I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding here What I was actually getting at was something a little broader than just this specific forum. But, since discussions about the forum itself are bound to pop up among all the other topics, I guess I should just ask—is it even possible to find something like that, and if so, is there some kind of PDF out there somewhere?
Lately, I’ve been noticing more and more people on here claiming their fundamental rights and freedoms are being trampled upon—complaining about censorship and all that jazz. Some have even gone so far as to write letters to government officials. At the same time, we’re seeing folks throwing around baseless accusations against the admin team, often paired with some pretty nasty insults. And let’s be real, it goes both ways; some mods aren't exactly saints when it comes to how they talk to users, and users are constantly trading insults and pointless allegations with one another. I’m not just talking about this specific corner of the web, either. I mean the whole landscape of social media and interactive sites, from Facebook and X to the comment sections of major news outlets like the New York Times or CNN.
Given how messy things have gotten, I’m wondering if there’s actually a place on this forum where we could have a civilized discussion about these issues. Digital media is basically taking over our lives; everyone uses these platforms to connect and communicate. But unfortunately, as the user base explodes, so does the amount of friction, which frequently spirals into outright harassment. Is it time for the government to establish a dedicated agency to oversee both the rights and the responsibilities of users on these platforms? Sure, legal sanctions exist on paper, but how do you actually enforce them in these digital trenches? It might be easier on Facebook since people usually use their real names, but what about anonymous spaces like this forum?
Since discussing the inner workings of this forum indirectly violates our own rules, maybe we could set some ground rules for a thread like this. For instance, we could agree not to call out moderators by name, or perhaps limit the conversation to generalities rather than getting into the weeds.
Maybe my title is a bit clunky; I wasn't quite sure how else to frame it. I’m definitely no lawyer, so I have no clue if there’s some specialized federal agency or government office that handles this stuff, or if it’s all just stuck in some regulatory gray area.
From what I can recall back during the war years, we didn't turn away a single cent from those who weren't even living in the States at the time, nor did we pass up any contributions from the volunteers out there elsewhwere, among other things.
I know it probably looks like my questions are totally off-topic right now, but I swear they’re actually connected. It’s just going to take me a few more posts to finally get my point across, so bear with me. Once I've laid out the full picture, I'll just move over to PMs—which I've already requested—so I don't end up cluttering this thread any further.
Look, I wouldn't even be bothering everyone with this if I hadn't already filed a formal report on this guy ages ago, and I mean like, a long time ago
edit Since you guys actually seem to have the willpower to address these questions, I figured I’d throw one more into the ring just to see if we can get some actual answers out of this Do you guys follow some kind of internal playbook when it comes to how mods should handle a user like this when they pop up in a thread, or is it mostly just a "wing it and see what happens" type of situation?
Kimberly White63 said:Right here. So, I was looking over the rules for picking out a username, and honestly, it doesn't explicitly say you can't do certain things—it’s just kind of open-ended. That being said, we can always tweak the guidelines and add some extra fine print whenever we feel like it if something weird pops up. 😉 My personal take? Yeah, absolutely not.
I mean, I’m pretty sure we actually agreed on this back then—that handles like that are basically hovering on the edge of hate speech.
Maybe someone from the admin team could weigh in on this?
Honestly, it’s pretty impressive you actually carved out some time and energy to weigh in from your neck of the woods. I’m pretty much on board with just about everything you said here 🙂
It actually brings a specific little story to mind. I remember this woman once saying, "When I first got married, I was convinced all mothers-in-law were just naturally wicked and responsible for every single problem in the house. But now that my son is hitched, I'm starting to realize the daughters-in-law aren't exactly saints either."
I’m gonna need the mods to actually step up and answer my question instead of just trolling the thread. The question is right there in my post just above rustydrifter10's last one, so I don't have to keep repeating myself like an idiot.
I’d probably say something about how biased the mods are when it comes to sports, but I really shouldn't go there
If I'm being honest, I kind of want to drift off-topic with a quick question Is it actually allowed to pick usernames like: dahau, auschwitz, treblinka, or whatever else...
Look, I was speaking figuratively there, and I made sure to emphasize the whole non-coalition thing just so there wouldn't be any confusion If you're actually down for a political debate, we can move this over to a dedicated PDF format designed for that sort of thing
Edit But let me expand on that a bit in case I wasn't being clear enough If we actually went with crimsonjackal63's idea, we’d probably see a massive influx of left-wing posters flooding the place, throwing the exact same accusations at the admins that the right-wingers are currently lobbing at the left-leaning mods. It would just be a cycle where everyone keeps crying that we "need" neutral parties to keep things from spiraling out of control. Because honestly, where does it end? Is every single user going to start hand-picking which moderator gets to handle their posts and which ones they want to avoid?
crimsonjackal63, I think you’re actually onto something there My bunch of neutral guys could easily start acting like Microsoft. It would be pretty much the same vibe we see over at US Congress, except these guys wouldn't even bother forming a coalition with anyone else.
