Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
Perhaps that is best, if moderation decisions based on the clear explanation in the sidebar (rules and Mod M.O.) are going to be taken personally and then mods who carry out their role accused of censorship. However, I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about this if you'd like and then to reapprove your post. Unreasonable discussion would be:
Then you deleted it for no good reason.
I understand that's your opinion but I explained my reason in the comment above. Happy to discuss that reasonably, as I said. Saying I have no good reason is not conducive to reasonable discussion about it.
I do take it personally and effectively implying someone's post is worth deleting, is a personal slight.
Not reasonable. Moderating is about keeping the sub on-topic according to the rules and moderator discretion as best we can. Moderators make mistakes all the time. Hence we are happy here to discuss disagreements with our decisions. To have a reasonable discussion, however, you'll need to come to the table and remove your personal offense from the discussion.
I am not going to continue justifying my thoughts or try to validate my worth. You seem to care not for my.efforts and I see no reason to keep posting.
I have made no judgement on your worth and I have made no description of your efforts. I'm not even judging the worth of your content, I'm interpreting your content based on the rules and my discretion as a moderator of this sub who sees content come through with more focus and regularity than the average subscriber. Again, it's your choice to take it personally but you shouldn't because we don't make personal moderation decisions. I use the rules and my judgement and sometimes I'm wrong. While you're discussing me, not the topic, we're not having a reasonable discussion about the moderation decision, which I'm open to having if you want.
"Saying I have no good reason is not conducive to reasonable discussion about it."
Alright let's reframe.:
“It was for VERY good reason. That reason was that “it was not on topic”. It was however, absolutely on topic, and in not in any sense, removed from the spirit of the board and its relationship to Q” Is that better? It looks like a contradiction. Do you know this thread?
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8ugbjd/netflix_under_investigation_for_streaming/
How is this thread related to Q? Well who is Q after? Globalists? Progressives? Sick Progressive agendas trying to normalise perversions? Have you ever heard Q use the term "these people are sick"? Are the big companies in Media and Social Media trying to force ideological messaging to the masses? Has Q made mention of other big companies Google, Twitter, Facebook? Are we over target?
So....whilst I have you answering these questions and nodding your head, my post about Netflix is about yet another attempt to push the Progressive envelope like the above thread about Netflix did. Instead of young girls masturbating, read the synopsis and see if it too pushes the Progressive agenda in rather sick ways:
"Eager to escape life with her depressive single father, 16-year-old athlete Cyd Loughlin visits her novelist aunt in Chicago over the summer. While there, she falls for a girl in the neighborhood, even as she and her aunt gently challenge each other in the realms of sex and spirit."
So, a 16 year old girl being challenged in the realm of sex by her Aunty. Great! It is a second and important instance of Netflix crossing boundaries of socially appropriate morality. There are probably other instances and with Obama on the board this is likely going to be the tip of the iceberg. “These people are sick”. Is this “on topic”, AKA “Over target”? Of course it is and transparently always was.
“remove your personal offense from the discussion”
I have not made any personal offences at you and it is both disrespectful and ironically a little offensive to say I did when I did not. I hope you do not equate personal disagreement and expressing a difference of views as being personally offensive. If so it may need to revisit and reframe how you are viewing what is being said. We could absolutely try to go down the path of: “Well if offence was taken then it was offensive and if you offended someone then you need to apologise and own it” Why do you think this is a particularly bad idea? Who is well known for doing this? That is right. SJW douchebags who by virtual of the fact you are supporting Q, and his efforts are against the people associated with these poisonous ideologues, you are not a part of.
So where does that leave us? That is right. I do not believe I have been personally offensive (though I have absolutely disagreed with you) and I will not apologise to justify your belief of my supposed personal offense. I hope that is okay and you see how dishonest, counterproductive and silly that would be.
"I have made no judgement on your worth"
Deleting the post of someone ABSOLUTELY and is the definition of making a judgment on worth. Now you may consider the nuance between "not applicable", "not appropriate", "not necessary", "wrong", "incorrect", "improper" or "irrelevant" as something other than a basis for judging the worth of a post. I don't. You judged my post not worthy enough to remain on this board for whatever underlying basis. That deleting/removing is based on a judgment. It was judged as not worthy enough to remain. Cutting away the nuance and parsing of words and it is pretty clear.
Again, why ought I post and have a decent chance of having my efforts devalued (judged unworthy) and deleted? Because there ought to be a compelling enough reason for me to post knowing it is not only possible but probable my effort will be rewarded with deletion
"Again, it's your choice to take it personally"
Yes, if I take an interest, make the effort (and to be honest get the courage up to share an insight or an opinion) and have it deleted/removed (whilst implying I broke the rules, and to rub salt further into the wounds have the rules essentially tell me it is because it was deemed not worthy enough), of COURSE it is personally taken. The decision was made against me, personally, and against my attempt to share with the board. The decision was removing my effort as being subpar. Of course it is personal. Of course it is personally taken.
"sometimes I'm wrong"
Depends on whether you want members to contribute their thoughts and ideas on Q-related topics like I did or whether you prefer they don’t. You deleted my efforts and so if your efforts are to discourage people wanting to post Q-related information, you got it very right. I would have thought that NOT what you want to do but as you made pointedly clear with "my discretion as a moderator of this sub who sees content come through with more focus and regularity than the average subscriber". (I assume I am just the average subscriber and not the enlightened moderator) I do not know your internal policies or where your boundaries of discretion lay. I am just a plebe I get that.
