Feedback Poll How are we doing? - Recent Moderation

[M_N04H]

Hey Ikeo1. I have one question. What’s with the raccoon avatar? Shed some light and give us the meaning. Love the site. Thanks

I have wondered, but never thought to ask.

 

[CalgunsMothershipAwayTeam]

Seems pretty good to me.
Moderation is always going to be a balancing act in which someone ends up less than happy. But, it's necessary. And, more moderating than Calguns is a good thing.
I think one way to look at it is:
Imagine what the board would look like to a Californian who doesn't own a gun, but is curious about possible ownership, or just wants to learn a little bit more. Is the forum's vibe conducive to that person becoming more interested, feeling welcome, and not being beset by over-the-top extremes? If so, good.
That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Robdog1]

It's a little like a WWII prison camp, they can fire a warning shot when you get near the wire or they can shoot you dead when you cross the wire. It's their wire and they can put it wherever they want. If you're getting numerous warnings, it's not their fault, in fact it sounds like they're being generous.

Whose fault is it then? If I say XYZ, and XYZ is true, but they don’t like that, then it’s 100% their fault. Opinions are like s, everyone has one, and they all stink, but opinion should not be used in moderating, nor should feelings. Only facts. I keep my mouth shut for the most part, yet I’m still getting ‘warnings’ for random things, and it’s making me less and less apt to want to be here. What point does bias, feelings and opinion come into play in moderating decisions being made?

 

[Warpspeed]

Whose fault is it then? If I say XYZ, and XYZ is true, but they don’t like that, then it’s 100% their fault. Opinions are like s, everyone has one, and they all stink, but opinion should not be used in moderating, nor should feelings. Only facts. I keep my mouth shut for the most part, yet I’m continually getting ‘warnings’ for random things, and it’s making me less and less apt to want to be here. What point does bias, feelings and opinion come into play in moderating decisions being made?

You got one warning and were told to "be nice".

You were engaging in an argument with another forum member that was not helpful or pertinent to the thread. Oh, and he was warned too.

It had nothing to do with the point either of you were making, it had to do with how you were treating each other.

 

[ikeo1]

Hey Ikeo1. I have one question. What’s with the raccoon avatar? Shed some light and give us the meaning. Love the site. Thanks

Around the time I made the site, I had a raccoon living under my place. We battled for a good 2 months before she took her little one and left. It was mainly coincidence when I was looking for avatar. The raccoon pulled all of the insulation from under the house and wrecked a lot of shiet. I had a camera and we were basically doing Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny dance before she finally left.

Whose fault is it then? If I say XYZ, and XYZ is true, but they don’t like that, then it’s 100% their fault. Opinions are like s, everyone has one, and they all stink, but opinion should not be used in moderating, nor should feelings. Only facts. I don’t particularly want to, but I’ll simply go back to CG if it comes to that. There’s a lot of things and people I don’t necessarily agree with here, but I keep my mouth shut for the most part. Maybe I should just write it off, delete my account, and go do something productive with my time instead…

That’s the thing, you think you’re speaking facts but to a lot of people you have an opinion. And if the opinion doesn’t have anything to do with the topic that’s when we would step in and clear it up to provide a service to the community at large.

I think this sums it up from a mods and others POV

In recent weeks, I've noticed less lengthy threads where it almost seems like the same 3 - 4 people bantering back and forth. Maybe the moderators have curbed the discussion prior to the times I hit the site, but it is much easier to read several different threads now, compared to reading 5 pages into 1 thread.

To the people involved it seems like we’re picking on them but the matter of fact is, it’s irrelevant to the topic and no one really cares except the people involved in the back n forth.

Our goal is to build content for the community. I’ve actually been considering the suggestion to move side discussions into a new thread, as not to distract from the main topic.

I think you can see the people come from a lot of different backgrounds here left and right all age groups etc. That’s by design and why CG has its place in the grand scheme of things. I think of this place as like an internet range where our role is to keep things going smoothly.

 

[ikeo1]

@Robdog1 you're good, sometimes you go back and forth and I think that's ok. We just have to step in when things start to take a life of its own and gets distracting. Nothing personal about it, just if someone comes along to read it, does the content match the title and the discussion provoke thought or rage.

Sites like this are optimized SEO to search for content. We keep the political stuff in sections that aren't indexed by search engines.

 

[doser]

Overall, I think we're moving in the right direction.

 

[Hit Factor]

You got one warning and were told to "be nice".

You were engaging in an argument with another forum member that was not helpful or pertinent to the thread. Oh, and he was warned too.

It had nothing to do with the point either of you were making, it had to do with how you were treating each other.

