Should threads discussing moderation be allowed

But they are comparable. Both institutions decide to censor its subjects.

We're entirely accountable. To the site's owners who manage us from above, and through peer review throughout the moderation team. And besides... great power? Woo... I can ban someone on an internet forum... my balls are trembling, the power is so amazing... Please.

So you're telling me if I get a load of warning points and end up banned, all I have to do is send an email to the admins/mods or whatever, and I'll be unbanned?

But they are comparable. Both institutions decide to censor its subjects.

And I don't have the time nor inclination to repeat all the times this has happened. One thing I will mention is the ridiculous notion of closing threads in AAM as "resolved" when clearly nothing is resolved. Now that's a joke. And there is no fair trial in AAM, it serves no purpose other than appearance.

This isn't a thread for mod-bashing or comparing us to totalitarian regimes, it's a thread asking for genuine opinions on how moderation issues should be dealt with. Can we please get back onto the main topic and stop this adversarial 'Them vs Us' approach? It's clearly not going anywhere and I don't think that either side has anything further to contribute to the moderation = censorship argument.

Actually, you decide to censor yourselves. By signing TSR's user agreement, you agreed to abide by their rules. Unlike China, where you are born into the censorship and thus had no say in the matter, at TSR you do. It is possible to use TSR without logging in. You can't post, but you can still use its resources. By registering and logging in, you waived your rights by agreeing to the terms which include.

So you just answered that thread in the negative?

Could have saved us a lot of time by doing this earlier.

Actually, you decide to censor yourselves. By signing TSR's user agreement, you agreed to abide by their rules. Unlike China, where you are born into the censorship and thus had no say in the matter, at TSR you do. It is possible to use TSR without logging in. You can't post, but you can still use its resources. By registering and logging in, you waived your rights by agreeing to the terms which include:

No trolling, no flaming, no adult content, no advertising, etc. and then further sub-forum specific rules. For example, D&CA tends to be a lot stricter on the definition of spam in order to prevent derailing of threads and flame wars.

The same goes for joining a university or a social club or even a sports team. By willingly joining, you agree to their rules, even if those rules stop you from enjoying certain freedoms you have outside of them. Thus, you decide to censor yourselves.

And if you can't abide by those rules, the mods step in and enforce them. Not their fault that users choose to disregard the agreements they made.




If you ever have a problem in AAM, you can ask for a second opinion, ask for a supermoderator to take over, or even complain to Admin. If you are dissatisfied with the answer.

Sorry, I don't really understand the meaning of this post but in any case I suggest we don't discuss it any further.

But what if, like me, you think the site's awesome, but some of the rules suck?

Exactly, what I was trying to say yesterday. By agreeing to the site's rules a person is entering into a social contract of sorts whereby they agree that you don't do certain things (e.g. troll or be offensive to other users) and, in return, get to be benefit from being part of a large, mainly helpful and supportive, community. If you break these rules then you get warned, something all members agree to as being reasonable when they signed up.

People living in dictatorships or totalitarian regimes are not able to provide such consent and often don't have the right of appeal.

To suggest that both are comparable, especially identical, is actually quite offensive and doesn't get us anywhere.

Now I remember when I first joined the site (six months as member, first six months or so as a moderator) there did seem to be a certain arbitrary nature when it came to modding. Also some rules weren't very clear, a couple were actually unwritten to some extent and only known to experienced members. Moderators would also sometimes warn for things when an alert should have been given.

This clearly was not right. However, there has been an increasing focus on consistency, transparency and peer review in the last few years. Since 2010 the moderation has been a lot more professional. Rules are reviewed and more clearly stated, section leaders are in place and keep a close eye on all moderators and their moderation actions and feedback and constructive criticism is welcomed.

This isn't to say that the moderation team always do things right, and moderation cannot be improved, so this is why we have the feedback forum.

Neither do we. AAM exists for the sole purpose of mods talking rubbish, pretending their arguments make sense.

So asking for second opinions, the attention of a Super or even emailing admin means you don't the right of appeal?

I emailed the admins, they did not even reply.

This isn't a thread for mod-bashing or comparing us to totalitarian regimes, it's a thread asking for genuine opinions on how moderation issues should be dealt with.