Meta Question

Seek's avatar

Is conflict of any kind allowed on Fluther?

Asked by Seek (30176 points ) March 29th, 2014

I mean, does it seem ridiculously quiet around here to anyone?

I know we’ve done away with religious debate. And with the nonreligious question-askers gone we’ve lost a bit of the political side as well.

And now we’ve got Social questions being moderated for apparently no reason that anyone will openly admit to. Sure, we can ask a moderator privately what the reason was, but it was my understanding that the Fluther rules were an open book, so we all know how the moderation operates and what is and is not allowed, and that we shouldn’t be expected to discuss moderation decisions in PM, where different answers could be given to different people depending on how favored they are by the person doing the answering.

Really, at that point it’s little more than gossip.

I fully expect this question to be moderated, but maybe I’ll get an answer first. Who knows.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

78 Answers

janbb's avatar

Can you point to some examples of which Social questions have been modded?

muppetish's avatar

There is no moratorium on religious questions. Users are free to make genuine inquiries about religion, atheism, and philosophy. Likewise, political questions, no matter how contentious, are not banned either.

Social is not a free-for-all section that will never be moderated. However, I do realize how ridiculous it can look at times when all of the information is not readily present.

We are all aware that instances of flame-bait and personal attacks will be readily removed. These are usually fairly clear-cut. We will also remove responses that fail to meet writing standards, or when a user has redacted their response and leaves their slot either blank or with ”[edit]” written.

Of course, those active in the most recent social thread know that none of these situations fit this particular instance.

In order to preserve the privacy of the OP as well as the moderated user, we have chosen not to disclose information about why these posts were removed. The moderated user knows why their responses were removed. If either the OP or the moderated user wishes to step forward and disclose their situation then they may freely do so.

hominid's avatar

In the thread @Seek_Kolinahr references, there was some youtube video that I clicked on, but then realized I didn’t have time to watch. When I returned, it was flagged as “flame-bait”. Yet, I don’t recall exactly what was said, but it didn’t seem to come close to flaming.

It feels that there is something going on here, and it doesn’t seem right.

@muppetish: “There is no moratorium on religious questions.”

Well, there was, and it resulted in people leaving. I repeat – yes, there was. It wasn’t about people refusing to be polite, or questions that have been asked before. That justification was an insult to our intelligence simply because it was not true.

Seek's avatar

I know exactly what was said.

“The reanimated corpse of Ayn Rand”.

Since this was in response to the idea of a film, I do not see how this could possibly be considered Flame Bait, unless the moderation team in all their wisdom are making up definitions again.

muppetish's avatar

Please note that we are not supposed to quote moderated responses. The quote and my response are likely to be subject to future moderation.

@hominid The trailer in question was not pulled as flame-bait. When a user posts a response to a moderated response, it needs to be pulled as well to preserve the conversation. There was nothing inherently wrong with the trailer.

@Seek_Kolinahr We don’t have enough labels when moderating a response. Flame-bait doesn’t quite fit the issue. We have relabeled it as “writing standards,” but that doesn’t clarify the issue as well. This is a special circumstance that involves the OP and the moderated user. They both know why this moderation occurred.

Seek's avatar

Special circumstances?

Private special moderation rules that only affect certain people and/or certain situations?

Sounds distinctly like censorship to me.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr And it is starting to sound familiar.

janbb's avatar

I hadn’t seen the moderated posts or the thread at all but I suspect the posts may have been pulled because they were part of an ongoing private vendetta.

Seek's avatar

I have to wonder exactly how many users have “special circumstances” attached to their accounts.

hominid's avatar

^ Right. @ETpro did.

Symbeline's avatar

I know I was modded in that thread, and I don’t really care, but one thing struck me. The moderator said that people who comment on moderated posts will also be moderated, as always happens. Thing is, this is the first time I actually see it. Want proof?

Here.

In here, people were modded, and it was discussed, although briefly. None of the discussion was moderated for talking about it, so why did it happen in the other thread that Seek is talking about. I hate all this special treatment stuff, and I was unaware of it until I was told. I don’t understand why people who break the rules cannot be punished as everyone else would be. As it stands, the arrangement between the two users was breached, but technically, one of the guys that posted in the thread broke no rules, yet it was modded anyways. Why not just punish the user if he flames or insults? I mean if both guys were talking peacefully and having fun, is that not a good sign?? Shouldn’t they be let free, until they start ripping one another’s heads off again?