The purpose of this thread was to solicit our opinions. Why are you arguing with him about his? This is kind of starting to feel like kindergarten, with a little bit of gaslighting thrown in for good measure. And before you start scolding me too, just remember that when you ask for people’s opinions, sometimes you’ll actually get them.

 

[GoldensRule]

The purpose of this thread was to solicit our opinions. Why are you arguing with him about his? This is kind of starting to feel like kindergarten, with a little bit of gaslighting thrown in for good measure. And before you start scolding me too, just remember that when you ask for people’s opinions, sometimes you’ll actually get them.

Warpspeed was correcting the misinformation previously presented, by detailing the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

 

[Hit Factor]

Warpspeed was correcting the misinformation presented by detailing the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

And this is called “piling on.” Group Think is real.

 

[jarhead714]

Not really a great time to ask since there hasn’t been a thread topic controversial enough since the Marines landed in Los Angeles and the ICE raids which have beef discussed ad nauseum.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Whose fault is it then? If I say XYZ, and XYZ is true, but they don’t like that, then it’s 100% their fault. Opinions are like s, everyone has one, and they all stink, but opinion should not be used in moderating, nor should feelings. Only facts. I keep my mouth shut for the most part, yet I’m still getting ‘warnings’ for random things, and it’s making me less and less apt to want to be here. What point does bias, feelings and opinion come into play in moderating decisions being made?

Opinions are not equal and they don't all stink. Even in your own post here you emphasize the importance of something being objectively true, but people make all kinds of truth-claims which aren't true in whole or in part. That's the whole point of the scientific method, testing truth-claims.

To your point, if something is true then it shouldn't matter if it's controversial to some.

I would say that opinions based on fact are better than those that aren't, even if that fact offends someone. The moon landing denier does not have equal weight with the person who can explain with evidence how humans landed on the moon six times. Denial of evidence is not a compelling argument, but it is dishonest. Dishonest arguments lose credibility.

Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie if the conversation itself is too disruptive to one's goals, which on this site notably relates to group cohesion, curb appeal for new visitors, and reducing bandwidth potentially consumed by huge argument threads.

 

[ikeo1]

The purpose of this thread was to solicit our opinions. Why are you arguing with him about his? This is kind of starting to feel like kindergarten, with a little bit of gaslighting thrown in for good measure. And before you start scolding me too, just remember that when you ask for people’s opinions, sometimes you’ll actually get them.

I think it’s clear that the reply was based on the statement on the randomness of the warnings. It’s not random. These threads are an opportunity to clarify any confusion.

There are very specific reasons why people receive notices. Notices and deletions are reviewed when asked to, which is why we opened this up.

There’s the accusation that we have a personal biases towards people at times, which isn’t right. None of the mods know anyone they haven’t dealt with personally. The bias is towards disruption. I think we try to make it very clear, bickering should be taken aside.

 

[GoldensRule]

And this is called “piling on.” Group Think is real.

If you believe my reply to your post constituted "piling on" you, then you should report my post. Personally, I don't see it but, let the mods decide if you are being victimized.

 

[ikeo1]

Not really a great time to ask since there hasn’t been a thread topic controversial enough since the Marines landed in Los Angeles and the ICE raids which have beef discussed ad nauseum.

You missed it man..

 

[jarhead714]

You missed it man..

You missed it when you posed the question. You run the show. To hell with what people in this site think of your moderation. If they (to include myself) don’t like it, well they can just STFU and move along. Right?

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

You missed it when you posed the question. You run the show. To hell with what people in this site think of your moderation. If they (to include myself) don’t like it, well they can just STFU and move along. Right?

While that is certainly true, it speaks well of them to ask us for our input.

 

[jarhead714]

While that is certainly true, it speaks well of them to ask us for our input.

Given a little bit more time, requests will neither be a necessity nor desire.

 

[jhsd20]

Opinions are not equal and they don't all stink. Even in your own post here you emphasize the importance of something being objectively true, but people make all kinds of truth-claims which aren't true in whole or in part. That's the whole point of the scientific method, testing truth-claims.

I agree with this statement but I think it can be a slippery slope in forum moderation. This isnt a peer-review committee of a scientific journal.

Its not a crime to be wrong, and moderation shouldn't revolve around factuality of opinion. Saying "the sky is red" isnt a crime, but blasting "the sky is blue" on a megaphone on a public street for hours might get you in trouble.

Let readers decide for themselves the "facts". Not moderators. Moderation should focus around disruption, NOT content.

 

[jarhead714]

While that is certainly true, it speaks well of them to ask us for our input.

It speaks to a spineless nature which in this case, I know not to be true. It takes both a spine a large testicles to put something like this together.