Why are threads discussing TSR being shut down?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Clip
Is this straight up? Is the test of offensiveness based on Wednesbury? That seems a much, much higher standard that I would have thought.
Additionally, this presents the problem that a great many threads on TSR are not meant to be serious. How can you have a standard relating to reasonableness (in the context of offence) when the conversation might not be intended to ever be "reasonable".
For example, let's say someone starts a thread on playing Drunken Naked Cluedo with Sexual Forfeits (just made that up). That's something that might be appropriate to a Student Forum - but if can you really say that it's proper to apply a test of whether any reasonable person could have a reasonable conversation about it - because the subject matter is by definition unreasonable.
Additionally, this presents the problem that a great many threads on TSR are not meant to be serious. How can you have a standard relating to reasonableness (in the context of offence) when the conversation might not be intended to ever be "reasonable".
For example, let's say someone starts a thread on playing Drunken Naked Cluedo with Sexual Forfeits (just made that up). That's something that might be appropriate to a Student Forum - but if can you really say that it's proper to apply a test of whether any reasonable person could have a reasonable conversation about it - because the subject matter is by definition unreasonable.
No - I should make clear that that was my attempt to explain things. Essentially you're asking me to try and give a clear definition of something which is subjective and (as I stated in my earlier post) of which I don't have as much expertise as the D&CA mods.
With regard to your example, let's change it to something like "Extreme Ironing", only to avoid the problem of the adult content element creeping in. Assuming that the thread were posted in an appropriate area of the site (probably Chat, since the rules on spam etc. are more relaxed), we'd have no reason to remove it per se - it's not the user's fault if it doesn't get (m)any responses.
When I was talking about a "reasonable conversation", I wasn't talking about the amount of scope that there is for discussion on the topic so much as whether it's an inherently "bad" topic. For instance, a thread asking whether it's acceptable for a paedophile to rape a child is just...where do you start in explaining why that doesn't make for a good discussion? It's not a thread about law reform, or difficulties in showing consent (either due to intoxication or "mature youth"), so it's just inviting inappropriate comments, and therefore needs to be removed.
I should note, though, that we're now moving out of the territory of "offensiveness" and onto trolling/inflammatory behaviour, so I'm getting too out of my depth to comment on where the line/grey area between debate and trolling lies.
Original post by Tortious
No - I should make clear that that was my attempt to explain things. Essentially you're asking me to try and give a clear definition of something which is subjective and (as I stated in my earlier post) of which I don't have as much expertise as the D&CA mods.
With regard to your example, let's change it to something like "Extreme Ironing", only to avoid the problem of the adult content element creeping in. Assuming that the thread were posted in an appropriate area of the site (probably Chat, since the rules on spam etc. are more relaxed), we'd have no reason to remove it per se - it's not the user's fault if it doesn't get (m)any responses.
When I was talking about a "reasonable conversation", I wasn't talking about the amount of scope that there is for discussion on the topic so much as whether it's an inherently "bad" topic. For instance, a thread asking whether it's acceptable for a paedophile to rape a child is just...where do you start in explaining why that doesn't make for a good discussion? It's not a thread about law reform, or difficulties in showing consent (either due to intoxication or "mature youth"), so it's just inviting inappropriate comments, and therefore needs to be removed.
I should note, though, that we're now moving out of the territory of "offensiveness" and onto trolling/inflammatory behaviour, so I'm getting too out of my depth to comment on where the line/grey area between debate and trolling lies.
With regard to your example, let's change it to something like "Extreme Ironing", only to avoid the problem of the adult content element creeping in. Assuming that the thread were posted in an appropriate area of the site (probably Chat, since the rules on spam etc. are more relaxed), we'd have no reason to remove it per se - it's not the user's fault if it doesn't get (m)any responses.
When I was talking about a "reasonable conversation", I wasn't talking about the amount of scope that there is for discussion on the topic so much as whether it's an inherently "bad" topic. For instance, a thread asking whether it's acceptable for a paedophile to rape a child is just...where do you start in explaining why that doesn't make for a good discussion? It's not a thread about law reform, or difficulties in showing consent (either due to intoxication or "mature youth"), so it's just inviting inappropriate comments, and therefore needs to be removed.