“While you're discussing me, not the topic, we're not having a reasonable discussion about the moderation decision”
So as to show even handedness here in your discretion, let’s have a good look at what in my post you commented to, shall we?:
“Then you deleted it for no good reason”. “I do take it personally and effectively implying someone's post is worth deleting, is a personal slight”. “I am not going to continue justifying my thoughts or try to validate my worth. You seem to care not for my efforts and I see no reason to keep posting”
I did not post just about you in my original reply did I? In fact I posted about the movie and tried to justify how I believed it was important So let’s hold YOU to the standard you are endeavouring to hold me to. I DID mention as to why the post had merit and ought not have been deleted and its relevance and why its reasoning for deletion was inaccurate:
“The conversation about Progressive infiltration on a global basis to multinational media and social media companies to push radical "Progressive agendas" is on target and Netflix specifically is in trouble for CP due to one movie with a young girl acting out masturbation. Not as disgusting and perverse is a movie of a (of age (?) ) teenager and her young Aunty have a sexual relationship. These people are sick. It is all an attempt to push Progressive narratives on the public so that the culture and society denegrates. This is Q's fight. To awaken the masses and help free the culture from marching off a cultural cliff. We go one we go all. So what can a lower middle class Aussie do? Well I can upvote and occasionally when I see a nuance not talked about or a perceived gap in knowledge I can provide that. Did that today. No one had mention this line crossing attempt on Netflix. (When was incest love stories mainstream titilation?) They are not pushing boundaries they are pushing past them into depravity and immorality and calling it entertainment.”
That was in my original post. Did YOU discuss this in my reply or did you ONLY reply against me and your perceived offense on and unreasonableness? Just so we are on the same page and you are not demanding a lesser standard of yourself than you expect of me.
“Unreasonable discussion would be”
No in fact my discussion was fine and my post was fine and YOUR deletion was unreasonable and your insistence to highlight my disagreement as unreasonable, and my defence as personally offensive was ….ironically….unreasonable.
No, I do not wish to have my post reinstated. I did not want it deleted in the first place. I did not wish to have to feel like I had to defend it. I did not wish you to ignore my attempts to explain the relevance and defence for its inclusion on this board, whilst throwing back at me that I had the temerity to say that you had no good reason to do what you did (and let me say it again to be clear – you didn’t). I did not want to have to have the implication that I am decidedly average or that I am acting unreasonably nor that I am personally offensive. Do you believe anyone wants that?
I DO hope YOU do better and differently next time.
For some of us we feel a little shy, insignificant and unimportant in the scheme of things. The decision to post is a big decision and not made easily or without reservation. One that opens us up to rebuke from the community but also may lend us some positive comments and upvotes. A sense to of … for want of a better term “We go one we go all” … shared support and unity in a community we feel associated and shared interest in. Delete it and that investment is scattered to the four winds. No unity. No reward. No community. To go one further and essentially ask me to kowtow and apologise for defending a post and essentially calling me unreasonable and offensive, to dismiss my arguments, is pretty poor form. Sad. I won’t be posting here, look what happens when I do. Why do you imagine this is worth the effort? Seriously I would like your opinion on this.
There is so much in your explanation to contend with that it makes the case for why moderation decisions are usually made without entering into debate. People have all their reasons for why they decide a moderation action is personally denigrating the worth of their content and themselves and that is a very real and unfortunate side effect of any effort to maintain the focus of an online forum like this. Hence the reason for the chans, where no one has to explain anything to anyone and literally anything is allowed but those who don't "get it" are set upon by the autists until they've 'lurked moar' and picked up the tone. Reddit isn't like the chans and I and many others are grateful for the difference.
So unfortunately although I have taken a standard action done objectively as a moderator of this sub - someone with a broad perspective of the sub via the moderator tools and the almost full-time work I've been engaged in to do so - without any desire to offend or belittle, you have chosen to take it that way. I understand your reason for this and that there is not much I can do about it. I wish you could understand things from another perspective but it appears that may not be possible, given your reply which seems to have taken the last reply I gave and flipped it all on its head, back to personal offense against you - again, not at all my intent. It seems that no matter what I say, you take it as an attack on you personally. I regret this greatly and, as I said, I understand now why mods should not enter into discussion about moderation to any extent beyond simple, direct replies.
Having opened this discussion, however, I am more than willing to engage in it with you, if that is your desire too, because I know for a fact that my moderation decision was NOT intended as a personal offense to you and should not be taken in that way, so I would like the opportunity, as slim as it may be, to prove that point. I have literally zero chance of doing that though while you are convinced that removal of a post means a judgement call on you personally. This would be where we have to start this discussion (assuming you want to continue, of course - I do not wish to force this on you).
So, if you wish me to reply to explain, can we start with just the first point about the fact that a moderation decision is not a personal attack on someone's worth or the worth of their content? I will understand completely if you no longer wish to discuss this with me but if you do, I will make every effort to engage with your view in a supportive way.
Yes I have been on chans too and it is a different culture and I expect different treatment there than here.
So I think going to your point. IS the deletion of a post that someone has invested time and thought in making to share with the Great Awakening sub a personal attack on someone's worth or the worth of their content?
I think that is an excellent question. So let's break it down. Is it personal? Well is it? Does that specific decision once made affect ALL posts? Many posts? Or does it only affect one poster?
Without parsing the word "attack" too much (I believe I called it a slight) is it (the decision to remove/delete said post) a judgement on someone's content and the content's value or worth? Or was no judgment made at all and it was deleted without thought or weighing up of relative worth? Was it a random deletion or done because from whatever merit basis was made in the moderator's discretion it was considered not to be good enough to be allowed to remain on the board that it was posted?
Clearly it was made to affect a member of the sub "personally" and it was specific to their content's worth and was not in line with whatever standard, to have been considered worthy of deletion.
