Social commentary and the confusion over deletions

God bless 🙂

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=766952

I quoted several lines from the thread—where they were located—just to help move the discussion along by highlighting the core issues; I also took the liberty of suggesting a follow-up topic within the same sub-forum.
After a few users left, I decided to sign off myself—giving everyone a quick thanks—and then the post was deleted.

I honestly can't wrap my head around what was controversial about that post because the quotes weren't "taken out of context"—they were pulled directly from the thread—I just gathered the facts, cited them properly, used multi-quote, and signed off just like the others did...I would truly love to understand why the post was removed.

It seems like the moderation in this sub-forum is a bit "softer"—which I don't mind at all, provided we don't have to scroll endlessly to find a sensible post.
So, it’s especially confusing to me why this one (single?) post was wiped from the entire thread?

Well, here I am—on this topic, as the name implies—stating that I'm confused by the deletion, voicing my grievance, and requesting an explanation for the following question:
What exactly was problematic about the bolded section above? Please explain so I can avoid making the same mistake again.
Thanks 🙂

p.s.
Having been taught by past experiences with deletions, I saved a copy of the unedited post—just so I wouldn't bother the mods by begging for its return—since I wanted to review it and gather some thoughts.

Piggy said:Well, we're just circling back through the last few pages—so, thanks for the company... until the next gender-war troll fest...
👋

I'm putting together a little recap of this debate to use for the upcoming thread:
"The Deafness of interlocutors regarding written words—no apologies, please"

It isn't in chronological order, but it’s easier to follow this way:
For me:

Persephone@ said:You have some serious issues.

Persephone@ said:It shouldn't be hard to grasp. You might struggle, but others here are reading too.

Persephone@ said:At first I thought you were twisting my words, but now I think you simply can't wrap your head around it.

To the second forum member:

Persephone@ said:It looks like you
have a problem with that. Take the argument elsewhere.

To the third female forum member:

Persephone@ said:Well—if you feel you need those kinds of labels just to get closer to men, be my guest.

Who's actually losing it here? 1.

Persephone@ said:One small step separates us from demanding total "equality"—where men decide they want to be fathers, and then when a woman doesn't want that, they strip away her right to an abortion.
Do you really want your daughters and sisters living in a world where a man can act recklessly and then, within some legal timeframe, decide whether your daughter or sister carries the pregnancy or terminates it?

Adam Parker2 said:This horror scenario of yours is just absurd. I won't even ask how you managed to imagine it—or why you would?!—I’ll just ask where on earth you read that!

From what I can see, she writes this—twice, and in bold, no less: ...

Now, who’s truly out of their mind? 2.

Persephone@ said:Look, this isn't the first time you've tried to label me as pathological, claim I have issues with men, or attempt to disqualify me by throwing diagnoses around. I've stayed quiet until now, letting those who should prevent a conversation from turning into a personal attack step in. Since they haven't, I'll defend myself and tell you: you seem to be trying to solve your own obvious issues with men right here—by offering yourself up as a woman who respects them, treats them as equals, and won't burden them with fatherhood after getting pregnant. I wish you luck and a full inbox.

Adam Parker2 said:I’m still waiting for that link where I supposedly label you as pathological, diagnose you, or advocate for your disqualification.

What are you even talking about? Where did I insult you? Why would you want my inbox? For what reason?
As far as I can tell, out of all the rudeness in our exchange, the only thing I've said is that "you have problems."
Can't find the link, or are you just lying?

Seriously, who is the crazy one here? 3.

Persephone— Adam Parker2 said:So, you’re essentially complaining that she might decide to bring a child into this world without your permission—quite a bold stance to take!

American Psycho said:Why would you even say something untrue? There really isn't any need for that—honestly.

I made myself clear in my opening post — ...

The millionth accusation—or should I say, the latest attempt at planting false evidence:

The north wind—it’s certainly picking up! Adam Parker2 said:Are you really trying to project your own baseless assumptions onto me again? Cut that out—it’s honestly not a good look for you, man.

