IP based and check several spam databases against blacklisted email/username IDs.
Discipline around low effort posts or poorly sourced posts
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
IP based and check several spam databases against blacklisted email/username IDs.
The degree to which this forum should emphasize the "Sino" part of the "Sinodefence" forum has been discussed in the past, and selection of moderators in the past and in the future IMO should also reflect whatever understanding there is.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this forum is primarily oriented towards PLA watching, but at the same time those who are most interested in PLA watching and also those who may be among the more well informed for PLA watching will also be individuals with a more pro-Chinese opinion regarding various matters (defense, social, political, geopolitical, cultural) on various matters.
I think that has long been accepted as a reality of this forum and I don't expect it to change in the future.
But I also think that with how heated the geopolitical domain has become, and the "geopoliticization of everything," there is also a responsibility to not make this forum become an echo chamber, but more importantly to not become a forum of braggadocio as some other forums for other nation-specific military forces have become.
In that regard, I think it is important that potential moderators also display a track record that is consistent with our goals wrt the above.
===
edit: as for banning duplicate accounts, the problem is if someone uses proxies or VPN it can be nigh impossible to confirm if they are someone you've banned before. So unless we are willing to change the threshold for what the standards for blocking someone is , our hands are tied.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this forum is primarily oriented towards PLA watching, but at the same time those who are most interested in PLA watching and also those who may be among the more well informed for PLA watching will also be individuals with a more pro-Chinese opinion regarding various matters (defense, social, political, geopolitical, cultural) on various matters.
I think that has long been accepted as a reality of this forum and I don't expect it to change in the future.
But I also think that with how heated the geopolitical domain has become, and the "geopoliticization of everything," there is also a responsibility to not make this forum become an echo chamber, but more importantly to not become a forum of braggadocio as some other forums for other nation-specific military forces have become.
In that regard, I think it is important that potential moderators also display a track record that is consistent with our goals wrt the above.
===
edit: as for banning duplicate accounts, the problem is if someone uses proxies or VPN it can be nigh impossible to confirm if they are someone you've banned before. So unless we are willing to change the threshold for what the standards for blocking someone is , our hands are tied.
Last edited:
I'm getting the feeling that you took my "candidacy" a little more seriously than I intended it...
Or maybe you didn't. Trump started out as a joke, after all.
It's not specifically directed at you, but it is something worth mentioning in general because the issue of weighing up the "Sino" in "Sinodefence" has come up before in previous moderation decisions and moderator discussions.
If the community is considering additional moderators, then it is something worth repeating imo.
Thanks for the vote of confidence but I really lack the one most important thing every moderator should have. Free time, at least one hour per day, to sift through various reports.
Besides, the vocal majority in this thread here has different ideas about moderating this forum anyway, so there'd be unnecessary conflicts if there would be moderators in the team with a different interpretation of the forum rules.
If I may, I'd like to comment that much clearer rule set, including a longer black on white list of examples, would go a long way in helping moderating and using this forum. (those rules can and may be made ONLY by forum owner. Not moderators. Unless owner gives them the authority to make rules)
In my opinion, which probably still goes against the grain, a moderator is merely a cleaner, or at best, a policeman enforcing clear cut rules made by the owner of the website. A moderator does not judge what is a quality post or not, for example. Going down that route leads to precarious situations later on. Going for quality is a noble cause but if it's moderated by force, more likely than not, it may lead to a hermetically closed elitist forum, cut off from the changes in the world. People who like to tell other people what's a good post and what isn't - are a poor choice for moderators, unless one wants such an elitist, closed website in the future.
So, besides the lack of free time, because of the above personal views, which are clearly in contrast to the vocal majority here, I'd say I'd also be a poor choice for a moderator.
That is exactly why I created this thread, because with the way the forum has been going over the last year or so, I think there are some important decisions to be made and it has to be done between liaison with the community, the moderators, which ultimately informs the choices of the webmaster.
But at the very least this needs to be discussed openly.
I would also add that the current quality in the form is also a reflection of moderation by force -- any forum with rules that are enforceable by moderation decisions is a clear use of "force".