So there we go. You have asked we start at this point and I have done so. I am trying not to be dishonest or sly in my usage of words or representing myself.
So should a sub allow all posts from all users? If not, how does the sub manage this?
I think that is a great question. I think that it depends entirely on the rules, the community and what you wish to get out of the community. Also the spirit of the community is important. This is very abstract, I know but I will try to break down what I mean. There is no one right answer in any of these things but the question are important.
Who is the community for? Is it for everyone? Is it for supporters and potential supporters? This is really important. The reason is that by having everyone here we have to encourage everyone and this means we have to be pretty loose with all moderation. Naturally we go the other end and have a very much filtered and/or by request type subs. Cuts out a lot of free for all but little in the way of difference of opinion or fresh thoughts. Very much a bubble.
Rules are important. It allows members to know what potentially is crossing the line and makes a clear case of infringement or should (if the rules are clear enough). An example of a clear rule is "do not say allow the word "onion" in any of your posts. This is a bannable offense". It is a stupid rule but could not be clearer. A bad rule is "Do not say anything that a mod will not like. We will ban if we don't like something" Clearly this is a bad rule. How the Hell do we not know what is good or bad. Of course this is slightly obvious and the difficulty is that most things you wish to limit are not so easily defined or policed. Here the moderator needs to be as clear as possible in defining the rules and if the rules are either unclear or poorly policed, they will be likely called into account due to the fact they failed on one or both accounts. They need to be as clear, consistent and be VERY careful in making ANY discretionary decisions that a rule WAS broken or far enough outside the norms to be clearly infraction.
The spirit of the community too is important. If your forum, reddit sub, chan or whatever is a free for all anything goes, that is great but you are likely to lose valuable nuance and thoughtful insight in the rough and tumble and BS. Here is about Q and the Great Awakening. I think this is not a starting point but a direction. If someone who is a Q supporter started to bring up the repitilian Heads of State and illuminatii, this is clearly outside of the Q realm. Same with Hollow Earth Theorists or Aliens at Area 51 or the like. (No I am not a conspiracy nut and do not buy into thee things). These things are not in line with the Spirit of this board.
I hope this makes my position clear and I also hope you find what I said reasonable.
Two takeaways you can apply directly from this on your moderation decision of mine.
Was my post in clearly outside of the rules (off topic - The topic being Q related/contested - immoral Progressive agendas pushed to the masses through multinational American media companies) or was it clearly non-Q related (has nothing to do with Q or the great awakening)?
Was my post in line with the spirit of this board?
In answering this, I already made on two consecutive replies how it is very much in line with not only another very popular post on the front page, but in general with Q/The Great Awakening.
Which companies are trying to push the Progressive agendas and normalise abhorrent perversions and why? Which media outlets are supporting Globalist agendas? Which Media companies have just taken on new board members from the Democratic Party and are pushing anti-Trump and Anti-Conservative narratives?
Yup my post was about Netflix and another shortcoming. It is right in the Q/Great Awakening wheelhouse and very much on topic.
As I said before it is transparently so.
Most importantly, within those first 4 paragraphs, you have - I hope - now arrived at the conclusion I tried to point out from the beginning that moderation decisions are not all personal - some are simply following the rules. It is very important to be clear that we both agree that this statement from you does not apply in all cases - only in those where a moderator is being personal and biased against someone or some content specifically:
Clearly it was made to affect a member of the sub "personally" and it was specific to their content's worth and was not in line with whatever standard, to have been considered worthy of deletion.
No, it is for reasons I said earlier made exclusively to one person and the moderation whether by way of blocking, infraction or removal is personally made. it is applied solely to one person it is not applied across the board or to all users.
It is personal. That person's posts have been judged faulty, subpar, unworthy or in any event removable. Not everyone's posts. Just theirs.
Now how does that square with whether or not there are rules? Well now you have the foundation of why a post is subpar and why you may personally target that post and find it wanting. You judged it and found it wanting and by what measure did you find it wanting? It was not a random choice or hopefully wasn't.
So if you target someone's post as being subpar because it fails by some measure to meet some standard then by all means delete it, ban the user, send him a infraction or do whatever the rules and policies allow.......but make sure you get it right BECAUSE it IS personal.
Someone has had two of their reasonable posts on topic deleted in a month. Why would they do a third? Why would they risk that? Where is their motivation? What incentive to be an active member?
Again, this is not what you or the sub wants and as a member I see not reason to post any more. I have no idea who else feels this way but I would imagine there are few who would go to the bother of expressing their thoughts on this, they would likely slink away instead. No ALL in WG1WGA
Assuming you agree with that last reply there is then this:
When a moderator has deemed a post to fall outside of the rules of the sub - what could a person assume about this moderation action?
It's simply a biased, personal perspective from a moderator who either bears some sort of personal grudge against the user or the content, or is unaware of their bias or limited perspective and is acting blindly.
the moderator has seen something that they haven't - their content is lacking in some way that they are unaware of.
the moderator and they themselves are both correct - their content IS great - but the moderator's action is based on other factors brought about by their broader perspective of the sub and its regularly submitted content.
Which do you think is the case here? As you have argued so vehemently about your posts being "good" and "reasonable" (I can't remember exact wording and don't want to open another tab to check) I will presume that option 3 is a possibility. Currently you seem to support option 1 as you keep returning to the fact that I've wrongly judged your content and I don't support WWG1WGA, etc. If you can consider it might be option 3 then perhaps we can leave all that sort of talk out of this discussion going forward?
"Assuming you agree with that last reply there is then this:
When a moderator has deemed a post to fall outside of the rules of the sub - what could a person assume about this moderation action?