Iksti failed his attempt at getting this thread back on track—not quite there yet!

ZgSash Adam Parker2 said:Goodness, those trolls are incredibly cheap—really!
🤦
Do you actually believe there's substance to these posts—or is the goal just to write a book and muddy the waters of communication?

Because things are getting way too loud around here—honestly—I think I’ll pass on the company for now... let's just stick to the topics suggested above. 👋

You aren't actually engaging with the topic; you're just obsessing over one specific user. I don't see any reports on the posts you're complaining about, so there's really no reason to fixate on them here.

That’s why we have moderators—thank God for small mercies—so you can lodge a complaint there. And look, you're right, the moderation in this sub-forum is a bit more relaxed than in other parts of the site, which works for some people and drives others crazy. If you think someone is wrong, prove it with a solid argument instead of just spitting on the person you're talking to. I could go ahead and delete Persephone's posts if you're asking, but they were posted three days ago, so they're basically ancient history by now.

The whole point of reporting a post is so users don't have to waste their energy debating who insulted whom.
Just report it and move on. It's that simple.

Honestly, we get reports constantly that feel like nothing more than playground whining. I seriously hope you guys don't run to snitch on everyone in real life just because someone disagrees with you. As a last resort, you have the ignore list, but apparently, nobody ever uses it... 😁

And just to wrap this up: if a post gets deleted (and believe me, it's definitely not the only one), it doesn't necessarily mean a rule was broken; it just means I KNOW it would have spiraled into total off-topic chaos.

Bradley Barnes90 said:You aren't addressing the topic—you're just targeting a specific user. Since none of the posts you find bothersome have actually been reported, there’s really no reason to make them the focus of this thread.

That is why we have the moderation team—thank God for that—so you can file a complaint there. And you're right; certain subforums are moderated a bit more loosely than others, which some people love and others can't stand. If you think someone is in the wrong, prove it with a solid argument rather than just attacking the person you're talking to. I could delete Persephone's posts if I wanted to, but they were written three days ago, so they're basically old news anyway.

Reporting a post is meant to save users from having to argue about who insulted whom.
Just report it and ignore it. Simple as that.

Honestly, we get reports all the time that feel like little kid whining. I hope people don't go running to an authority figure in real life every time someone disagrees with them. As a last resort, there's the ignore list, though it seems nobody actually uses it... 😁

Finally, if a post gets deleted (and believe me, that isn't the only one), it doesn't necessarily mean a rule was broken—it just means I KNOW it would lead to a total derailment of the topic.

To reiterate:
"I quoted several lines from the thread, in order to contribute to the discussion by highlighting the core issues while simultaneously suggesting a new topic within the same subforum.
After some users signed off, I did the same and thanked my interlocutors."

It's written right there—I am discussing the topic, not the user. Personally, I think her posts are a perfect reflection of the current state of the debate, which is why they were quoted. In fact, I haven't targeted the user herself at all, only the statements she presented to everyone.
I haven't asked to delete anyone's posts, nor have I reported anyone, and I certainly don't intend to ignore my conversation partners. What am I supposed to do with them? That's not your concern... but thanks for the advice, even if I didn't ask for it. 🙂

Managing moderation isn't my job—it's the job of those who accepted the role. Specifically, yours.
Personally, I don't give much weight to insults from users, especially when I know who they're coming from, so my "helping" the mods (just to punish someone) makes even less sense.

If you consider using the reporting system to be nothing but childish whining, feel free to suggest changing the title from the current one to something else, and then we can talk your way. As long as the title remains what it is and I have access to this thread, I'm going to write, whether anyone likes it or not. 🙂

Even though you've already made your point by deleting things, thanks for the reply regardless—though I'd love to hear other perspectives.🙂

You aren't obligated to comment on the quality of my discussion, my opinions, or my arguments here. Feel free to join the thread with your own views and reasoning. But!
I expect links that show me targeting a user rather than just addressing her statements, as well as evidence of attacking my conversation partners.