And frankly there are already some rules where posts can be allowed to be interpreted at the personal discretion of an individual moderator.
That is why it's important to choose moderators with decision making and a preferably clear head that the community agrees on, with a respectable track record.
It is also why I've chosen not to interpret certain rules in a way that frankly could have already allowed me to more liberally warn and ban the kind of poor quality posts that I described in the first post of this thread -- it's because I want the feedback of the community, other moderators, and the webmaster first and if there is agreement that those changes are desirable, that they can be formally chiseled in so everyone has clearer understanding for the expectations of this forum.
The sections mentioned contain the majority of all posts and discussions. Leaving them unmoderated means most of the forum is unmoderated. Additionally, it's well demostrated that the moderators do intervene there when they want to, leaving the occasions when they don't that much more jarring.
Why?
OK, this part attempts to answer my question, but it doesn't make the case for why posting articles, tweets or pictures without comment is by itself a bad thing. Indeed, if an article (or tweet, etc.) is relevant to the thread, why would it be a problem if all of someone's output was in this format? On the other hand, if something is of low quality/interest, it's unlikely that adding some commentary will improve it.
Put differently, if anything should be removed, it should be low quality content and not content without commentary.
Ah yes, high-quality image respecters. Of course, this might be the purpose of the forum, or it might not. I just object to one moderator's opinion being presented as a consensus, rule or settled matter.
Indeed, the present and future of the forum should be a major consideration when making changes. In my opinion, the most important step that could be taken to improve it is regular (no exceptions or omissions), unbiased enforcement of the rules in all sections of the forum.
Even if 90% of the posters are pro-China, that is not a problem. However, if rule-breaking posts (particularly things like personal attacks and insulting countries) are not moderated, we can expect something like 90% (hypothetically) of these posts to come from pro-China posters, and often have a pro-China, anti-other-country slant. This by itself makes the forum a nationalistic echo chamber, which can be made even worse by partial enforcement of the rules. For example, if all the anti-China insults are (correctly) removed and for each the moderators also remove one pro-China insult, we are left with 80% of the original insults, now all pro-China, and a complete echo chamber. I also don't think that equal and consistent insistence on rules such as "no personal attacks" and "no country bashing" is in any way harmful to the forum or the majority who are pro-China. Of course, most of the discussions where this is applicable happen in the subsections the moderators apparently aren't actively moderating.
The other aspect which requires highlighting is that of actual enforcement of the rules. In my experience, that is something that has often been lacking. For example, when a poster receives a warning along with the threat of a one month ban for the next violation, the next time there should be a one month ban, and further punishments should escalate. Instead, one person received four warnings in a row, the first three each with the threat that the one month ban will follow, the fourth with the threat of a one week ban. The fifth time the user was banned for a week. So instead of being banned for at least two months, the poster was banned for a week. This case didn't require any new moderators or changes to the rules and norms, it required following the ones already in place.
I'll end by saying that the most basic standard required of any new moderators is a history of upstanding behavior. This is most directly reflected in not having appeared in the Banned & Warned Members thread, at least not recently or multiple times. This low bar should already disqualify some proposed candidates.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Well I'd like to know when moderators ban members, is this an independent power or is this the consensus of all the moderators? When I got banned, it seemed it was an independent action because it and other actions were countermanded later. I'll draw my own conclusions since two influential "members" of definite common leanings left this forum in a huff letting everyone know right afterwards. Nominating moderators seems as highly debatable as much as what content should be allow to be discussed in this forum. I just don't want religious zealots as in believing they're here to school the heathens as moderators nor anyone who thinks because they're not pro-China, that somehow makes them impartial and not biased.
Well said, this was what I was alluding to in my reply in this thread. Although the said members was a valued member, as in contributing. Etc.
He was definately ok as a member, a but annoying with some of the post, but we look past that, so it's not a big issue.
But once he become a mod. This forum becomes hell to visit, and almost unusable. So what I'm trying to say is, you may be a valued and respected member, but it doesn't mean you'll make a good mod.