I should note, though, that we're now moving out of the territory of "offensiveness" and onto trolling/inflammatory behaviour, so I'm getting too out of my depth to comment on where the line/grey area between debate and trolling lies.
There's another problem.
Sometimes any warning can be classed as offensiveness/trolling/non-constructive.
Er, which one? Pick one, please.
It's just so unhelpful, as it gives the mod overriding power to issue a card just because they have a wide discretion to do so.
Original post by Clip
A very smart post, and another result for the unbelievable absurdity of the removal of the neg rep system.
Which, of course was just a 3 month trial. Really.
Which, of course was just a 3 month trial. Really.
Oh yes, I expect them to report back on their findings any minute now
Original post by Tortious
No - I should make clear that that was my attempt to explain things. Essentially you're asking me to try and give a clear definition of something which is subjective and (as I stated in my earlier post) of which I don't have as much expertise as the D&CA mods.
Don't get me wrong, I'm gratified by your input and attempt to explain.
My point is exactly the same as the one you have highlighted - these infractions seem to be judged entirely subjectively, and there appears to be no common guidance for members on what constitutes offensiveness, and the only feedback seems to be that it is entirely subjective. Therefore, if a person makes a complaint, and a moderator thinks a post is offensive - it is offensive. However, a member cannot rebut this by claiming that they and a body of others do not find it offensive. Do you see the Harry Styles of this? The criteria used to prosecute a member cannot be used as a defence.
With regard to your example, let's change it to something like "Extreme Ironing", only to avoid the problem of the adult content element creeping in. Assuming that the thread were posted in an appropriate area of the site (probably Chat, since the rules on spam etc. are more relaxed), we'd have no reason to remove it per se - it's not the user's fault if it doesn't get (m)any responses.
When I was talking about a "reasonable conversation", I wasn't talking about the amount of scope that there is for discussion on the topic so much as whether it's an inherently "bad" topic. For instance, a thread asking whether it's acceptable for a paedophile to rape a child is just...where do you start in explaining why that doesn't make for a good discussion? It's not a thread about law reform, or difficulties in showing consent (either due to intoxication or "mature youth"), so it's just inviting inappropriate comments, and therefore needs to be removed.
I should note, though, that we're now moving out of the territory of "offensiveness" and onto trolling/inflammatory behaviour, so I'm getting too out of my depth to comment on where the line/grey area between debate and trolling lies.
When I was talking about a "reasonable conversation", I wasn't talking about the amount of scope that there is for discussion on the topic so much as whether it's an inherently "bad" topic. For instance, a thread asking whether it's acceptable for a paedophile to rape a child is just...where do you start in explaining why that doesn't make for a good discussion? It's not a thread about law reform, or difficulties in showing consent (either due to intoxication or "mature youth"), so it's just inviting inappropriate comments, and therefore needs to be removed.
I should note, though, that we're now moving out of the territory of "offensiveness" and onto trolling/inflammatory behaviour, so I'm getting too out of my depth to comment on where the line/grey area between debate and trolling lies.
I get this, but I would back up what theforum said:
There seems to be a catch-all category which appears to members to be "The moderator did not like your post".
In a hypothetical exchange in AAM, a mod may have issued a warning for spam, the member says "it's not spam", and then the mod replies with "yes it is". It's issuing cards/warnings on entirely subjective criteria again.
Original post by Idle
Mods have a set of guidelines that they use when deciding if something breaks the rules, if a user feels they have been warned unjustly then that mod or another mod can take a look to see if the post broke the sites rules.
Decisions do get overturned.
Decisions do get overturned.
That is far from what is happening on TSR at the moment. It is almost impossible to overturn a card because it's all about the moderator's opinion, not the 'guidelines'.
Original post by tehforum
There's another problem.
Sometimes any warning can be classed as offensiveness/trolling/non-constructive.
Er, which one? Pick one, please.
It's just so unhelpful, as it gives the mod overriding power to issue a card just because they have a wide discretion to do so.
Sometimes any warning can be classed as offensiveness/trolling/non-constructive.
Er, which one? Pick one, please.
It's just so unhelpful, as it gives the mod overriding power to issue a card just because they have a wide discretion to do so.
This 110%, TSR sucks at elucidating cards and warnings.