Bradley Barnes90 said:And you’re right—the subforums here are moderated much more loosely than others, which works for some people and drives others crazy.

Look, I don't have an issue with light moderation. Really, I don't. But what bugs me is this low-brow approach being applied to a science-based subforum. Over on Linguistics, people can basically post whatever nonsense they want without providing a single shred of evidence. Or actual knowledge, obviously.

A subforum shouldn't be an elitist club—I explicitly said you don't need a PhD in Philosophy just to talk about language—but when the rules are this lax, we aren't cultivating intellectuals; we're just breeding trolls.

Even Stephen Colbert used to get penalized for trolling just for the sake of being provocative. I honestly don't get why you guys won't do the same. At the end of the day, this is Reddit, not Craigslist or some random Mexican cafe.

As John Kerry recently told those German students, Americans have a right to be stupid—it's part of our freedom. Sadly, it seems we have that same privilege here. 😁
It’s not like there’s a formal penalty for being an idiot or spewing nonsense; all we can really do is delete a post or issue a warning, but actually punishing someone for being dense? That’s a tough sell.
Besides, on the Linguistics boards, it’s pretty easy to spot who actually knows their stuff and who doesn't. You shouldn't let some random fool flying in every five minutes get under your skin; just ignore them.

PS. Daniel is more active over on the Linguistics threads, but when someone reports a post, whoever sees it first is the one who handles it. I can't monitor everything.
Stephen Colbert left... Honestly, it feels like all the old moderators from the old forums have vanished too. It seems nobody stays in charge for very long around here.

Bradley Barnes90 said:Plus, on the Linguistics subreddits, it’s actually pretty easy to spot who knows their stuff and who’s just talking nonsense. You shouldn't even sweat it when some idiot jumps in every five minutes; you just have to tune them out.

Look, we aren't the big deal here. We're just a small group of maybe twenty people who have known each other forever. The real players are the readers—there are probably 200 to 300 of them dropping by every single day. As long as we hit at least that many, we're doing fine. If I recall those Nielsen stats correctly, Reddit sits right up there alongside Yahoo, Netscape, and AT&T—that is massive traffic. People show up, they read whatever catches their eye, and then the cycle repeats. It would be great if every one of us chimed in, but let's be real, that's not how it works. I don't have the energy to keep typing the same responses over and over again every time some drama unfolds.

That’s why I’m saying, if they actually penalized stupidity and troll posts (if they don't just delete them outright), there'd be way fewer vultures and provocateurs hanging around.

And honestly? Even some of the old-timers have gotten a little too comfortable—and they deserve more than just a pat on the back for that. 😁

Eric Newman75 said: Having to repeat the same tired lines every single time things go south.

That’s why I say—if stupidity and troll posts were actually penalized (if they weren't just deleted), we'd see far fewer provocateurs and aimless drifters.

The nonsense isn't even the main issue... nor is the trolling, provided it isn't coming from the same person repeatedly—the real problem lies with the insults and those endless, blatant lies.

Sanctioning the liars (if there's no other way to help them)* would bring discussions back within acceptable boundaries.

------------
*
Or perhaps...
For instance, if someone on a forum keeps getting flagged for lying, they might want to take a moment to reflect on their own well-being and seek some outside help. It could serve as a sort of personal indicator.
Think of it as a red flag for one's mental health, perhaps?

Beyond just debate and dialogue, a forum serves to help people—so why not add a little diagnostic light to the mix?

Look, we can't just turn a deaf ear to such beautiful, constructive, and brutally honest criticism. 😍
We’re going to try our best to weed out the trolls, but let's be real—you all know they aren't looking for growth or self-reflection. They don't care about changing their ways or acknowledging their flaws; they only care about one thing.
It looks like we'll have to deal with some partial deletions; those idiots are really just delaying the inevitable. 🙂

Eric Newman75 said:I don't have an issue with lighter moderation—not at all. What bothers me is this populist approach being applied to a linguistics subforum. Over on Reddit, people can essentially write whatever nonsense they want without providing any actual arguments. Or knowledge, obviously.

