21
votes
Deleting topics
I'm being brief because I'm not trying to stir up trouble.
Is it common for threads here to be locked without a reason given? In cases where it's not obvious, can we ask or is that grounds for being moderated?
For full transparency, I'm not asking about a topic I was part of, but was following and surprised to see locked.
Honestly I just don't think it matters that much. In the end, online forums are for recreation. No more, no less. You're never going to change the world arguing something on a niche forum. If a post gets locked, just shrug and move on with your day. It's like if I was going to play a game on my phone and the servers were down. Is what it is.
I appreciate that perspective, and the other responses given here. I agree that it doesn't matter to the content, so it doesn't matter if you're just reading. It matters to me as a sometimes-contributor. If the reason isn't obvious to me, I start worrying that there are blacklisted topics or other rules I'm not aware of.
Having said that, @DefinitelyNotAFae's comment is at the heart of my question and maybe how I should've phrased my post:
If true, this alleviates my concerns. The topic I'm referring did not seem obviously toxic to me, so I wondered if it was a blacklisted topic of conversation.
Well that sure is a perspective, but I for instance got an apparently 2 hour cooldown on all my posts with no explanation (I'm sure it's due to an argument I've had months if not over a year ago that was deemed too heated). It is extremely obnoxious trying to participate in conversations like that and not sure what it accomplishes exactly, I never spammed my posts or anything like that. So let's just say I am not a fan of opaque moderation practices.
I've never heard of anyone getting rate limited here for an argument they had months ago, nor being rate limited for a lengthy period (if I'm reading your comment right and it's still happening to you every time you try to post). And if that is indeed the case, I suspect you're experiencing a bug rather than being moderated in any way, and I would strongly recommend contacting @Deimos to explain your situation and ask him to investigate the issue for you.
In my experience, comments can be removed and topics locked without explanation. I'm a curious person and whenever I see that happen, it stings a little that I didn't see the removed content. However, for reasons already stated, I believe it's the best way to moderate - given of course that the mod activities aren't happening excessively.
Why do I believe this? Well, it creates a dynamic where each forum participant must proactively consider their own behaviour and logic regarding what is and isn't acceptable - rather than just considering whether we follow some set of rules stated by the moderator. The latter is what happens on most forums and it can easily lead to detachment from personal responsibility. Rather than staying accountable, people outsource their moral code to "the rules" and assume that adherence to them will guarantee success. But no set of rules can be that perfect.
The only way a social context can remain truly civil is when participants are accountable and actively responsible for the development of their own moral code. Semi-opaque moderation forces people to actively uphold and update their own code, and when they do that successfully, they get to stay. When they don't, I've understood that there will be a number of warnings and temporary timeouts before a final permanent ban - except for extremely blatant cases who exhibit irredeemably hostile behaviour. I am personally all for it.
I just assume that every Internet forum works best with a benevolent dictator at the top, and you just hope they are reasonable but expect no explanation. As suggested by others, once you start explaining things it leads to a game of “well if this, why not this” and explanations leave more questions than not.
Even if a commenter is trying to understand the rules of the game so they can try to not cross the line, it’s more moderation work, it leads to perceived inequities in treatment, and it’s tiresome. In a democracy, sure, ask for information. But ultimately it’s one guy and if it gets too messy it’s easier to just shut it down, including the whole site.
Yeah i agree- i fully understand the impulse and desire to know why a thread was removed (and have had it myself many times), especially if one was contributing to spending time in a conversation, but ultimately any reasoning given might contribute to gaming the rules or other bad faith approaches other forums struggle with, like the people that "technically don't break rules" but consistently act in bad faith and stir the pot using the technicality of the rules as a shield for their behavior
I much prefer it instead that we of course still have baseline rules but that those with moderation capabilities use their own ultimate discretion in addition to those and in application of those, letting their earned trust and authority make decisions where necessary and not necessarily transparently. I both value and desire transparency but I also know in some situations it can contribute to a problem rather than relieve it.
