Pleeb

Do we take Fede-lasse off "Moderated"? (poll)

Do we lift the Moderation Approval on Fede-lasse?  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we lift the Moderation Approval on Fede-lasse?



Recommended Posts

Like I said I don't see much point to sucking up to anyone on the internet really.

 

Isn't the logical thing to do is to suck up to someone that is perceived positively by the community or someone higher up? Isn't that usually the point?


Maybe he's thinking of the span of time I've been in the community and my post count.

 

But I dunno.

yes. he (probably) is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: The post is gone. Looks like the moderators like to be contradictory by approving it and then deleting it later because it had too much helpful advice in it.

 

For reference, it was detailing pony buttsex as a method for merging personalities. For this reason (and a few Fede posts I've rejected), I still consider him to be a shitposter and therefore vote no. Also because of his tendency to derail any situation where an inappropriate post has been deleted into a discussion about his rather unusual conception of democracy.

 

As for the occasional inappropriate post being approved and then deleted, some mods see a dozen posts in the moderation queue, scroll through quickly and click approve all. Then someone else sees the post for what it is and deletes it. Mods are human and therefore sometimes screw up.

But it also doesn't help that the approve/delete/ignore checkboxes are labeled in almost-white on a white background. Why on earth...

 


Lyra: human female, ~17

Evan: boy, ~14, was an Eevee

Anera: anime-style girl, ~12; Lyra made her

My blog :: Time expectations are bad (forcing time targets are good though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was implying that I'd be unmoderated, and then people could see what I really post, then judge.

Which is fair enough, I suppose.

 

I've made plenty of unmoderated posts prior to my ban and later moderator chains. If people are really curious, they can go on a time-travel.

And see the posts that got you banned and then moderated? The question here is whether you've changed, and can now be trusted, not whether you were deserving of censure in the first place. Only moderation can see the extent of what you have posted - to no approval - recently, and thus only they can see whether you have changed in this regard.

 

>implying all votes involving people don't turn into popularity contests

That's the nature of polls, so stop complaining. Saying a public vote isn't fair sounds just like those type of people that go "Democracy isn't fair because the wolves outnumber the sheep." Nothing is perfect or "fair".

Yes, nothing is fair. But that's no reason to not try to be fair. We can try to be closer to completely fair.

Moderation is biased; everyone is biased. But we trust them and them alone to make an objective assessment, not the community at large. There's a reason why everyone isn't given moderation tools.

 

You're just being plain rude now, waffles.

For paraphrasing your post? For calling it unhelpful? Even if it is bordering on rude, it's a necessary sort of rude, and nothing you should be taking offence to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote ends in a few days, and it looks like he's coming back in unmoderated. I don't think anyone here really cares that much. If he starts to throw his feces then he can always go back on the list again, simple as that.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
his rather unusual conception of democracy.
I find your conception of democracy unusual, just like I find your conception of differentiating between personalities and simple behavior changes unusual, among a host of other things.

 

only they can see whether you have changed in this regard.
I was implying that I'd be unmoderated, and then people could see what I really post, then judge.

 

There's a reason why everyone isn't given moderation tools.
Because person A is better than person B. I see.

 

it's a necessary sort of rude,

whether or not you like Fede is irrelevant - at least, it should be; posting it, regardless of justification, is definitely sucking up in that regard.
And yet you still find that rudeness to be necessary.

 

If he starts to throw his feces then he can always go back on the list
And what if you throw feces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get a verbal warning and then an official warning if I don't stop. Eventually if it continues I'll get banned and then end up like you.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because person A is better than person B. I see.

Better at moderation? Yes.

Moderation is ultimately a skill, and in that regard there will inevitably be some better suited to the job than others.

 

And yet you still find that rudeness to be necessary.

Not only was that not directed at you, I can't see how it's particularly rude anyway. It is true that whether nor not someone likes you should be irrelevant to their vote, and this it does follow that someone posting that they like you is probably sucking up. That I said Sing was sucking up shouldn't really be offensive given my justification. Now, if Sing is offended by that then he can say so, but it was also necessary - at least, relevant - to say what I did. The point of people sucking up to Fede was relevant to the vote, and I couldn't very well say it without illustrating my point given such a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I possess full knowledge of Fede's shitposting habits, and voted yes nonetheless. I have no excuse other than "some men just like to watch the world burn", honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.