A subforum shouldn't be elitist; I stated clearly before that you don't need a PhD in Philosophy to participate in a discussion about language. However, by being too hands-off, the new cohort is simply breeding trolls rather than fostering quality conversationalists.

Colbert used to penalize people just for being provocative for the sake of provocation. I'm not sure why you aren't doing the same. At the end of the day, this is Reddit, not Craigslist or Starbucks.

I am in complete agreement with my colleague here.
Just look at how the science forums handle things. There, pseudo-scientists get shut down immediately.

In my view, CNN should be moderated by someone who actually cares about the social sciences and their role in society—someone who spends more time on the forum and stays better informed about the nuances of individual posts.
Essentially, we need someone more specialized and conscientious who could serve as assistants to the two of you.

Let’s be honest: CNN has become a total mess, a place where long-time regulars are becoming increasingly reluctant to even step foot.
It also deeply irritates me when some arrogant kid with a vocabulary of a few thousand words tries to lecture me about American linguistic roots because he's never heard of a specific local term. It bothers me even more that such behavior isn't met with a ban.

Why not just admit to yourselves that you need help from someone more expert and capable? You could have had that assistance quite some time ago. So, what's the hold-up?

bluecyclist64 said:Why don't you guys just admit you need someone actually competent and capable to step in? You could have had that help a long time ago. What's the hold-up?

Look, if someone like that actually shows up, we’d be more than happy to take the help. But the problem is finding someone who is both an expert and doesn't start massive fights—and more importantly, someone all the admins and mods can actually get behind at the same time.

Comparing this to the hard sciences is a total joke. On CNN, you can argue about these same topics forever and never reach a finish line; there just isn't one single "correct" answer for most things.

I'm telling you, everyone is never going to be happy. Either the moderation is too heavy-handed or it's way too lax. Someone is always going to find something to complain about. I'm pretty sure it's always been this way.

Bradley Barnes90 said:If someone actually stepped up, we’d jump at the chance to take their help. But the problem is finding someone who is both an expert and doesn't stir up drama—and more importantly, someone that every single admin and moderator on the board can get behind.

That is honestly one of the dumbest rules you guys could have ever dreamed up. How many moderators and admins are we talking about here? Fifty? A hundred? Forget about finding someone everyone likes. Or better yet: forget about finding someone without enemies.

You’re basically advocating for the rule of mediocrity. Let me be crystal clear so nobody misinterprets me: you're calling for average people. A moderator should be anything but average.

Bradley Barnes90 said:Comparing this to the hard sciences is totally pointless. On CNN, you can debate the same topics forever and never reach a conclusion; there just isn't one definitive, final answer for most things.

"Most things" doesn't mean "everything." If we're talking about linguistics, there are actual books: grammars, dictionaries, style guides. There is a clear line between what is codified and standardized and what isn't. We know what counts as scientific fact and what doesn't.

This kind of relativism is just nonsense.

Bradley Barnes90 said:I'll say it again: no one is ever going to be fully satisfied. Either the moderation is too strict or it's too loose. Someone is always going to find something to complain about. I think it's always been that way.

Fair enough. But that just brings us right back to my point: forget about finding someone everyone likes.

Bradley Barnes90 said:If we could actually find someone like that, we’d jump at the chance to have them help us. But the reality is, you can't find anyone who is both an expert and easy to get along with, while also having the unanimous support of every single administrator and moderator. That last part is absolutely non-negotiable.

Comparing this situation to the hard sciences is completely illogical. On a site like CNN, you can debate these same topics endlessly without ever reaching a conclusion; most things simply don't have one definitive, final answer.

I’ll say it again: you are never going to make everyone happy. Either the moderation is too heavy-handed or it's far too lax. Someone will always find a reason to complain. In my experience, it has always been this way.

The thing is, there actually is such a candidate—someone highly qualified, professional, and perfectly level-headed—but for some reason, the team refuses to even bring them on for a trial period. They have solid backing, too, yet it feels like there’s some mysterious, unwritten veto power buried somewhere in the rulebook preventing it from happening.

bluecyclist64 said:professional and non-confrontational

Who exactly?