But what do I know, there are a lot of things I miss out on here, wasn’t even aware of the whole religious questions thing.
I’m not unhappy with the moderation, as they do a good job on the site, but this changing the rules whenever you want turns me off a tad slight. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to question staff actions if we’re not breaking rules. Maybe if things were shared with the community a little more, we wouldn’t have to wonder.

I’m not even sure I’m supposed to know what I know about this particular incident. Lol.

Seaofclouds's avatar

[Mod says]: There have been times in the past where 2 users are asked to ignore each other (this includes answering each others questions). These requests have always come from Auggie. No such requests have been made since she stepped down. We have merely upheld them. The specifics of why users are asked to do so will remain private between those users and the mod team. As far as removing quips that go with the modded posts, that has been standard for the whole time I have been a mod. Yes we miss things, we are human and volunteer our time to do this. Sometimes we don’t make it back on for a while after an incident occurred and we forget about it upon our return. It is not an intentional thing we do to be inconsistent. We are striving to keep things as consistent as possible.

Nothing has changed in the rules or standards since Auggie stepped down.

Symbeline's avatar

Thank you for explaining. One cannot blame people for wondering and talking about certain actions though, when said actions seem to meet a different set of rules other than what we’re told are rules.

janbb's avatar

I think the mods and Auggie were and are always treading a fine line between individual user’s privacy in situations like these and banning/suspensions, and making knowledge public. I don’t envy them their jobs!

janbb's avatar

Is this the argument clinic?

hominid's avatar

What could possibly justify the existence of a rule that 2 specific users are not to interact with each other?

Symbeline's avatar

@hominid I still don’t get why they couldn’t be punished normally.

Response moderated
hearkat's avatar

[Mod says] We have explained this situation to a greater extent than we wanted to, because we respect that there is confusion about what has transpired in the mentioned thread. However, we can and will not allow further speculation about prior moderation activities. We will probably be taking this post down eventually, but we value you jellies and hope you can reach a better understanding of how difficult it is to be “consistent” when dealing with so many various personalities and behaviors as represented among the collective.

In addition, the Mod team are individual human volunteers and we do not have 24/7 coverage of the site. Some things slip through the cracks and when we are able to get to it, it can regrettably leave a mess in a thread. However, users posting additional comments and threads to complain about the moderation only makes the situation uglier and gives us more cleaning up to do.

I am one of the oldest active Jellies on this site, yet I am the newest Moderator. I feel that gives me a slightly different perspective on what transpires here. Since becoming a mod, I have been very impressed by how the team tends to err on the side of caution and to give a lot of leeway to some members. What then happens is that some users do their damnedest to push the limits and see how much they can get away with, but then when they get modded there’s an uproar.

I encourage everyone to re-read the Guidelines and Terms and Conditions frequently. The “rules” are not black and white. The line between expressing an opinion and being belligerent is usually interpreted very differently by different members. We did not put a moratorium on religious questions, but we asked that people step off for a while because they were pushing an agenda – which is against the Guidelines, to give the collective a rest.

The purpose of Fluther was to have respectful discussions about various topics to educate and contemplate – not to argue or “debate”. Debate seems to imply that people take sides and defend their point and that one side must “win” – that seems to be when posts get ugly and people deactivate their accounts in a huff. We are mostly adults and mostly a curious and intelligent group. It baffles me that we can’t behave more courteously towards each other, even when we disagree.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@hominid On one occasion I was harassed by a former jelly via PMs after she got heated in a thread. It went on for a few days prior to her finally removing herself from Fluther. @Augustlan was extremely supportive and asked outright if I felt I could handle the jelly on my own or if I’d prefer her to step in.

There are jellies who have been harassed both here in Fluther and on Facebook due to heated words in threads.

What you see on a thread isn’t necessarily all there is to the story.

longgone's avatar

@Symbeline “I still don’t get why they couldn’t be punished normally.”

How do jellies get punished normally? By getting banned? I’d rather get asked to ignore a couple of jellies than get banned.

hominid's avatar

@hearkat: “I encourage everyone to re-read the Guidelines and Terms and Conditions frequently.”

from the guidelines

Responses <strong>must not</strong>:

- Be one-liners, jokes, or chit-chat (please be helpful)
- Disrupt the discussion

There are people here on fluther that exclusively communicate in one-liners which disrupt the discussion, yet they thrive here. Should we start flagging these comments?