Online moderation is a very difficult topic and one that needs its own very unique approach and Tildes I think has done exceptionally well in this regard.
Like, IMHO instead of cultivating a place of discussion where everyone is scared of the rules or wanting to brush up against them, just do your best to adhere to the spirit of the rules that are written and if you make a mistake, knowingly or unknowingly, then allow yourself to receive direct moderation without taking it personally
Topics being locked isn't very common, overall. But when they are, reasons are rarely given... mostly since the reason is usually pretty self-evident; It's typically because things have gotten heated, and multiple threads have entered into the realm of personal attacks rather than substantive/civil discussion. Either that or the topic itself, while perhaps valuable to have allowed, was still a controversial one that has run its course so it was preemptively locked to prevent things from deteriorating or escalating further.
You can ask, but it's unlikely you will get a response from Deimos (who is Tildes sole admin, and the only person that can lock topics), since the reason for topics being locked is usually pretty obvious, and opening up for debate about particular moderation actions is rarely productive.
Just playing devil’s advocate, but typically the most inflammatory posts are deleted, making it a lot less obvious what happened for users who didn’t see them before the hammer fell. In those situations the reason for locking the thread can seem sudden and opaque.
This is rare enough here that it’s never really bothered me. I tend to agree with Tildes moderation anyway. Sometimes I do wish a little mod note was left behind for clarity though; on Metafilter, for example, closed threads will usually be appended with a brief statement like “Closing because of too many personal attacks” or whatever.
Yeah, I usually leave a short comment explaining why I've done something (like when I edit a title or link)... but I also have a LOT more free time than Deimos and nowhere near the same level of responsibilities here. So I understand why he generally doesn't do that, and probably doesn't want to leave any room for debate.
To be clear, I don't disagree (or agree) with the moderation step that was taken, but find that the lack of communication about it obfuscates the intent of the moderation (was the thread too X? not X enough? deimos missed his tea that morning?).
In this case I don't find the reasoning obvious, and am left wondering what I missed. It was contentious but less so than many topics I see here, so I have to guess at why it was removed. That leads to me wondering if it was removed for being ABOUT X, and if we're not allowed to discuss X.
It's usually because of how the conversation devolved, it's rarely a "don't talk about this because it will devolve" thing IME. One recently devolved into ever increasing comparisons to murder and genocide - as in if you're ok with this then you are ok with X - and was locked I'm assuming for that along with what look like a bunch of temp bans handed out.
The rationale against having the moderation reasoning is that it becomes a point of argument rather than a clarification. There are times I agree with it and times I don't.
But idk if there was another thread that you're thinking of. I saw one poof with no conversation yesterday so idk
Yeah, I think clarity here is important. People spend their time and energy thoughtfully engaging with a topic and now that discussion is just gone and that effort wasted. I think it would be frustrating to spend time engaged in a topic and then have that topic suddenly disappear and not really understanding why.
A simple comment to go along with the post removal here could go a long way.
ultimately even if leaving a comment explaining why were the best move (which is very debatable anyway), it's entitled to demand it from someone who's spending so much of his time and probably still also his money keeping this site running.
What demand? I simply said a simple comment could go a long way, which it could. There are ways to implement a comment system that would barely add any time to deleting a post, but that's beside the point. You can debate that if you want, I suppose.
And of course we're all entitled. Deimos is entitled to do whatever he wants with the site, including deciding how it gets moderated. And by being active participants in this community, we're entitled to give feedback. What a silly argument. What we're not entitled to is any expectation that Deimos actually listen or implement our feedback, which is totally fine. To your point, he's providing his time and energy to this excellent forum free of charge and we shouldn't really expect anything more from him.
We should all be grateful to Deimos and everything he's done to make this community such an interesting place, and I would encourage anyone who has the means to to donate to the project.