minimal and members exaggerate them. That said, the differences will always be around.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2012
Posts: 29,559
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eglė
Again, I'd like a professional mod to answer me, someone like Kworb, or Retro. Thank you!
|
So rude
I hate to sound like a suck-up, but y'all can be so whiny about how "strict!!!" the site is now, especially people who've only been here a year or two. I could understand if you were on here since like 2010/1 or before, since the admins decided to "clean up" the content around here. But otherwise?
In the two years I've been posting here, the only "strict" things I've seen are the introduction of loose sets of rules for blogs and SYG... while other stuff has actually gotten more lenient. "Stanning" and "pointless" warnings were eliminated. Making a duplicate account used to (iirc) result in a permaban, now it's only three months.
Obviously the rules on any site (or in the real world! ) are going to evolve over time.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,102
|
It really is exaggerated. The picture is painted that if you post, "_____ is a flop ass bitch with no talent and ugly," that it might go unwarned depending on the moderator.
Egregious posts are warned by all. Some things have different context, depending on the situation or thread.
Most of these borderline things seem to be centered around when a poster gives their (negative) opinion about an artist, even if they themselves believe it to be true.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
I guess I can agree things are a bit exaggerated.
I don't understand what makes it tough / hard to decide if "Lady Faga" should get a warning. Like, *** is censored and it's offensive. Are there any Republicans on the mod squad? If so, I'd like my reports not to go to their inboxes please!
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ezra
I guess I can agree things are a bit exaggerated.
I don't understand what makes it tough / hard to decide if "Lady Faga" should get a warning. Like, *** is censored and it's offensive. Are there any Republicans on the mod squad? If so, I'd like my reports not to go to their inboxes please!
|
You have to go out of your way to circumvent the censor. "Faga" doesn't turn into ****, that's why it doesn't get warned for profanity.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
You have to go out of your way to circumvent the censor. "Faga" doesn't turn into ****, that's why it doesn't get warned for profanity.
|
Ok that makes zero sense. But ok even with that excuse; does ATRL just get to decide that *** is not offensive hate speech? Like...1984 teas. No one calls any other celeb a mangled version of "fagwhatever". It's a Gaga thing because she has tons of gay fans and its meant to offend them. But ok kworb!
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 2/20/2012
Posts: 17,203
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ezra
Ok that makes zero sense. But ok even with that excuse; does ATRL just get to decide that *** is not offensive hate speech? Like...1984 teas. No one calls any other celeb a mangled version of "fagwhatever". It's a Gaga thing because she has tons of gay fans and its meant to offend them. But ok kworb!
|
Actually, the only letter that changes in "Faga" is the F since her artistic name is Lady Gaga. I'm not very clear with SYG's rules but it's like when Kesha gets called "Fridg£" or someone calls Madonna "old" in an uncommon creative way (?)
What Kworb means with circumventing the censor is when people do, for example, add letters to the words:
"shiit", "fagg", "fukk"
That's against the rules anywhere.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,102
|
So, are you going to start posting things like "Faghanna" and Fagley Cyrus" in SYG?
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/16/2011
Posts: 11,544
|
Can the ban list be updated pls?
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lipton
So, are you going to start posting things like "Faghanna" and Fagley Cyrus" in SYG?
|
I bet you thought this was very clever
*** is a slur and ATRL mods don't get to change that. Allowing members to hide slurs in celeb nicknames has been warned before e.g. Nicki being called "******". But the excuse with Gaga is that, oh it's just one letter switched so ***(a) is okay now.
|
|
|
|
|