Responses <strong>must</strong>:

- Be respectful; you can disagree without being disagreeable

@hearkat: “The purpose of Fluther was to have respectful discussions about various topics to educate and contemplate – not to argue or “debate”. Debate seems to imply that people take sides and defend their point and that one side must “win” – that seems to be when posts get ugly and people deactivate their accounts in a huff. We are mostly adults and mostly a curious and intelligent group. It baffles me that we can’t behave more courteously towards each other, even when we disagree.”

I take this to mean that when 2 people hold different views on something, they are to state their views without referencing the opposing views, and without responding to each other. It’s just a place to state your views, in the least-offensive way possible and then stop commenting.

What a sad vision for a website.

ucme's avatar

I dunno, let’s see…I formally challenge @Symbeline to a no holds barred mud wrestle, she must be topless though & I may tweak her nipples if I feel it will help me win.

Symbeline's avatar

@longgone By having the offending posts modded, and then the users given a warning. (to my understanding, anyway) They get banned if they keep doing it, I always thought this is how things worked. It’s pretty sad if you have to give an indefinite time out to two people because they don’t get along.
I’m certainly not saying it isn’t justified if they simply refuse to get along, but by now I’d just keep repeating myself; we didn’t know. And things were modded and we were wondering why. It’s natural. Seek was modded for saying she’d be up for a fictional movie idea, I mean, how are we not to wonder what happened there, if we didn’t know about the arrangement between the two people?

And let’s not get me wrong, I’m not on an uproar because I was modded; I don’t care, and I didn’t add much of anything constructive to the discussion anyway. I’m only talking about it because I was there, and I was confused. Some perfectly legit stuff was modded, even that which had nothing to do with the two dudes in question. I’m all up for keeping that under wraps in order to respect the privacy of the people involved but my point stands; people ARE going to wonder what went on. I can’t complain because it was explained to us here by the mods, but it certainly wouldn’t have been if Seek had not made the thread.

I also realize that the mods have a hard job and that not everything is black and white. I’m not criticizing the work, but again, we’re a community, so I feel I have the right to discuss certain things, or bring them up. Now we know what this was about, or have a pretty good idea anyway. I don’t like it very much but if that’s the only way…I would much prefer this than seeing two fun jellies get banned, for sure. And if it’s okay with them then…okay.

@ucme Oh, so a no swearing contest PLUS mud wrestling? Man! But you know, I get excited when I start losing. XD

ucme's avatar

@Symbeline Both still going strong :)

Symbeline's avatar

@ucme Not cussing is flexing my brain. Not that I need it, understand. XD

hominid's avatar

@SpatzieLover: “On one occasion I was harassed by a former jelly via PMs after she got heated in a thread. It went on for a few days prior to her finally removing herself from Fluther. @Augustlan was extremely supportive and asked outright if I felt I could handle the jelly on my own or if I’d prefer her to step in.”

If someone is sending threatening PMs, aren’t there ways of stopping that? You can warn the user and then boot them if they don’t stop, right?

But that is not what’s going on here, despite not knowing the whole story. A harmless comment was modded as “flame-bait”, then changed to “writing standards” just because the 2 users are not supposed to respond to each other. There is little else we need to know.

syz's avatar

Is it Saturday? Must be Saturday. Time to complain abut moderation.

ucme's avatar

@Symbeline Ha, I know what you mean. I feel liberated from profanity, but do miss it so :D

Symbeline's avatar

@ucme Aye, I wonder what it will be like when the contest is over…will we do like Homer Simspon after a month of not drinking and go on a bike ride, or shall we splurge in drink? :D

SpatzieLover's avatar

@hominid Life is rarely black and white. I find Fluther to be the same. Whatever you think you know, I’m sure the mods know the full story.

Of course you can threaten to ban for harassment, unless that harassment or stalking carries on in another location on the web. Which I know it has for other users in the past.

I’ve never volunteered for a mod position here on purpose. I personally wouldn’t want to deal with all of the mod bashing that goes on.

longgone's avatar

@Symbeline Okay, I get what you mean. Seems the mods tried that first, though. I certainly understand wanting to know why the posts in question were moderated.

Seek's avatar

They certainly had nothing to do with The Unnamed User who is not supposed to talk to The Asker.

ucme's avatar

@Symbeline I fancy doing both, a drunken bike ride yelling swear words as we pedal.

