Just Delete Statuses/Actually Punish People for Posting Political Statuses Rather Than Simply Locking Them

[Proto]

Locking them just makes it seem like one of two things:
A. The person did it themselves to not be challenged on that position.

B. The mods did it, but in doing it has made it impossible to retort or even question the controversial opinion stated. Therefore just presenting it, unchallenged to whoever happens to be scrolling the front page.

So, if a mod sees it they should either just delete the status or actually give out some warnings for it if they intend to actually enforce the "no politics in statuses" rule.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

From what I remember on the stance......

 

The issue with the statuses is they too often devolve into heated arguments which are hard to regulate in statuses. There are more punishments that are given depending on the severity.

 

Might start deleting them but trust me when I did that even when I would let the person know it led to sudden spikes of "power abuse" claims from some and it can create more drama then needed.

Most people know not to make statuses responding to locked statuses though so that's nice.

[Phantom Roxas]

From what I remember on the stance......

 

The issue with the statuses is they too often devolve into heated arguments which are hard to regulate in statuses. There are more punishments that are given depending on the severity.

 

Might start deleting them but trust me when I did that even when I would let the person know it led to sudden spikes of "power abuse" claims from some and it can create more drama then needed.

Most people know not to make statuses responding to locked statuses though so that's nice.

 

It may create drama, but if you feel the need to start deleting them, you might as well do it. If the claims of power abuse come from more than a handful of people, then you should step back, but if it's mostly coming from the person in question who's status was deleted, it's difficult to tell if that's actually a fair critique, or if they're just simply lashing out over getting their status deleted.

 

Though, to be honest, sometimes when some people post statuses about "power abuse", I get the impression that people are mostly joking and making light of the situation? So it's not that a lot of people are getting upset about it, it seems more like trying to make light of the situation.

 

Regarding the title of this thread, I'm wary. There's a false belief that going through with something like that would be seen as "singling out" people, which is where the perception of power abuse comes from, rather than appropriately holding people accountable for violating the rules.

[Proto]

I'm just anti-wishy-washiness.

 

If someone's breaking the rules, they're breaking the rules. That's how it is. And you shouldn't how preferential treatment towards anyone because you're afraid of what the backlash might be of you "singling them out".

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Reasons on why these things aren't enforced as much as they're supposed to usually boil down to [1] disagreements on whether/not certain statuses are appropriate and [2] apathy for the status bar out of certain team members [least shown from previous discussions over the matter].

 

I do have to agree that the team as a whole (self included) must improve at stepping up and handling these cases properly, including deletion if necessary and appropriate punishments as laid out in the status rules.

 

Political discussions / controversial topics need to be placed in Debates, as they can/will get out of control on the status bar due to varying opinions on certain topics. (Cow already mentioned this above.)

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm just anti-wishy-washiness.

 

If someone's breaking the rules, they're breaking the rules. That's how it is. And you shouldn't how preferential treatment towards anyone because you're afraid of what the backlash might be of you "singling them out".

I'm not afraid of backlash, I've gotten plenty, but it's my job to try and keep the place peaceful and getting too aggressive with it is counter productive for that goal.

I know when to be harsher and when not to.

You've only been back a couple days so you wouldn't be able to know but I have in fact been punishing things. I just have the control to let up when I feel I should. Some things don't need as harsh a hand as others.

[Thar]

The way I see it is that with only locking a status, it's still up there, so it still gets the attention that they intended it to get despite the lack of outlet for discussion in the comments. Delete a status and then the poster brings up the fact that their status was deleted and mentions power abuse, drawing in others that aren't even involved and starting up another issue entirely. If not people who are genuinely concerned about the state of power, then it's trolls who just wanna make sheet worse for their own enjoyment. Either way, backlash is inevitable, but locking it at least avoids the latter.

[Darj]

Not sure how much it would help, if at all, with the issues addressed in this thread, but it occurs to me:

How about implementing a way for automatically generating a reply in the status when it is locked, revealing who was the one who did it? Something like "This status was locked by [insert username here]", and this could be posted after the locking is done, so an user locking its own status wouldn't be able to delete it. IDK, this ought to make things more transparent regarding who is doing the status lock. Alternatively, mods could do it themselves but that ought to be plenty of work, and IDK if mods get to see when an user locks its own status.

 

Another approach could be the mods leaving a reply on a locked status stating the reason, and/or if warnings were given ([user]] was warned for this status), to set examples of what-not-to-dos.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm just anti-wishy-washiness.

 

If someone's breaking the rules, they're breaking the rules. That's how it is. And you shouldn't how preferential treatment towards anyone because you're afraid of what the backlash might be of you "singling them out".

 

Oh, I completely agree with that. If someone is breaking the rules, then they should be dealt with appropriately.

 

The way I see it is that with only locking a status, it's still up there, so it still gets the attention that they intended it to get despite the lack of outlet for discussion in the comments. Delete a status and then the poster brings up the fact that their status was deleted and mentions power abuse, drawing in others that aren't even involved and starting up another issue entirely. If not people who are genuinely concerned about the state of power, then it's trolls who just wanna make sheet worse for their own enjoyment. Either way, backlash is inevitable, but locking it at least avoids the latter.

 

The mods are damned if they do, damned if they don't. At that point, the issue is less about whatever a mod does, and more that someone is going to be bitter no matter what. If a status stays up despite being locked, then it's still going to serve as bait regardless. Deleting it means removing bait for yet another argument. If the poster brings i up after the fact and claims power abuse, then that's what I mean about someone lashing out. They're choosing to start up another argument. At that point, the concern is not whether a mod abused their power, but that a member is clearly behaving inappropriately.