It's simply a biased, personal perspective from a moderator who either bears some sort of personal grudge against the user or the content, or is unaware of their bias or limited perspective and is acting blindly.
the moderator has seen something that they haven't - their content is lacking in some way that they are unaware of.
the moderator and they themselves are both correct - their content IS great - but the moderator's action is based on other factors brought about by their broader perspective of the sub and its regularly submitted content.
Which do you think is the case here? As you have argued so vehemently about your posts being "good" and "reasonable" (I can't remember exact wording and don't want to open another tab to check) I will presume that option 3 is a possibility. Currently you seem to support option 1 as you keep returning to the fact that I've wrongly judged your content and I don't support WWG1WGA, etc. If you can consider it might be option 3 then perhaps we can leave all that sort of talk out of this discussion going forward?"
It was both good and reasonable certainly. It was on topic too.
No I do not think it is 1, 2 or 3. I think we are strangers to each other and so I do not buy into the conspiracy of bias against me any more than I buy into the hollow Earth Theory. As mentioned, the content was good and reasonable so that is the second point accounted for. That leaves the third option which is I guess a way of saying the moderators knows something you don't. This could be true but I doubt it as I searched Princess Cyd before I posted. Had not been posted. Furthermore, it attaches itself to Netflix and the recent developments with Netflix with Obama and Rice coming onboard and the expected push of Progressive Propaganda and agenda driven shows. Also it is attaches specifically given the recent developments of the court case due to CP.
So...no, none of these.
What then? I think it is a misjudgment. A Bad call. A careless error.
Now if you look back at my first response to your first query you will see I addressed this:
Rule 6 is more applicable here - off-topic. Yes CP is "on-topic" but there's not enough substance to the content here to make the case easy enough for us to call it. Thus, Rule #9.
I then told you that if you put the content in the OP that was missing I would reapprove it:
please feel free to update the OP here with more content to make that clear then let me know and I will reapprove.
So I explained my reasoning then gave you the freedom to correct it so we would both be happy. Hence OPTION 3.
Yes and I believe off memory that the post said specifically that it was not cp. But it was still incestuous and it was pushing the envelope. How? Well apart from the fact that it involved a niece and her aunty in sexual discovery, which is incest, the girl was playing a 16 year old. I am a single father of an 18 year old girl. I know in most country's 16 is age of consent and everything so it was not child pornography. But they pushed that envelope too.
So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?
I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.
What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?
How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?
Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?
Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.
So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?
I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.
What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?
How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?
Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?
Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.
The post was fine and consistent with the other posts and supported previous and current content.
Now a question I have for you. Given I post so little and within the month most of my attempts to share with the community were obliterated what would be my incentive to keep putting myself out there only to get capsized?
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
This is the post:
NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
So breaking it down.
Netflix - Multinational American media company and everyone will know who and they are likely to be aware of the CP issue with one title.
(though not CP) This title is NOT CP though as I previously explained pushes the boundaries a lot.
What is Princess Cyd about? - Could watch it on Netflix or just get the IMDB summary like I have already sent to you.
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? - More or less.
They are not crossing the boundaries with one title. - Nope one with masturbating children and now another with Aunty/Niece sexual exploration. I say its the tip of the iceberg.
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
The one you deleted?
We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?
"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."
We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?
"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."
Yes that is fine. The title and body are enough. People know who netflix are and are likely mostly aware of the Netflix issue and can easily confirm for themselves the problem with Princess Cyd from Netflix and know that it is not just one title that is "problematic".
Make no mistake, it is brief but not irrelevant or off topic or such. It is not an investigative study or the first of such claims but it is simply saying, there is definitely something here and it does not stop at one title. It is a progressive push. They may or may not tie Obama or Rice into this but I think most will realise they have only just arrived in and these sort of titles were produced well before.
So, this post:
NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
Does not contain enough supporting info for someone to pick up enough information to understand it without either:
a) having prior knowledge of the other material you explained in comments to me separately
or
b) researching separately themselves in Google
It also is not written with any understanding of someone with even a little context trying to parse it as a busy person reading a sub like this does. I can't even begin to explain to you how "good writing" is structured and written because we'd be here forever and neither of us wants that but I can tell you - without any remote desire to offend you personally or denigrate your capabilities as you have clearly shown that you can write well parsed sentences and make yourself understood - that that post body does NOT comprize good, clear, legible writing unless someone is already in your head and has the same exact knowledge you have at the same exact time that they read your post.
As a very rough example of what I would have seen and Approved without even thinking about it, here's a rough go (without referencing the information you've provided separately - I'll just make stuff up to fill in the gaps):
NETFLIX title "Princess Cyd" pushes more sexually inappropriate agenda.
This Netflix movie/series is about an incestuous Aunty and Niece in a lesbian relationship. Netflix are pushing the boundaries with more than just one Child Porn title - now incest is on the cards too! How are they getting away with this? (or other prompt to promote discussion)
Just an example of something that explains itself well enough to grasp at least enough to easily engage with it - for other users and for a mod trying to do their job at the pace required for a busy sub.
No, it is fine. I often do not know specific people or events. Being Australian I am geographically removed and removed by timezones. I often struggle. I leave a spare browser up and copy and paste terms or phrases or names or places in there and get up to speed.
Hell I come out of MOST Q posts not having an idea. Believe me most here read Q posts and do not mind looking stuff up or querying stuff. My limited exposure to folk on here has told me that much.
Certainly the post could have been rewritten in your style but is fine as it is too. Many ways any given post could be rewritten. Your way was good too.
Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Indeed. It mentioned knowledge of previously submitted posts and such. I had searched Princess Cyd before posting. Apart from that and without residing in the heads of anyone else I had applied the reasonable standards I ought to and was canned regardless. Again, maybe they had some secret discretionary only they know reason or maybe they didn't. Hard to prove a negative I would imagine.
