(untitled)

Mod not doing their job. >>https://lainchan.org/r/res/7261.html#q7640 >Criticism is welcomed on >>>/q/, The purpose of mods in an online community is to enforce the rules and keep threads on topic. >>https://lainchan.org/r/res/7261.html#q7326 >3. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. >4. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. >5. Don't respond with aggression to perceived flames or trolls (or at all.) >Keep it civil and don't derail the thread with off topic discussion. >>https://lainchan.org/r/res/7261.html#q7640 >Due to continues breach of rule(s) -mostly the ones I've already stated here >>7326, ... this thread will be locked. This is beyond laziness and incompetence. Mods should be singling out individual posts with warnings to explain what is not acceptable, not just "you guys broke the rules thread locked hurr durr". The problem with lazy broadstokes like this is the bystander effect. Everyone involved reads this as thinks it was someone else who broke the rules. More importantly, the people creating the thread and arguing for that side can't see which rules they've broken themselves and assume they're just being censored because mods don't like the content, which just leads to more soykafty threads with even more toxic resentment in future. tl;dr /r/ is going to soykaf because incompetent moderation. Get better mods.

>>5425 >Mod not doing their job. Alternatively we can flip that statement, Lainon(s) not doing their job. >This is beyond laziness and incompetence. Alright. >Mods should be singling out individual posts with warnings to explain what is not acceptable, https://lainchan.org/rules.html >>>/r/1 >not just "you guys broke the rules thread locked hurr durr". A great chunk of soykafposts was already deleted -deleting posts has a greater impact than simply warning them, I believe, and even after my incompetent and beyond lazy reply (>>>/r/7326) people were still brewing soykaf, just look at the last three posts after my reply. You're also ignoring my other statement >misleading information without any evidence to back it up, a very short and soykafty opening post, baiting people into arguments while making multiple posts (samefagging) >misleading information without any evidence to back it up This is where it gets murky. There isn't a specific rule that states "post facts only when arguing with someone". Usually blatant lies are considered a breach of rule 3. I can't simply delete all faulty arguments, it's sometimes hard to distinguish if someone is genuinely ignorant or if they're just trying to stir something up. And I am not a political scientist myself either. hurr durr >The problem with lazy broadstokes like this is the bystander effect. Everyone involved reads this as thinks it was someone else who broke the rules. More importantly, the people creating the thread and arguing for that side can't see which rules they've broken themselves and assume they're just being censored because mods don't like the content, which just leads to more soykafty threads with even more toxic resentment in future. People who break the rules on multiple occasions usually get derezzed, keep in mind that this is a very small percentage of people. And they usually come on lainchan just to soykafpost. >which just leads to more soykafty threads with even more toxic resentment in future. soykafty and toxic threads will get locked and/or deleted. >tl;dr /r/ is going to soykaf because incompetent moderation. Get better mods. Let's flip that again. tl;dr /r/ is going to soykaf because incompetent usersbase. Get better users.

>>5426 >Alternatively we can flip that statement, Lainon(s) not doing their job. People don't have the ability to introspect on their own posts and realize they're breaking the rules the same way they can judge other people. That's why communities need independent arbitrators. >even after my incompetent and beyond lazy reply (>>>/r/7326) people were still brewing soykaf It's obvious to you when someone breaks the rules but I guarantee you it's not obvious to the person. That's why if warnings are not specific, people just carry on. >You're also ignoring my other statement I think you sufficiently warned the OP. You are right about the bait images thing, I've been going back and forth about that. It might suck a lot of toxicity out of the thread if they were removed or spoilered. But then it becomes the mod's job to fight with OP and explain why the bait is bait and that's soykaf too.

>this thread will be locked. >This is beyond laziness and incompetence That's not fair at all. The last 10 posts in that thread are people talking about how soykafty it was that someone made a bunch of bait threads in the first place. If a thread descends solidly into a meta-thread about how soykaf a thread it is then it's past time to lock it. >Everyone involved reads this as thinks it was someone else who broke the rules. Nobody is sat there going, damn if only that other person hadn't broken the rules the thread wouldn't be locked. It was a pile of soykaf all around and that's why it was locked. As much as I'm sure people on both sides of it broke the rules, it's just better off gone. >>5426 >Alternatively we can flip that statement, Lainon(s) not doing their job. That's not fair either. Like you say it's a very small percentage of people who come here just to soykafpost. It's not something we, as a community of normal users, can adequately deal with. It needs to be removed. I know it's not an easy job. For mods to have hours long debates over posts isn't unheard of and it's a thankless job too, but, past not being one of the guys who's here to brew soykaf, which 99% of us manage fine, it's not our job. >soykafty and toxic threads will get locked and/or deleted. Please, if I've a criticism, it's that you should take this further. Specifically when it looks like flooding. When 5 threads all with the same political bent showed up over the course of one weekend most of them should have just been locked/merged. I don't mind a little bit of political soykaf but it's not nice having to scroll through thread after thread of it. >>5428 >People don't have the ability to introspect on their own posts and realize they're breaking the rules the same way they can judge other people. Word. I've gotten angry with people and broken the rules before. Almost everyone has and, when I was angry, it seemed justified. >It's obvious to you when someone breaks the rules but I guarantee you it's not obvious to the person. There's no reason it shouldn't be reasonably obvious in hindsight, past our usual bias towards thinking we're good people ofc. >That's why if warnings are not specific, people just carry on. Locking/deleting aren't about correcting people's behaviour. It's about everyone else on the site who doesn't want to see that soykaf. You have to remember the people who're really a problem and not just a good lain who got a little overheated aren't going to change their ways because you ask them nicely. They're here entirely to break the rules. >then it becomes the mod's job to fight with OP and explain why the bait is bait and that's soykaf too. It can be but at least it happens on /q/ where most people can just ignore it. So, yeah, I don't think you were wrong to lock it. Warnings are not going to prevent that one guy from making a bunch of bait threads again. Warnings are there for the normally good users who get a little out of hand. Locking/deleting is for the people only looking to stir soykaf.