Original post by pinda.college
That is far from what is happening on TSR at the moment. It is almost impossible to overturn a card because it's all about the moderator's opinion, not the 'guidelines'.
You do realise you can ask for another mod to have a look at it or a section leader right?
Original post by de_monies
You do realise you can ask for another mod to have a look at it or a section leader right?
Perhaps you should read the arguments advanced in this thread, and then reply.
Original post by de_monies
You do realise you can ask for another mod to have a look at it or a section leader right?
And without breaching the TSR Official Secrets Act, can you say if this happens a lot, and if warnings / cards are regularly overturned as a result?
Original post by de_monies
You do realise you can ask for another mod to have a look at it or a section leader right?
Also, that's wrong.
The mod who issued the card turns up to the AAM thread. Of course they're not going to back down.
Another flaw, in a shambles of a system.
Original post by tehforum
Also, that's wrong.
The mod who issued the card turns up to the AAM thread. Of course they're not going to back down.
Another flaw, in a shambles of a system.
The mod who issued the card turns up to the AAM thread. Of course they're not going to back down.
Another flaw, in a shambles of a system.
Hypothetically, a member might appeal a card - the mod who issued it might turn up, say "yes, I issued that card for offensiveness", mark the case as "resolved" and leave it.
Hypothetically.
Most mods are not going to invite ire and ridicule by overturning their own decision immediately. Instead, they tend to invite greater ire and greater ridicule by defending bad or hasty decisions and passing them up to other mods to deal with.
Original post by tehforum
Also, that's wrong.
The mod who issued the card turns up to the AAM thread. Of course they're not going to back down.
Another flaw, in a shambles of a system.
The mod who issued the card turns up to the AAM thread. Of course they're not going to back down.
Another flaw, in a shambles of a system.
I didn't know that, I thought it was like the PS help system and any mod could deal with warnings.
Original post by pinda.college
I didn't know that, I thought it was like the PS help system and any mod could deal with warnings.
I have no doubt that any mod could deal with warnings.
But it just happens to be the practise that the mod who dealt it, will arrive in your AAM thread.
Original post by Clip
And had you been a regular member, there is a good chance your next PM would have a blue card and the message "don't spam".
And had you been a regular member, there is a good chance your next PM would have a blue card and the message "don't spam".
That was on topic, making quite a serious point, and the post also contained text.
Original post by Clip
Ok. Let us say we have a thread with a title like "How can you possibly vote Tory Scum?"
By your reading, that's not offensiveness, as you're not singling out someone with an attack - but you are using an insult and perjorative with regard to a group of people. Is this kind of thing above the threshold for offence?
Ok. Let us say we have a thread with a title like "How can you possibly vote Tory Scum?"
By your reading, that's not offensiveness, as you're not singling out someone with an attack - but you are using an insult and perjorative with regard to a group of people. Is this kind of thing above the threshold for offence?
That in itself is OK (certainly not warnable for being offensive, anyway), though I'd watch the thread carefully to make sure the discussion didn't get out of hand and remained sensible/constructive/not inflammatory.
Original post by Clip
A very smart post, and another result for the unbelievable absurdity of the removal of the neg rep system.
Which, of course was just a 3 month trial. Really.
Which, of course was just a 3 month trial. Really.
I'm not getting into the removal of neg and whether that was a good or bad thing. However, if the number of post reports has increased this is not a bad thing, providing the reports are genuinely reporting rule-breakig content. I don't think I'm letting any secrets out when I say that the number of post reports did decline a couple of years ago. This resulted in rule-breaking behaviour remaining on the site which causes damage to the site and frustrates users.
Original post by de_monies
You do realise you can ask for another mod to have a look at it or a section leader right?
You're a mod?!?
Horyyy
congrats dude
Original post by River85
That was on topic, making quite a serious point, and the post also contained text.
This is not the experience of the hypothetical members who receive "spam" warnings for similar posts. Try posting what you have just posted in AAM as an appeal, and I am pretty sure that the hypothetical member will receive the reply "No, it's spam. Don't spam."
So is talking about TSR rules breaking the rules? It's sometimes confusing as what is acceptable to one mod is different to another. Then again, we're all human, I think we need to give the mods a break and more respect 
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Clip
This is not the experience of the hypothetical members who receive "spam" warnings for similar posts. Try posting what you have just posted in AAM as an appeal, and I am pretty sure that the hypothetical member will receive the reply "No, it's spam. Don't spam."