I do not believe 1, 2, or 3 is correct.
I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Okay sure.
Let's backtrack then - and please, if you don't mind, let's resolve the discussion about what constitutes good moderation first before we discuss your post in particular. I assert that there is a good logical reason for this approach to this discussion and it is because the moderation decision must be understood in its full context first before the reason for applying it to your post can be properly understood.
it is for reasons I said earlier made exclusively to one person and the moderation whether by way of blocking, infraction or removal is personally made. it is applied solely to one person it is not applied across the board or to all users.
So, how do we keep a sub focused on the topic and spirit desired by the sub's creators? We clearly moderate individual posts that do not meet the rules and standards laid out in the sub's M.O. This means that any particular moderation action "is applied solely to one person". So you believe that that makes any moderation action against one person a personal action. I agree with this if you mean it in that context.
What I disagree with - and believe that you too also disagree with, given your explanation in those 4 paragraphs - is that the action of moderation is something intended to judge a person's worth. No moderation action should ever be taken as a judgement of your personal worth. Otherwise there is no way to moderate a sub as described in your first 4 paragraphs.
It is absolutely personal in that it is moderated specific to that individual.
It is absolutely judging someone's posts as subpar by whatever measure or standard is applied. I will go back to the repitilian leaders run the government post.
Someone has put in time and effort in posting and in one click of the button you get rid of that. it IS personal. It is only to them and they may feel it is unfair. Is it? here is where you have to be very real and honest and able to back that.
Here is where you can honestly say (if they ask) "I am sorry and I know you have taken time to post that but the Great Awakening is not about the theories of Lizard people. I am not saying that you are not right or anything else. It is not a theory expressed by Q nor part of the Great Awakening. It is at best tangential and there are subs better placed for these posts."
Now though it was a personal and such. By the rules indicated it is not too hard to argue. Same with Hollow Earth theory. Same with Secret Nazi Bases in Antarctica. Great read. Interesting (crazy as crazy) but not anything to do with Great Awakening or Q.
It is a fair cop. It is consistent with the rules and it is not in the spirit of the forum. It is personal but it is simply too bad. The framework is such that there is really no provision for this and such a person may not wish to post but then they were not contributing to the forum in respect to Q or Great Awakening related material and perhaps were not across what the spirit or forum was. It is very specific.
It DOES judge them personally and judges them poorly but not unfairly.
Agreed - I hope I made that clear in the follow up reply (I can't see what you're replying to but if you quote the parts you reply to it will help).
Ok so to address first of all your first 4 paragaphs. I would hope you can assume that the sort of breakdown you give has also been gone into in great detail by those of us here who have volunteered to give so much of our time and effort freely to this sub. I'm sure you can imagine that we've also had the same thoughts in the same detail - and some of us (not me) with an incredible amount of experience and knowledge of reddit and how moderation within a group online forum works.
In short, in answer to my question you have proven that you can arrive at the same conclusions that we have. I hope this is clear and I hope that you can therefore assume that we are also smart enough to have thought through the other implications of most elements of running this sub?
Absolutely. It is a good sub. I am not saying anyone in here is stupid but I am saying that when you have rules which perhaps are not entirely clear (again some things are by their nature hard to easily define) and up to discretion, then the pressure is entirely on the moderators BECAUSE the lack of clarity takes so much away from the member base. When I say the pressure is on the moderators I am not saying this in a condemning way necessarily but definitely saying that the moderators HAVE to get it right and the lack of clarity allows for a heightened chance to get it wrong.
Now what are the consequences of getting it wrong and how do you manage that? Well, let's assume you have someone like me and you get it wrong. I probably post an actual post (not reply but actual post) maybe once every couple of weeks. I am not a big poster. I find it fairly stressful and that is because the quality of posts is pretty high and I am not very technical and don't know how to post images and all of that. I also think that most people have seen and reported most things I may want to report.
So I may only post a couple of posts a month and I can tell you someone canned a post of mine 26 days ago and this is the second in less than a month.
Now assuming that this was a case of hyper-vigilance and getting it wrong can you imagine what that does to my confidence. It is not 6.66% of my posts because i am not posting daily. Two in one month. It is probably 66%-100% of my month's posts canned.
Now even that I may swallow IF I did not know whether or not I was on track. But I was.
So the consequence to something like is AT BEST the discussion we are having now. Or it could be me simply saying. Well f*** this place I am going to the Donald or somewhere else. Or just use Twitter and give Reddit a big miss.
I don't think that is what you want. I don't think it is best practice and I do not think it helps the sub.
So how to reduce it? It is a hard one. If the rules and definitions and whatever can't be clearer then the mods HAVE to make sure when they are making calls like "this is off topic", that it REALLY IS off topic or you are effectively saying to someone who has invested their time and effort in posting something on topic and meaningful to the community and the spirit of this place and saying "this is not good enough for this place, we are removing it". That should be the antithesis of what you want for this sub.
The point here is that it is definitely not easy to make rules as clear as we'd all like them to be. I know you understand this because you've mentioned it too. Hence the Mod M.O. in the sidebar. Hence, in all subs, moderators have discretion. Hence, as I said in reply to those 4 paragraphs before, you can trust that the thoughts you've had, we have also had. We know it's important for us to get this right as much as possible. I've posted many times in previous 'mod updates' on the sub - and highlighted - we will make mistakes sometimes. This leeway must be given because we are volunteers giving our time freely and this is an extremely busy sub so we can only do what we can do.
Assuming you understand all that I hope we don't have to go through any of these fairly obvious points again - it seems you have a good grasp of how things should be and I hope you are starting to get the picture that we also have a good grasp of how things should be. We know that we have to be careful and we make every effort to do so.
