This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If enforcing our rules has a negative opportunity cost, then it's one we must pay.
A warning is just that, a warning, and in the absence of further transgressions, won't have longterm ramifications. I didn't think a ban was warranted myself, but that note was for any other admins who'd wish to act, letting them know I have no strong feelings either way.
If you strongly suspect, as he made clear himself, that something about your post is objectionable (he chose to highlight the lack of formatting), then that's all the more reason to take proactive action and fix the issue. As is, he's getting off with a slap on the wrist.
Of course it is necessary to enforce the rules despite negative consequences. But man that's shortcut thinking regarding warnings - a warning is not just a warning, it is also used to determine the severity of future punishment. In practice unless you guys are familiar with the poster you usually just add infractions and aaqcs together to determine the poster's merit to trouble ratio. And the system doesn't distinguish between types of warnings like "bad formatting" vs "being a shithead on purpose" - even if a poster successfully gets a mod action reversed it is still counted against them the next time they transgress. That is the reality of mod actions as it is internalised by both the users and the mods - as you can see when someone gets a long ban, their recorded actions are weighed and listed to justify the severity.
It would be unreasonable to expect you guys to go through all of a user's history before modding them, especially since you usually do a great job with the system as it is, and I understand the boundaries are in place for a reason and a heavy hand is necessary when the heat gets too high, but with ops I'm just saying I think you should go for a lighter touch if someone tries something different and there's no apparent culture warring.
It does do that. We have notes on the warnings that can be general or specific, and can mention extenuating or aggravating factors.
Ah, maybe I was thinking of times back on reddit but I recall seeing administrative errors and reversed mod actions used to calculate the merit to trouble ratio so I assumed it didn't clarify.
I think the rest of my argument still makes sense, a warning is not just a warning. Nothing is just what it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link