Symbeline's avatar

You sure know how to party lol.

ucme's avatar

You ain’t seen nuffem yet!

janbb's avatar

So – are we done here or not?

ucme's avatar

Said the sausage to the barbecue

hearkat's avatar

[Mod says] @Seek_Kolinahr and anyone else involved in the other thread – When a comment is moderated, we remove subsequent comments that make reference to the one that was pulled – this has been standard practice for ages. Users are allowed to re-post whatever in their comment did not refer back to the pulled comment in a new comment. If someone wants to repost the link to that YouTube trailer, they can – if it is relevant to the topic being discussed. If it is not relevant to the topic, someone could start a new thread to discuss that video.

ibstubro's avatar

I want to step up and say that I have been asked to take a cooling off period with another user and it worked. There can come a time where any interaction infuriates one side or the other, and it’s just best to not interact for a while. I discussed the request with the moderators a great deal at the time, and all I can say is that the ends justified the means. I think it all grew from a misunderstanding or two, and snowballed. Everyone (all the jellies) ended up better off for the request.

ibstubro's avatar

Keep in mind that the only thing worse that “Response moderated” is for content to just “poof” disappear. I have been on a site that did that and you talk rumor mill and furious members!

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@hearkat You wrote, “We will be taking this post down eventually…” I’m curious as to why this needs to be taken down.

I’m asking this without any particular emotions. I have no stake in the questions linked or really in this one.

I care about this site, and I’m curious why this question and thread would be taken down.

SavoirFaire's avatar

There is no moratorium on religious questions. Users are free to make genuine inquiries about religion, atheism, and philosophy. Likewise, political questions, no matter how contentious, are not banned either.”

Unless you’re @ETpro. There’s a reason this specific instance keeps coming back to haunt the moderation team, and it’s quite straightforward: the simple fact of the matter is that the “rule” used to justify censoring @ETpro has never been used against anyone else. The odd thing is that he started asking his pointed questions in response to people on the other side who constantly did the same thing (though almost always in a way that was supremely uninformed and laced with fallacies). Yet he was censored while the others were allowed to continue unabated. Until this is rectified, it’s not going away.

I think it is clear that I generally support the moderation team. As such, I hope this criticism will be taken seriously and constructively.

“There have been times in the past where 2 users are asked to ignore each other (this includes answering each others questions). These requests have always come from Auggie.”

Indeed. This is a long-standing policy, and one that has an explanation. As such, it would be useful to give it. Two users may be asked to ignore each other (often temporarily, occasionally permanently) when their interactions repeatedly and consistently end up moderated because one or both cannot control themselves around the other. In other words: if induction tells us that all of their interactions are likely to end up moderated anyway, they are asked simply not to start the exchange in the first place. Is this ideal? No. But I’m not convinced it counts as special or secret moderation. It’s an extension of the rules about flaming and flame-baiting, and those rules apply to everyone.

“We will be taking this post down eventually.”

Like @Hawaii_Jake, it is unclear to me why that is. This post doesn’t mention the usernames, and it wouldn’t be possible to figure out who was involved if it weren’t for the fact that one of the members was named in the mod message on the relevant thread. (Note that this needn’t have been done. It could have just said that the members involved knew why.) In any case, I’m not sure why a thread clarifying the rules of Fluther should be hidden given how useful it could be to current and future jellies.

Sorry if this seems like backseat driving, but I consider myself to be a member of this community first and a former moderator second. I know you are all in a tough spot, and I sympathize. But we need to consider the sorts of precedents being set here.

Seek's avatar

I appreciate your levelheaded response, @SavoirFaire.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Seek's avatar

^ Aww, I thought this was going to be a moderation-free thread.

My kingdom to know what that said.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

^ If you find out, PM me. I’m dying to know.

Symbeline's avatar

Wasn’t me, yall. :p

Seek's avatar

My money’s on something regarding my lack of level-headedness.

Which is fine. I was kind of flying off the handle this morning.

hearkat's avatar

@hominid – I somehow did not see your reply to my first comment. As I told you in a PM, the part you quoted from the Guidelines is on the page about the General section. Social and Meta are where people can joke and the conversation can meander a bit – but it is supposed to still be relevant to the topic presented by the OP.

As for your reply to my comments about “debate”, people certainly can disagree and refer back to what people with differing viewpoints have said. This can be done without demeaning the person or their ideas or beliefs. People’s minds won’t open and their views won’t change if you call them “stupid” or “ignorant” or any other attacks – that only raises their defenses even higher. People’s opinions and ideas change when we provide evidence of what we have based our own differing opinions and ideas upon.

Civilized discourse is absolutely possible. Respectfully agreeing to disagree is all one can hope to get out of a conversation with others with opposing views, perhaps you may have planted a seed to get them questioning their own beliefs, but it is rare that someone’s mind changes that quickly. Badgering them and belittling them will not make them yield any faster, but only dig their heels in and resist more strongly.

ibstubro's avatar

OMG.
It was ME.