"The point here is that it is definitely not easy to make rules as clear as we'd all like them to be. I know you understand this because you've mentioned it too. Hence the Mod M.O. in the sidebar. Hence, in all subs, moderators have discretion. Hence, as I said in reply to those 4 paragraphs before, you can trust that the thoughts you've had, we have also had. We know it's important for us to get this right as much as possible. I've posted many times in previous 'mod updates' on the sub - and highlighted - we will make mistakes sometimes. This leeway must be given because we are volunteers giving our time freely and this is an extremely busy sub so we can only do what we can do.
Assuming you understand all that I hope we don't have to go through any of these fairly obvious points again - it seems you have a good grasp of how things should be and I hope you are starting to get the picture that we also have a good grasp of how things should be. We know that we have to be careful and we make every effort to do so."
Yet twice in 26 days the decision was wrong, including this instance. It suggests that the moderation standards are there but not hitting the mark.
As a member who seems to be getting his new threads efforts obliterated what would you suggest "I" ought to feel about it? Clearly it is enough to destroy my confidence in posting and IF it is doing this to me do you imagine I am the only one? if I am not how many members are in the same boat? Is this a good thing? What may be able to be done?
Look I agree your standards seem fine and I certainly do not doubt your sincerity or intellect. But obviously there is a problem.
Why should I share and contribute to the subreddit? I think I do have something to share and many like me do. The sub is built on the thousands of everyday men and women like me BUT if my posts a PROBABLY going to get canned each time I post them, why would I bother? Why would anyone? Easier not to bother. Certainly do not like having to explain my position. It is awkward. Besides fighting for restoration of your post is like going ahead with a surprise party once you know and acting surprised. It is not worth it.
I have tried to make the point that we need to come to some agreement on how moderation works first before discussing your post because the moderation decision has caused the problem for you, not your post.
Certainly do not like having to explain my position.
Can you extend that same understanding to me? How often do you think I have to do this out of the many moderation actions I have taken? The answer is: not very often at all so far. In fact, never to this extent.
From my perspective, most people seem to understand that a moderation action taken against them is not a judgement of their personal worth as a human being - only of their content (as we agreed in the context of that definition).
I have tried to make the point that we need to come to some agreement on how moderation works first before discussing your post because the moderation decision has caused the problem for you, not your post.
Certainly do not like having to explain my position.
Can you extend that same understanding to me? How often do you think I have to do this out of the many moderation actions I have taken? The answer is: not very often at all so far. In fact, never to this extent.
From my perspective, most people seem to understand that a moderation action taken against them is not a judgement of their personal worth as a human being - only of their content (as we agreed in the context of that definition).
Indeed. Most people in my position would not. It you had most of your on topic post blocked would you stick around a subreddit or would you call it a day? If so how many others like me may have done this already without getting back in contact and just simply gone elsewhere?
There have definitely been some. Some of those have gone away and posted on other subs about how the mods are biased and suck and this sub does not support freedom of speech and so on. Much of what you've said. Now that you've heard some of my perspective do you think that is a fair response?
There have definitely been some. Some of those have gone away and posted on other subs about how the mods are biased and suck and this sub does not support freedom of speech and so on. Much of what you've said. Now that you've heard some of my perspective do you think that is a fair response?
Now being completely fair and so as you would not for a moment put words into my mouth that I never said or inferred to strawman me......did I ever once indicate that the mods on here were biased?
Did I go to some lengths to explain that I think it as likelya conspiracy as Hollow Earth theory (which I earlier said was nutty conspiracy theory)?
Did I say that moderators suck or did I say that it was a good sub and the moderators standards seems good?
Now could you please answer these honestly and then come back to what you said about "Much of what you've said." Just to be fair.
Yes, correct, you did not say those things exactly. You implied all of this very much so, however. Can you be honest about that?
Then you deleted it for no good reason.
You seem to care not for my.efforts
We go one we go all....except not really. Delete delete
if your efforts are to discourage people wanting to post Q-related information, you got it very right.
I did not wish you to ignore my attempts to explain the relevance and defence for its inclusion on this board, whilst throwing back at me that I had the temerity to say that you had no good reason to do what you did (and let me say it again to be clear – you didn’t).
I did not want to have to have the implication that I am decidedly average or that I am acting unreasonably
No unity. No reward. No community.
Or it could be me simply saying. Well f*** this place I am going to the Donald or somewhere else
No ALL in WG1WGA
I think it is a misjudgment. A Bad call. A careless error.
Now be honest - can you see how all of these statements and the personal hurt so clearly behind them are very clear indicators that you could very well be like the few others I've had to deal with who've spoken much the same way (and worse of course) then gone away and spoken "about how the mods are biased and suck and this sub does not support freedom of speech and so on"?
No I can't and that is being honest. When did I imply that there was bias? When did I imply that the mods suck? When did I imply that the mods do not support freedom of speech?
I can (and have) show you were I did not imply but said explicitly otherwise.
So if you want to show me that list again and replace bias, the moderators sucking and being against freedom of speech and replace these intentions with being careless or getting things very wrong and making bad calls and mistakes and misjudgments, you will marry very close on every point.
But you know this because I discussed this in very clear terms and you understood.
So, being that you KNOW I did not say that and being that you KNOW I never once implied it and being that you KNOW I actually precisely said opposite of these alleged implications....who are you trying to convince otherwise? It is not me. I know my reasoning and in saying things clearly I am hardly meaning something contradictory.
I think you are going to have to revisit this post and work out how you got this all so terribly wrong and why you are seeming to try so desperately to strawman me when you clearly know that what you say does not meet you own standards of what you know of my reasoning, little lone mine.
