384
Antiwork was forced to reopen by the admins
(www.reddit.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
384 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37804 readers
369 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m not and never have been a mod. But can understand the conflict of not wanting to reopen but if you don’t you lose a position that you’ve spent a lot of time and energy. They’re probably passionate about their community. Giving that away and seeing someone else destroy all your hard work? Glad I’m not that invested.
Don't forget the addiction to power. Yes, there are all kinds of moderators.
This is such a common attitude, and it's nonsense. Non-moderators think moderators are "power hungry" when they ban people. While there are some few exceptions, moderators don't ban people because they like power. Moderators ban people because they're disruptive and causing trouble.
What moderating is really like, part 1
What moderating is really like, part 2
99% of the people I've banned who were not obvious spammers or bots are one kind of troll or another. Usually they fall into three categories: Concern Trolls ("But I'm only saying this for your own good!"), Factoid Trolls ("I'm here to tell you the TRUTH!"), or Disruptive Trolls (dick picks, offensive memes, slurs and racism, etc.).
Roughly 1% of the people I ban apologize for their mistake, remove their rule-breaking content, and either follow the rules or quietly leave.
I regularly get called a power-hungry mod by the crybabies who get angry when they aren't allowed to break the very clearly stated rules, and repeat their offenses after getting first, sometimes second warnings. They run to other places and go try to stir up other crybabies to come and cause the same kind of trouble.
Moderating is tireless and endless. Jerks don't get banned for saying "Dur the mods suck! Free Speech!" Jerks get banned because they think the rules are for other people, or because they think that the rules are wrong so that means they don't have to follow them.
Thank you for coming to my Moose Talk. (Ted is taking a nap right now.)
Eh, I have had mixed results.
There are also moderators that ban out of some weird form of spite/echo chamber enforcement.
Ive seen some examples of feminist / human rights forums/subreddits that had it explicitly in their rules that hate speech and attacking people based on gender was against the rules. Someone was going on a long hate filled speech about how all men are trash and terrible, and I just reported it to the moderators that it broke the rule and I proceeded to get banned for making the report (not even engaging with the chat, just reporting)
I also got banned from /r/askscience during the late stages of COVID and was accused of being an antivaxer by the moderator... Thing is I am extremely pro-vaccines, lol
The reason I got banned? Someone posted some faulty stats interpretations of information and I posted the correction, giving an example case to demonstrate how there was a hole on their claim. Largely speaking they were, in a damaging way, accrediting assumed success to vaccines that wasnt quite proven yet, and I was just like "Well we'd need to the info for X/Y/Z to make that assumption, its very possible but we are missing key info"
Moderator sent me this lol:
So yeah, sometimes you just have moderators that are complete assholes and genuinely seem interested in enforcing some kind of weird echo chamber deal, where rationality is not supported.
That one in particular sticks out to me because you'd think that a place like /r/askscience would be understanding of calling stuff out like confirmation biases... >_>;