 

Not sure how much it would help, if at all, with the issues addressed in this thread, but it occurs to me:

How about implementing a way for automatically generating a reply in the status when it is locked, revealing who was the one who did it? Something like "This status was locked by [insert username here]", and this could be posted after the locking is done, so an user locking its own status wouldn't be able to delete it. IDK, this ought to make things more transparent regarding who is doing the status lock. Alternatively, mods could do it themselves but that ought to be plenty of work, and IDK if mods get to see when an user locks its own status.

 

Another approach could be the mods leaving a reply on a locked status stating the reason, and/or if warnings were given ([user]] was warned for this status), to set examples of what-not-to-dos.

 

I don't think it's possible to implement that, but it frankly shouldn't be that much of an effort for mods to leave a reply on a locked status clearly stating the reasons. Though frankly, I can't hold it against mods if they don't want to do even that. If no mod comments on a locked status, then a member who's lashing out won't have anyone in particular to direct it towards, while if a mod does state why they locked a status, then the member who posted the status in the first place could be taking that as an invitation to directly attack that mod.

[Proto]

i don't think it's much of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. it's very clear that if you just lock a status but leave it up on the front page then you still see someone's somewhat inciteful and unchallenged political opinion on the front page. and in practice that really just makes it so people see such a thing which they might see as wrong and straight up can't formulate a response to it so people assume it's right. in general it only encourages posting wild, dubious claims in your status if you're attempting to further a political agenda because all you do is get it locked which means hey, people can't call you out when you say something debatable.

 

i don't agree with sakura's point of the issue being "disagreements on what's political" because the statuses in question (eh, let's not jest, it's usually melkor) straight up refer to political parties with no hint of subtlety to them whatsoever.

 

I'm not afraid of backlash, I've gotten plenty, but it's my job to try and keep the place peaceful and getting too aggressive with it is counter productive for that goal.
I know when to be harsher and when not to.
You've only been back a couple days so you wouldn't be able to know but I have in fact been punishing things. I just have the control to let up when I feel I should. Some things don't need as harsh a hand as others.

 

the issue of people posting directly political things outside of debates with little to no repercussions from it is something that's been going on since i fell into inactivity the last time, which is at the very least .

 

i'm not saying that you haven't been punishing things besides this, i'm merely criticizing your handling of this situation in particular. the way that people are responding with "oh there'll be backlash against the mods/people will complain" makes it seem like that's an actual thought process when it comes to enforcing the rules. people will always complain, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you say you will do in an effective way.

think of the precedent this sets, so if there's enough uproar about a rule being enforced then it just doesn't get enforced? say if melkor wasn't the one always posting it but i was instead (someone with, i assume less people who are willing to cause dissent simply because i'm inactive). would that make it suitable for you to be harsher then just because less people would complain about it?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Nowhere did I say rules aren't being enforced. Just that some punishments will be harsher depending on circumstance.

[Proto]

okay, what is the circumstance here? i see someone doing something expressly political when there is a rule against doing things expressly political in statuses.

 

what circumstance makes it more difficult to take action then any other rule? work with me.

[Proto]

Alternative proposition: do away with the political status rule altogether because at least then people can respond/make their own statuses against whatever stuff gets posted without being worried if they got enough of a mob behind 'em.

[Phantom Roxas]

Alternative proposition: do away with the political status rule altogether because at least then people can respond/make their own statuses against whatever stuff gets posted without being worried if they got enough of a mob behind 'em.

 

We went over this already. Allowing people to make their own statuses against what is being posted has been proven to directly cause arguments, to the point of sincerely advocating for invasions, dropping nukes, and genocide. The rule should be maintained, because it's designed to discourage that kind of behavior across the board. The rule is not the problem, but rather, any member who displays such despicable behavior needs to be punished appropriately. Saying that they don't have to be worried if they have a mob on their side is literally encouraging a mob mentality.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Alternative proposition: do away with the political status rule altogether because at least then people can respond/make their own statuses against whatever stuff gets posted without being worried if they got enough of a mob behind 'em.

We already tried this, mods basically ignored us and kept the rule in

[Proto]

So, is this just going to keep being a thing then? Like, will the rule remain but not be enforced? 

 

I'd like a conclusion here of some sort because it seems like this has waged on for a long time (maybe even years)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So, is this just going to keep being a thing then? Like, will the rule remain but not be enforced? 

 

I'd like a conclusion here of some sort because it seems like this has waged on for a long time (maybe even years)

In the past there were more ....uh vicious statuses. I assume you're upset about my poll status, but that's like really tame compared to some of the stuff that happened in the election year. There's context behind this rule even if I disagree with it

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So, is this just going to keep being a thing then? Like, will the rule remain but not be enforced?

 

I'd like a conclusion here of some sort because it seems like this has waged on for a long time (maybe even years)

It is being enforced. I use my judgement. Icould give you a thousand examples of various degree of punishment but that would be pointless. If that's all that's left then the matter is at its conclusion

[Proto]

In the past there were more ....uh vicious statuses. I assume you're upset about my poll status, but that's like really tame compared to some of the stuff that happened in the election year. There's context behind this rule even if I disagree with it

I'm not upset over any of your statuses in particular, I'm upset over the fact that the punishment for/application of these rules seem to be unclear to any potential new members or those that are less invested in this forum (like me).

 

It is being enforced. I use my judgement. Icould give you a thousand examples of various degree of punishment but that would be pointless. If that's all that's left then the matter is at its conclusion

That wouldn't be pointless, it'd straight up establish clarity as to what you find as violating these rules and what doesn't violate them in your eyes. If all that matters when regarding these rules are things that Melkor labelled as less tame then his statuses then fine. Just keeping the rules as simply "politics in statuses aren't allowed" and then allowing politics in statuses if they're not directly calling for violence or whatever the criteria is something that helps nobody.