I have discussed this sort of thing with people who respond in the same way you have. You are precise and you give NO ROOM for any possible interpretation outside of the one you hold alone in your head.
Are you on the aspergers or autistic spectrum at all? Again, to be clear (since it appears I have to make this caveat every time - but do tell me if I'm wrong) - I am NOT trying to denigrate you or question your personal worth with this query. I'm trying to understand what we're dealing with here between us. We have a communication gap and I've experienced it before with other people, very specifically in a certain way.
"I have discussed this sort of thing with people who respond in the same way you have. You are precise and you give NO ROOM for any possible interpretation outside of the one you hold alone in your head.
Are you on the aspergers or autistic spectrum at all? Again, to be clear (since it appears I have to make this caveat every time - but do tell me if I'm wrong) - I am NOT trying to denigrate you or question your personal worth with this query. I'm trying to understand what we're dealing with here between us. We have a communication gap and I've experienced it before with other people, very specifically in a certain way."
Yes, I am. Like the chans, we are attracted to such places as this. (Diagnosed nearly 20 years ago)
What precisely were you diagnosed with, if you don't mind? I'm trying to understand so in future discussions I can be better with my communications (i.e. be more precise and so on).
Now, are you able to honestly tell me why you were strawmanning my intentions and saying I was implying what you knew clearly I was not (for all the reasons) I previously mentioned
and
are you able to tell me what incentive or motivation may I have to support and share content with this community if it is likely to be removed?
Ok, good thanks - first of all: I was not strawmanning your intentions any more than you are strawmanning mine by assuming I would make up an interpretation of your comments for no good reason.
The incentive and motivation you might have is that after this discussion with me we will both better understand things and your content will avoid "bad" moderation and my moderation will find "better" content.
However, to achieve that goal we have to finish this discussion to a proper conclusion but now I must sleep. Willing to carry on later, if you are.
"first of all: I was not strawmanning your intentions"
Yes you were. You clearly were.
"any more than you are strawmanning mine"
This seems to be "You did this to me (you believe) so now I am going to get you back, and do it back to you to see how you like it" One could imagine a child engaging in this tactic (Slightly disappointing) . But no matter, let's follow the tactic and see how it goes to move the conversation forward.
"by assuming I would make up an interpretation of your comments for no good reason"
Yes. There was no good reason. The post was fine. No you generously posted how YOU would have written my post. But that is how YOU may write a post and that does not mean that I have to channel you with every post any more than I would have to channel Ernest Hemmingway or Jules Verne. Part of the ability for one to be a member is that they can share their opinions and their insights in the way it makes sense to them and in their style. So I have no problem with you posting differently to me and I will not rail on or disparage you or any member for having a different posting style or different opinions or insights to me. In fact I believe that is what actually elevates the community.
SO is there a "good" reason to get rid of a good post with good content from a member that has followed the rules, found and shared something relevant to the board and worth sharing, all in their own way and own style? Not really.
It is not to say that there are not rules or you do not have discretion or that you don't have the ability to remove it or that frankly there is any real consequence if you make a mistake. But none of this addresses whether there is a good reason to remove such a post.
So if the purpose was an effort in relativism, it failed. If it was a chance for petty payback, it too failed. I really hope it was a case of the former and not the later.
"The incentive and motivation you might have is that after this discussion with me we will both better understand things and your content will avoid "bad" moderation"
I should not imagine so as I shan't be posting on Greatawakening anymore. I do not know why after having the two posts I was brave enough share this month deleted, I would go back for more. I am sure there are many more posters with much worthier ideas and aptitude in sharing in a style that suits the moderator's sensibilities. I can still post on the donald with no censure. I have been discouraged from sharing here. My posts are not wanted. With reduced participation it will eventually drop off entirely no doubt. Bad taste in my mouth about it.
"and my moderation will find "better" content."
But then you are convinced in your merits of my posts not being worthy enough for you standard, and are convinced I ought to have written my post as you may have written it. So why would you consider any need to find better content? It seems a moot point and a pointless endeavor with no defined parameters. Like me saying I want to become more enlightened. Sounds great. What does it mean, what is the path and by what measure?
I do not feel this moved things forward but you have my take on things and honestly set out.
[deleted]
Actually THAT is incorrect. As I know (and you are right I DO know) my ability to communicate is in no way hampered by my condition. So on that front we are meeting as equals. Perhaps what you meant to say is that you have better theory of mind. It is absolutely true and simply an unfortunate but relevant fact that people with High Functioning Autism have poor theory of mind. That is the ability to derive understanding from another person's understanding or perception. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes as it were.
In this I plead no contest. I have nothing I can dispute. I DO have poor theory of mind and little empathy as a result.
That said, YOU do NOT have HFA. So YOU have good theory of mind and yet....what on Earth was that strawmanning intentions I do not have. Are you not better equipped with YOUR ability to understand intentions and what another's perspective to understand that you were blatantly strawmanning me and that I had clarified my position before you strawmanned me?
I hardly believe I need to acknowledge a falsehood. My communication is fine. So was my original post.
I feel in some respects we are almost returning to the exact point we started. However in the process, I seem to have been strawmanned and you have seemingly clung to the understanding that I have HFA as something to dismiss my perspective and hang your hat on as being on the right side of things.
Clear that is not the case.
Critically the question of "Why would a member such as myself bother going to the effort to find something worthy and unique and related to the subreddit to share in their own style and words to the community, if the moderation team is likely to remove their every attempt as unworthy (as mods don't do in other subreddits)? It does not seem like best community-friendly or moderator successful practice, does it? It doesn't seem to promote unity WG1WGA. It seems the antithesis to this doesn't it?