Sam Green73 said:Who exactly?

If you don't mind my chiming in...

EDIT: I just sent you an email.

bluecyclist64 said:Can I say something here?

The way you've phrased this question actually shows you realize you stepped way over the line with your last comment, totally ignoring the FBI guidelines.
What was the point of that?

Dropping hints and making those little snide allusions doesn't make this discussion any better.

Reddit isn't the place to be debating how moderators should be chosen.

Sam Green73 said:The FBI isn't exactly the place where you go to vote on how moderators should be picked.

I didn't even mean to eat it. But honestly, the FBI has become this place where the admins and mods just wash their hands of everything, and nobody at CNN even bothers to look into what's actually happening.

Nadia claimed she just doesn't have the time, arguing that nobody actually wants to moderate over at CNN and that there isn't a single candidate anyone can agree on... Honestly, Lisa Rodriguez84 was basically just echoing her excuses word for word.

Look, while you guys are all busy polishing your little alibis, half of the old crowd from CNN is completely avoiding that subforum—kind of like what bluecyclist64 so perfectly pointed out.

Doesn't that just scream that there's something fundamentally broken with this whole "moderator election process"? I mean, seriously, if these mods are so dead-set against any kind of actual solution, why don't they just go moderate CNN instead? Or are we all just supposed to sit here and wait for everyone to quit until the whole thing fixes itself?

At any rate, the Czechs are going to have to foot the bill for CNN. If that works for you guys, it works for me. It’s just funny—ten years ago, when we were actually talking about linguistics, it was just Dee Dee and me holding down the fort. Eventually, other people showed up and CNN actually started growing. Now? It’s falling apart all over again. It takes an incredible amount of work to make a place credible. Not just "nice," but actually credible. That’s what CNN used to be. But how is it now? Ha, who cares. We’ll just tear those pop songs apart until we're throwing our hands up in frustration.

bluecyclist64 said:I honestly think CNN would have a field day with this one— I really should have gone into moderation—it would have been quite an adventure! Someone who actually cares. Regarding social sciences and their role within society—it’s hard to say who will be showing up more often on Reddit—but I suppose we shall see! It’s probably better to just stick to what’s actually been written—keeping things precise helps. In certain posts—just a few of them, really.

It isn't just about monitoring CNN—I think every moderator should be keeping a close eye on the most active threads within their own specific subreddits. There are usually only one or two such topics at any given time—so it shouldn't be much trouble to skim through them—perhaps even on a daily basis.

Generally speaking...
Some of the moderators don't even bother participating in the discussions on—well, at least the most active threads of—their own subreddits; they only ever show up if someone files a formal report, or if their ultimate goal is simply to swoop in and delete the last few pages.

What exactly is the point of moderators like that—I mean, really?
What kind of vibe do users have—both the community at large and this specific forum—aside from just having colorful text?

Emily Martin said:Generally speaking...
Some mods don't even participate in discussions within the most active threads of their own subreddits. They only show up when someone files a user report, or their entire purpose seems limited to deleting the last few pages of a thread.

What’s the point of moderators like that?
What do users get out of it, what does the site gain, or what does the community actually benefit from (besides seeing colored usernames)?

Look, sometimes they just can't keep up, especially if it's a massive, high-traffic subreddit. 🙂

Plus, there's a real issue with moderating a thread you're actually part of. Once you join the fray, people start accusing you of deleting anyone with a different opinion just to protect your own side. It's way easier to stay objective and see the full picture if you aren't stuck in the middle of the argument itself.

melloworca6 said:They often just don't have the time—especially when dealing with a massive, high-traffic subreddit. 🙂

If they aren't actually participating in the discussions, shaping the direction of the thread, or handling deletions and sanctions while things are happening, and they aren't even moving relevant content from old threads to new ones—which is a total mess to start... then what exactly is their job description? 🙂

...unless there's some secret reason behind it, of course.