Look, I’m totally fine with accepting the apology from Nicholas Watson 🙂 Honestly, it's actually refreshing to have a debate where someone shows up armed with actual arguments. Unlike some of our mods who just wing it, you actually come prepared; you've clearly brushed up on all the rules and you're laying them out clearly during the discussion. It really feels like we could use a third administrator on the team to step in when a mod doesn't actually know how to explain why they handed out a strike, and instead chooses to dive into pointless philosophical tangents or just straight-up ignores a user trying to appeal. Sadly, those kinds of situations happen more often than they should. I won't start throwing names around in this thread since that's not what this space is for, but let's be real—everyone knows exactly who I'm talking about.
You've got it all wrong here. What I actually meant was this forum right here. I was just using Kevin Klark and Lie as examples of mods who successfully moved over from the main community boards to the specific sub-sections they don't usually touch on over at TI.
Looks like I accidentally started lecturing the mods over on the Politics and Business subreddit That definitely wasn't my intention. I appreciate you guys reaching out, but honestly, I’d much rather hear what the mods from the other subreddits think. I'm curious to see how they'd view my proposal
William Bennett53 said:Thinking about how to refine the system is definitely worth the effort. 🙏 Unfortunately, anyone who’s spent even a tiny bit of time moderating can tell you that when users get flagged and head over to the PŽK, they usually have absolutely no clue what’s actually happening. It’s almost always the opposite; most of them swear their warning was totally unjustified and just proof that the moderator is biased, clueless, or just straight-up incompetent. If a moderator is participating in the thread they're overseeing, they're obviously biased; if they aren't participating, then they're supposedly uninformed. Sometimes, they manage to be both at once.
We went over something similar recently, so I’ll just reiterate: in our ongoing quest to make moderation as solid as possible, we haven't found anything better than this combo: user reports and appeals, horizontal oversight from fellow mods, and vertical post-hoc reviews by super-mods and admins.
Is that pure irony? 🤷
It happens because when the SM and the mods of some random subreddit pick a new moderator, they tend to pick someone who thinks exactly like them. That just adds fuel to the fire for certain users—I mean actual regular people, not the trolls or the conspiracy theorists—who end up feeling like it doesn't matter if Ante or Mate handed out the warning, since they’re basically clones of each other. You feel it most in the Politics and Business section because of how specific that sub is and just how many people hang out there. I remember this hilarious situation a while back in an appeal thread where a user asked where they could see a full log of all warnings, and two mods couldn't explain it to him because they didn't even know themselves. They tried some weird workaround that failed miserably, and eventually, another user had to step in and explain where the logs were in plain English.
For instance, that second guy could potentially act as an impartial observer, being asked from time to time to glance at some appeals and offer his take—which wouldn't necessarily have to be binding. Or, like my first suggestion, maybe a highly respected mod like lie (who I get along with great and really respect) could also weigh in publicly here and there. When things happen behind the scenes in the mod tools, us regular users don't see it, so it ends up looking like the judge is being sued by the judge who's presiding over the case.
I’m not exactly playing around when things get heavy
But look, you kind of hit the nail on the head regarding my suggestion. I wasn't suggesting that some third party needs to jump in every single time someone files an appeal, because let's be real—half those cases are pretty much black and white. We're talking stuff like straight-up insults, hate speech, or just being a jerk after a mod warns you. I was mostly thinking about that murky gray area where trolling happens, where if you're actually deep in the weeds of a debate, it can be genuinely tough to tell where the line is drawn
If I were ever running the show as a mod or an admin, I’d definitely be pulling some of those same moves you are, Nicholas Watson, but I’d also try my hand at actually bringing a little transparency to the whole operation.
I’ve actually pointed you out as a positive example despite all the constant complaining, and there are a few specific reasons why. I’ve run into you a handful of times over at the TV station, and even though those interactions usually ended with me getting flagged, I never took it personally or thought you were being malicious. You’ve always been willing to jump back in and explain exactly why you felt one of my posts deserved a strike. There was even one time where you stepped in to help me out; at my request, you wiped two of my posts without issuing a formal ban, even though I’d already been warned about spoilers in the Game of Thrones threads. You actually listened when I argued that I’d just accidentally posted those things on television instead of fantasy.
When I was talking, I wasn't just referring to the gripes about the political subreddits, but more generally. Honestly, if I were a moderator on the politics boards, I’d probably be handing out way more strikes than you do, because things can get incredibly toxic over there. And don't even get me started on how stupid people act later on. You also get credit for the fact that the admin team clearly thinks you’re doing a solid job—otherwise, they would’ve booted you from the mod team ages ago. Despite all the whining directed at them, I don't buy the idea that the admins are part of some left-wing, woke, or whatever other conspiracy theory people try to throw at them. These people are volunteers doing an absolutely massive, thankless job. That said, I do think having a third party step in to settle disputes would go a long way in calming down some of the forum users. Then again, some people are just impossible to satisfy, right?
I mentioned Lia as a positive example because, since she isn't really a fantasy reader herself, she immediately shut down us guys flooding the chat with off-topic stuff. She probably didn't feel like digging through a hundred different threads that have nothing to do with her interests.