>>5429 >Nobody is sat there going, damn if only that other person hadn't broken the rules the thread wouldn't be locked. It was a pile of soykaf all around and that's why it was locked. As much as I'm sure people on both sides of it broke the rules, it's just better off gone. The problem is both sides assume it was the other side who broke the rules and you can't expect them to do anything but exactly the same soykaf next thread. >There's no reason it shouldn't be reasonably obvious in hindsight, past our usual bias towards thinking we're good people ofc. I think most people just move on and forget. Assuming that users have the ability and motivation to figure out when and how they broke the rules is not a good plan in my opinion. >Warnings are there for the normally good users who get a little out of hand. Why don't you ban everyone who posted in that thread then if none of them are normally good users?

>>5430 >The problem is both sides assume it was the other side who broke the rules And they'd both be right. Still, they know as well as anyone that the thread was locked for being soykaf generally rather than any specific breach of the rules else it'd have been mentioned. >you can't expect them to do anything but exactly the same soykaf next thread. They're going to do that anyway. Politics breeds flames because people are highly invested in it. They care and so they get angry. They've read the rules before. That's not the problem. >I think most people just move on and forget. Sure. Good for them. They're not children in the naughty corner. I don't expect them to dwell on it any further than they wish to. >Assuming that users have the ability and motivation to figure out when and how they broke the rules is not a good plan in my opinion. No, it's not and nobody even implied that it was, but then neither is expecting that people are going to take on board suggestions that are either utterly useless or amount to "never get angry." More than that they shouldn't have to. You shouldn't have to walk on egg shells to make a post. People getting angry and so breaking the rules is inevitable. It's expected and while I wouldn't go so far as to call it desired the alternative of "be very careful never to care so much about the discussion that you get mad" is far worse. >Why don't you ban everyone who posted in that thread then if none of them are normally good users? Nobody even remotely said that. Maybe ban the guy who started all the bait threads but then they'd just use Tor anyway so it's an empty gesture. Everyone else got baited, which isn't ideal but it's not really a crime either. I said warning's are for the normally good users. It's not to correct their behaviour. They aren't children waiting to be educated. It's just a big "calm the fuarrrk down and stop breaking the rules mate." Sometimes 0 or 5 minute bans are used for the same reason. There's no sense warning them all now. Thankfully it's over and we can all get back to biting back our urge to call the other guy a glitterboy over our good arguments about Tor and Emacs and soykaf.

>>5428 >People don't have the ability to introspect on their own posts and realize they're breaking the rules the same way they can judge other people. That's why communities need independent arbitrators. I should've clarified, that statement wasn't suppose to be taken seriously that also goes for >tl;dr /r/ is going to soykaf because incompetent usersbase. Get better users. I was demonstrating that making passive aggressive statements is easy and it results to nothing except for hostility. If I actually held such thoughts against lainchan I wouldn't be here. >It's obvious to you when someone breaks the rules but I guarantee you it's not obvious to the person. That's why if warnings are not specific, people just carry on. >That's why if warnings are not specific, people just carry on. That is false, people who came on lainchan just to soykafpost will carry on regardless. >I think you sufficiently warned the OP. You are right about the bait images thing, I've been going back and forth about that. It might suck a lot of toxicity out of the thread if they were removed or spoilered. But then it becomes the mod's job to fight with OP and explain why the bait is bait and that's soykaf too. That's rather flattering but I was either working or sleeping when that thread was made, somebody else warned the OP. I would've most likely deleted the thread but as I've stated on /r/ >Some threads with awful opening posts such as this one, can still be saved by the replies, so instead of blatantly deleting/locking them, they are left for a certain period of time to be "saved". first couple of posts were even pretty good. And unlike /λ/ for example, /r/ doesn't have a strict policy to attach relevant images when making threads/posts. >>5429 >That's not fair either. Like you say it's a very small percentage of people who come here just to soykafpost. It's not something we, as a community of normal users, can adequately deal with. It needs to be removed. I know it's not an easy job. For mods to have hours long debates over posts isn't unheard of and it's a thankless job too, but, past not being one of the guys who's here to brew soykaf, which 99% of us manage fine, it's not our job. Like I've said above, I wasn't serious with my statement, take it ez. >Please, if I've a criticism, it's that you should take this further. Specifically when it looks like flooding. When 5 threads all with the same political bent showed up over the course of one weekend most of them should have just been locked/merged. I don't mind a little bit of political soykaf but it's not nice having to scroll through thread after thread of it. Usually when that happens they get derezzed and their threads get deleted/locked if they're of low quality.

>>5433 >making passive aggressive statements is easy and it results to nothing except for hostility Depends on the emotional maturity of the reader. The fact that you've disregarded my feedback because I hurt your feelings is indicative of a deeper problem. On the other hand you're just a volunteer and I shouldn't be so entitled. Lainchan obviously isn't that bad or I wouldn't be here either.

>>5435 >The fact that you've disregarded my feedback because I hurt your feelings is indicative of a deeper problem. Making snarky and false remarks such as this one isn't going to get us far. I haven't taken your suggestion out of consideration completely. >On the other hand you're just a volunteer and I shouldn't be so entitled. Do as you wish, just follow the rules. >Lainchan obviously isn't that bad or I wouldn't be here either. I can agree with that. I've forgot to mention in my previous posts, annual general meeting is on the 20th, if you have time you can hop on irc or mumble to make a suggestions and whatnot.