I posted a a mild atttack on @Seek_Kolinahr., tongue in cheek, to prove the moderation is flexible, and it was modded.

Crap. Fluther is now broken.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@ibstubro You broke Fluther. Naughty boy. Go to the back of the line for snack time.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@hearkat Modding comments due to name calling is entirely justifiable. Quashing a discussion in anticipation of name calling is not.

And ideas do not deserve unconditional respect.

hearkat's avatar

@dappled_leaves – Could you clarify what you mean by “Quashing a discussion in anticipation of name calling”?

Perhaps some ‘ideas’ do not deserve unconditional respect, but the humans who believe those ideas and are expressing them on Fluther do – it is part of the Guidelines and Terms & Conditions that we all agree to by using this site. I’m sure there are plenty of places for disrespectful discourse, Fluther was intended to NOT be one of them.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

There’s always debate.org.

Seek's avatar

^ That place is a cesspool of idiocy. I tried it.

Seek's avatar

@ibstubro

Oi, vey. You know you can call me anything you want to. ‘Cept, y’know, a bitch. Because I hate being called that. But anything else, you’re good.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@hearkat Could you clarify what you mean by “Quashing a discussion in anticipation of name calling”?

It is the topic of this thread. I’m not sure how much clarification I can offer.

Perhaps some ‘ideas’ do not deserve unconditional respect, but the humans who believe those ideas and are expressing them on Fluther do

That is the part of your post that I did not disagree with. I absolutely think that people should be treated respectfully. The part of your post that I did disagree with is what I addressed with my comment “ideas do not deserve unconditional respect”.

hearkat's avatar

@dappled_leaves – ”Quashing a discussion in anticipation of name calling… is the topic of this thread. I’m not sure how much clarification I can offer.” – I guess that you are referring to the concept of having two members that are very active and fairly popular, yet have a considerable and consistent history of conflict between them, being asked to avoid one-another? You feel that is not justifiable? If you were the Owner of a site such as Fluther, how would you handle it? Ban them both, since neither clearly instigates more than the other?

As to the concept of ”ideas do not deserve unconditional respect”, we have had many occasions when someone attacked the ideas that another user presented as “ludicrous”, “asinine”, “crazy” or what have you—but the user who presented them takes that attack personally, since it is a natural defense mechanism to do so. Thus, my point was that insulting the other person or their ideas won’t help someone prove their own point, AND it goes against the principles of Fluther. It would be more effective to say that one disagrees and why they disagree – and to back up one’s point with outside resources and evidence, and let the facts speak for themselves. This can be done without being disrespectful or pushy, and is generally far more effective.

Seek's avatar

Until you have to silence everyone because of those who feel that disagreement itself is disrespectful and an insult.

augustlan's avatar

Speaking as the past manager, I can confirm that we’ve had to ask several sets of people to completely ignore one another. I thought (and still think) that’s preferable to banning somebody just because they’ve got a personal problem with another member. If someone repeatedly breaks the “ignore order”, then it’s time to consider further action. In the meantime, moderation of the individuals involved can look weird. The mods do the best they can to respect the privacy of the two members involved and they have a limited set of tools. Under these circumstances, it’s pretty hard to accurately label a moderated post.

GloPro's avatar

Is there a time limit on the ignore orders? Sometimes I choose to ignore someone for a few days on my own…

longgone's avatar

@SavoirFaire said above: Two users may be asked to ignore each other (often temporarily, occasionally permanently) when their interactions repeatedly and consistently end up moderated because one or both cannot control themselves around the other.

longgone's avatar

^ That was supposed to be ”@GloPro”, of course.

hominid's avatar

@hearkat: “As to the concept of ”ideas do not deserve unconditional respect”, we have had many occasions when someone attacked the ideas that another user presented as “ludicrous”, “asinine”, “crazy” or what have you—but the user who presented them takes that attack personally, since it is a natural defense mechanism to do so.”

The inability to be able to discuss ideas by some people should be no reason to validate this limitation by modding attacks on ideas. This allows the intellectually-challenged to say, “I knew it! That person wasn’t attacking the ideas I had typed here in public. They were attacking me!” Mods should be able to support the concept of respectful discussion, disagreement or “debate” where the conversation is focused on the positions people present here.
I have been here (as @tom_g before, and now this stupid name) for a few years and have been able to have discussions with people who were able to argue their positions without feeling that an attack on their position was an attack on them. But we’ve also had people duck into these great discussions to say that they were offended or some horseshit without adding to the discussion. If we are to validate these people and their conversation-killing ways, what you’re left with is silly games and nekkid pancakes and complete shit.