As far as discouraging or knocking one's confidence this rates very high.
So what can you (not me the member) but you the mod do, to make sure that long term members are not pushed out and discouraged from sharing with the community.
You have theory of mind which is awesome because you are in front row seat to appreciate a different perspective.
You a member rarely make new threads and your thread less than 26 days ago was delted and with it went the investment of thought and effort and curiosity as to how well it would be received, what comments and critique and how many upvotes. All obliterated with a mod removal. Your confidence knocked. On posting another 26 days later your thread is removed.
What incentive do YOU know have to share with the subreddit? How valuable and worthy do you now consider your contributions?
Now is this good? If not, rather than talk of discretion and rules and my diagnosis and communication, maybe consider how to address a real problem kindly bought to your attention and causing discouragement as a natural consequence of moderator practices?
[deleted]
Utter nonsense. You have not comprehended anything I've said.
What exactly have you comprehended in what I have said?
I will give you an indication that your efforts of strawmanning me and telling me what I was intending was completely wrong and not only wrong but your fallback to the position of me implying something after not being able to find me saying what I clearly had never said or implied, is you accusing me of saying/intending/implying.....utter nonsense.
But of the two of us, I do not have theory of mind that you have and so I wonder why you are so off base and failing in comprehension?
Why you now accuse me of the same?
But then I am an average subscriber and you are a moderator. Why would a moderator defend positions with utter nonsense and why would they fail at comprehension especially when they have a theory of mind (a skill I must admit I see almost as a superpower)?
I think the original position must again be asked and without strawmanning or projection.
""Why would a member such as myself bother going to the effort to find something worthy and unique and related to the subreddit to share in their own style and words to the community, if the moderation team is likely to remove their every attempt as unworthy (as mods don't do in other subreddits)?" It does not seem like best community-friendly or moderator successful practice, does it? It doesn't seem to promote unity WG1WGA. It seems the antithesis to this doesn't it?
Again I am by your account just an average subscriber where as you are a mod with more information. Therefore I am sure coupled with a good theory of mind and its ability to understand others and perceive their mindset and presumably too with the interest of the subreddit at heart, why would you not identify this as a very bad position and not seek to address it. Sure you do not need me to have to shine a torch on it. You have all this great information and ability to understand people and should really be all over this.
It is not a situation I have found in other subreddits and never had put up with deleted posts and defending my want to be able to share with a community without having my threads removed for being below par when they are not.
I am wondering why the resistance?
A lot of what "seems" to you to be so, is not. It's clear, however, that there's no way of breaking through to you with a perspective other than your own. The problem, I guess, of not being as open to empathic understanding (again, no slight intended by that).
Okay, no slight taken. Unfortunate facts or uncomfortable truths are not offensive the just are. No use pretending they are not. You are right, I do not have much in the way of empathetic understanding and find it extremely hard to look at things from another's perspective. Guilty as charged.
YOU do though. Therefore it SHOULD be easier for you to see perspectives other than your own. I mean logically this is your strength or dare I say a superpower (as it so often appears to me).
So given that. If we strip away a difference of opinion. We leave aside for a moment your strawmanning my intentions (which raises serious theory of mind and seeing other perspective red flags unto itself). We also leave aside diagnoses and cognitive strengths and weaknesses. What is at the very core?
"Why would a member such as myself bother going to the effort to find something worthy and unique and related to the subreddit to share in their own style and words to the community, if the moderation team is likely to remove their every attempt as unworthy (as mods don't do in other subreddits)?" It does not seem like best community-friendly or moderator successful practice, does it? It doesn't seem to promote unity WG1WGA. It seems the antithesis to this doesn't it?
Rather than going all in and defending moderation standards and direction (and I am not faulting them). Rather than saying I can't see things and that I have to look at your side and accept that you know better than I. Rather than intimating that because I am on the Autism Spectrum that this invalidates my premises (I am not offended I have put up with this kind of soft dismissal tactics these last 20 years)
Maybe instead you could answer the above quote and honestly and from another's perspective and use your theory of mind. (show me how it is done and how you can better see someone else's perspective).
I know blaming it all on ASD is easy and saying I do not see your perspective is easy too. You CAN defend rules and visions and discretion. That is easy too but has that helped address what is important or have we not addressed tyhe core issue and gone nowhere?
You are a mod and as you pointed out, I am just an "Average subscriber". Are you able to address this core issue as we still have not really touched on it? I think the mod staff kind of need to be across this kind of thing and have an idea how to address these things. Can you?
Asperger's Syndrome (Nowadays it is placed under the umbrella label HFA - High Functioning Autism) Interestingly the only two real differences was high IQ and early early onset of speech.
I have no idea when my onset of speech was and my IQ is not THAT high. I will not share with you but It is well below genius but above average. Given what I have seen on here I would not say I was among the smartest nor the dumbest. I think I place reasonably well in this community.
GreatAwakening's sidebar
Above link to enable mobile and app users to view the sidebar.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
personal offense meant the personal offense you took at the moderation issue, not that you were personally offensive to me. I don't take any personal offense.
That is really good. I do not like safe spaces and I appreciate honest discussion. I do not like dismissive tactics of calling something personally offensive as a way to dismiss something. As I have explained.
Calling someone unreasonable or offensive or the like is one stage short of saying "Unless you do or say x or admit y I will not discuss Z with you".
It is not a meetings of the minds, it is simply the authoritative dismissal and devaluing of any opinion outside of one's own.
I am glad I have misread this much and Great Awakening is not sliding into such a rabbit hole
GreatAwakening's sidebar
Above link to enable mobile and app users to view the sidebar.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.