Thank you.
You have, over the past four pages, fully exposed the moderators on here for their lack of knowledge, their cronyism, their lack of care, and their ridiculous 'Official Secrets Act' where all talk of the banning fiasco needs to be quashed as it is 'private'.
An army of mods have tried to flame you down but you talked them down with common sense and pointed out their hypocrisy (like that hilariously ironic meme-style picture which would have been flagged if it were anyone else but
You should lead our revolution for a more democratic TSR!
Original post by Clip
My point is exactly the same as the one you have highlighted - these infractions seem to be judged entirely subjectively, and there appears to be no common guidance for members on what constitutes offensiveness, and the only feedback seems to be that it is entirely subjective. Therefore, if a person makes a complaint, and a moderator thinks a post is offensive - it is offensive. However, a member cannot rebut this by claiming that they and a body of others do not find it offensive. Do you see the Harry Styles of this? The criteria used to prosecute a member cannot be used as a defence.
My point is exactly the same as the one you have highlighted - these infractions seem to be judged entirely subjectively, and there appears to be no common guidance for members on what constitutes offensiveness, and the only feedback seems to be that it is entirely subjective. Therefore, if a person makes a complaint, and a moderator thinks a post is offensive - it is offensive. However, a member cannot rebut this by claiming that they and a body of others do not find it offensive. Do you see the Harry Styles of this? The criteria used to prosecute a member cannot be used as a defence.
They can go to AAM and receive an explanation from a moderator including a Section Leader. Any clarification they feel they need can be given.
Ultimately a first offence (for offensiveness) is not something to worry about as it will only result in a polite reminder of the rules. It is only when people continually break the rule that they will begin to accumulate cards (and possibly get banned). If they do this then it's careless., at best. At worst it's a deliberate attempt to break the rules.
In a hypothetical exchange in AAM, a mod may have issued a warning for spam, the member says "it's not spam", and then the mod replies with "yes it is". It's issuing cards/warnings on entirely subjective criteria again.
I've seen many AAM threads since 2008 and not one has gone like that.
Original post by Clip
And without breaching the TSR Official Secrets Act, can you say if this happens a lot, and if warnings / cards are regularly overturned as a result?
Obviously I can't give specific details but as a very broad estimate I think up to 50 percent of threads I've seen have involved a second opinion from a Section Leader. Any person who asks for a second opinion will receive one. There will be threads where the reason for the warning is quite obvious, and the user accepts this, once it's been properly explained. Often they just weren't aware of the rule (didn't read the rules correctly/forgot them) or get their wires crossed. Once explained they are accepting.
I have reversed perhaps three warnings during my time? Under the old system usually replacing them with alerts. This was because of a misunderstanding of the context and human error (forgetting to select alert, instead of warning, as it was a first/minor offence). We are humans. We will make mistakes very occasionally.
Most appeals aren't successful, and I'm not going to pretend they are. However, that a low number of appeals are unsuccessful shouldn't be taken to mean that we don't admit when we're wrong. Rather I think we do have a good, experienced, professional moderation team who, by and large, get things right first time.
If something is serious enough, such as someone who has been banned and doesn't agree with our explanation, then it will go to the Community Team.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Request for 'latest' feed option
- why are some clearing spots only available to international students and not home?
- My girlfriend never gets jealous?
- Differing Political Opinions with family.
- is this a sign that im weak?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- I think I'm (possibly) dead
- Boyfriend wakes in angry sometimes...
- Official University of Wales Trinity Saint David 2023 Applicant Thread
- Medicine Community Feedback and Suggestions
- [Golden Thread] What would you put in Room 101?
- Does taking 4 A-Levels help with university applications?
- urgent! Full time education laws on private candidates?
- hi guys
- Thanks TSR!
- What would my HYMS points be for medicine foundation year?
- Arsey's solutions
- Why are guys so horny??
- Cuts to arts and humanities
- Most popular and desired UK universities by students on TSR
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
The Student Room Update: New Look, New Homepage and More!Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
The Student Room Update: New Look, New Homepage and More!