So excuse me if I seem to be less than impressed with moderation here. The @ETpro debacle was enough. But the fact that mods still stand by their decision about that shows that they either don’t understand the nature of their mistake or they are simply willing to allow fluther to atrophy and devolve into silly quip parties. In this context, the discovery that permanent rules apply to certain people about interacting isn’t helping things.

hearkat's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr – You know that is not the case. There are many times that a member takes offense at something someone said and flags it, but we do not see the comment as a “personal attack” but only a strong opposing statement that may be borderline rude. This is why there were people on both sides of the recent religious posts debacle that have left. We did not choose sides, and we will NOT choose sides – our job is simply to maintain order and civility. Again, “disagree without being disagreeable”. It CAN be done!

@hominid – Yes, we know what your previous username was, as you made no effort to hide it with your avatar and your profile statement. Ideas can be discussed and challenged without calling the ideas “moronic” or “idiotic” – which clearly can be extrapolated to imply that anyone who believes those ideas is a moron or an idiot. Fluther has neither an IQ nor an EQ membership requirement. Certainly some have a “thicker skin” than others. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are more compassionate than others. Some are more impatient than others. Some are more blunt than others. That is humanity.

As noted in my comment to Seek immediately preceding this one, which I typed as you were creating your comment to me, there were people on BOTH sides of the religion debate that left in the religious post mess, and I also used the word debacle. That incident was coming to a head just as I was becoming a Moderator, and it had me gravely questioning my decision. I did not have much input then since I was new, and I certainly agree it could have been handled differently. I was not “behind the scenes” as things were beginning to brew, but it seems clear that the factors that led to the recent restructuring of the Moderation on Fluther were probably part of why those issues were not “nipped in the bud” and managed to come to a head as they did.

The request for two members to avoid one another that led to this conversation we’re having was made several months ago before the religious post brouhaha and before the Community Manager stepped down. We are still in transition with the system of team moderation, which is going well. One thing that impressed me about the team members, and why I decided to stick with it, is that they each have a strong sense of fairness; and if anyone is conflicted on an issue, they will promptly say so and defer to the others who may be able to approach a situation more objectively.

As new circumstances arise, we do have to discuss how to handle them as a team, rather than having one individual who has final say. This is a good thing, in my opinion – not because I have any problems with how Auggie managed the place all those years, but rather because anyone but Auggie may not be able to handle the stress, or to be as unbiased, polite and diplomatic. As this progresses and we gain experience with the team approach, we will be able to handle situations more efficiently.

This is why we are having these discussions, because we respect that this is a community and we all want it to keep going and even to thrive. Anything that happened in terms of Moderation prior to the change to the new system was handled differently, and we ask that you not judge us by those circumstances. We have learned from them and continue to learn from our experiences. The Guidelines are not clear, distinct rules; thus, interpretations vary. When those interpretations are allowed to swing too loosely, there may be a reaction to tighten up that feels awkward or even too rigid. This occurs within individual self-discipline as well as in communities and institutions. It is all a part of growth and evolution.

We do appreciate everyone’s input and patience, and especially their commitment to the site by being respectful and following the Guidelines, and flagging those instances that appear to be violations (and preferably, NOT reacting to them in the comments). The Moderation team can be reached by Private Messages via our profile pages, or one can reach us all by using the Contact button to the left of the Search bar at the top of the page.

ibstubro's avatar

I did not call you any ‘itch’ or ‘unt’ names, @Seek_Kolinahr. As a matter of fact, I don’t recall what I said, but it was only mildly provocative. Just enough for you to see the ruse, and new jellies to gasp at the interaction/conflict. I intended to point out that the mods were minimal.

Odd to me that the mods might see the error, but have no way to correct it.

livelaughlove21's avatar

Responses <strong>must not:
-Be one-liners, jokes, or chit-chat (please be helpful)

Psht…that one is broken every single day here. And by the same people every time.

ucme's avatar

Whine, bitch, moan, complain
Be hoping for too much to eradicate that element from the site, but still.

ucme's avatar

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=On73aHpgdSQ

^^ @KNOWITALL unofficial Fluther spokesperson :)

ucme's avatar

Wine

Symbeline's avatar

Hmm, wine…

ucme's avatar

Looks good, feels good, tastes good…real good.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther