#1 ·
I'm starting a debate triggered by that thread on immigration, but let me be clear: I’m staying far away from the actual topic itself. I'm asking everyone here to hold off on turning this into a massive political shouting match. We’re strictly talking about moderating the moderators—specifically, when should someone get a warning, and are there times when flagging "meta-commentary" is just plain wrong?
I’ll look at this through two lenses: first, trying to pin down a definition for what counts as commenting on moderation, and second, looking at the criteria and how we’ve actually handled things on this forum for years.
Using that immigration thread as my jumping-off point, I’ll paraphrase two examples of meta-comments I saw there to show where the line between right and wrong moderation lies. In the first case, someone got flagged for saying something like, "San Francisco, I'd say more, but I won't because I don't want a warning from these mods"—that’s the polite version; the original was way saltier and more sarcastic. I think that warning was earned because the comment is a direct critique of how things are being run.
The second example is something like, "I'd say more, but I won't because I'd get banned." To me, there’s zero reason to flag that. Even if there's an implied criticism there, you can only judge people based on what they actually write, not what they're thinking. You can't prove what someone intends. Sometimes, a user just wants to signal that they have info or links they can't share without breaking rules, which is perfectly fine to let others know. By admitting they can't speak, their argument is already weakened; there's no need to go throwing extra penalties at them.
To wrap up this first part, I suggest we actually define what "commenting on moderation" means. My take is that flagging these comments only makes sense if the comment is also a critique. Under that definition, a comment would have to be both a meta-comment and a critique of the mods to count as a violation.
We have to be careful, though. A comment might just be an observation or a statement of fact without necessarily being a jab at the staff.
The second part is about consistency. What struck me about some of the warnings in that immigration thread is that I've seen those exact phrases ("I'd say more, but...") across various subforums for years, and I've never seen them flagged until a few days ago. This forum is huge, and it's impossible for one person to hunt down every single instance, so I'm asking anyone who sees this kind of thing happen to weigh in. I'm trying to find a pattern here.
If it turns out these comments almost never get flagged, then you can't expect users to stop using them just because the rulebook says so. It would be like having outdated federal laws in the US—they exist on paper, but nobody actually follows them in real life. But to reach a real conclusion, we need more examples from all over the site. So, fellow users and mods, the floor is yours. Let's hear it. 🙂
I’ll look at this through two lenses: first, trying to pin down a definition for what counts as commenting on moderation, and second, looking at the criteria and how we’ve actually handled things on this forum for years.
Using that immigration thread as my jumping-off point, I’ll paraphrase two examples of meta-comments I saw there to show where the line between right and wrong moderation lies. In the first case, someone got flagged for saying something like, "San Francisco, I'd say more, but I won't because I don't want a warning from these mods"—that’s the polite version; the original was way saltier and more sarcastic. I think that warning was earned because the comment is a direct critique of how things are being run.
The second example is something like, "I'd say more, but I won't because I'd get banned." To me, there’s zero reason to flag that. Even if there's an implied criticism there, you can only judge people based on what they actually write, not what they're thinking. You can't prove what someone intends. Sometimes, a user just wants to signal that they have info or links they can't share without breaking rules, which is perfectly fine to let others know. By admitting they can't speak, their argument is already weakened; there's no need to go throwing extra penalties at them.
To wrap up this first part, I suggest we actually define what "commenting on moderation" means. My take is that flagging these comments only makes sense if the comment is also a critique. Under that definition, a comment would have to be both a meta-comment and a critique of the mods to count as a violation.
We have to be careful, though. A comment might just be an observation or a statement of fact without necessarily being a jab at the staff.
The second part is about consistency. What struck me about some of the warnings in that immigration thread is that I've seen those exact phrases ("I'd say more, but...") across various subforums for years, and I've never seen them flagged until a few days ago. This forum is huge, and it's impossible for one person to hunt down every single instance, so I'm asking anyone who sees this kind of thing happen to weigh in. I'm trying to find a pattern here.
If it turns out these comments almost never get flagged, then you can't expect users to stop using them just because the rulebook says so. It would be like having outdated federal laws in the US—they exist on paper, but nobody actually follows them in real life. But to reach a real conclusion, we need more examples from all over the site. So, fellow users and mods, the floor is yours. Let's hear it. 🙂