We need to have it so wrong category is a reason a post is reported and then we just reclassify it. Now mods just think the post is reported because people think it should be deleted.
This doesn't make any sense. I always explain in the comment box that I am reporting the thread because it is falsely classified as running-related. Do you think your mods are incapable of understanding this?
Please do not "just reclassify" these threads. This provides no disincentive to those who intentionally misclassify non-running threads as running-related. If you simply delete misclassified threads in a timely manner, people will stop misclassifying their threads.
Can you address this, Wejo? You claim that inappropriately categorized threads aren't deleted because it can't be selected as a reason for reporting the post, but we can and do list it as the reason in the comment box. So why aren't these threads deleted?
None of these extracted comments are examples targeted at "Here's my take"'s person, or posts.
The "Cold War" comment is not even a personal attack, but a commentary of the posts from an unnamed poster that often omits relevant and contradictory facts.
LOL what?
Right after 'Here's my take' wrote about the 80s: "Yep...transfusions, anabolic steroids, testosterone, amphetamines, etc. " you wrote
"I've only seen one person ever argue the existance of "Cold War doping" for distance runners, and he had a unique extreme tendency..."
and now you say that the only one person to do so was not 'Here's my take' - although he just did - but some unnamed person in the past that had nothing to do with the discussion/thread/'Here's my take'? Hahahaha
So, you were lying for the fun of it when you wrote "only seen one person ever...", interesting. But why? Good old trolling again, obviously, I shouldn't ask you such questions.
And you trashing that unnamed person was not a personal attack? Hahahahahaha
"unnamed poster that often omits relevant and contradictory facts" - you are talking about yourself now, amirite?
So much deception. And you are surprised that people want to see you banned? Couldn't be your trolling?? Hahahahahahaha
At least you are admitting to insulting Armstronglivs (while adding more insults though), that's kind of a progress at least.
Can you link to a thread or two where someone takes it over please?
How in the world do people “take over” posts exactly? Do they have some mysterious power over the board that the rest of us don’t possess? No, they just drop smart a$$ remarks, and other people take the bait. There is a simple solution to this, and adults who deal with children mastered it thousands of years ago: ignore them. If I start a thread, and someone jumps on with something stupid, I simply pass over them as if they never said a word.
It’s not hard. We don’t need some special policy to stop certain people from posting more than twice a day or whatever other stupid idea. We just need to behave like adults.
1) We're going to create alerts for old threads that have posts in them so we can identify spam in advance of people reporting it. 2) We're going to add "Sex" as a protected class on our Rules page. 3) We're going to study if we should limit how many posts someone has in a thread or at least come up with a way to monitor people posting repeatedly in the same thread and see if this warrants further resources. 4) We're going to track some posters over time and see if we need to deal with their collective work rather than their individual posts. We generally like to evaluate each post on its own but should we modify this.
5) We've added a reason when reporting for posts for people to note the post is just in the run category. 6) What should our "misgendering" policy be. 7) Should we ban VPN servers?
Weldon, I have to say your message is discouraging to me. The result of this moderator thread is…more moderation, more rules, more ways to get targeted by the moderators, more reasons to get banned. It’s disappointing.
1) We're going to create alerts for old threads that have posts in them so we can identify spam in advance of people reporting it. 2) We're going to add "Sex" as a protected class on our Rules page. 3) We're going to study if we should limit how many posts someone has in a thread or at least come up with a way to monitor people posting repeatedly in the same thread and see if this warrants further resources. 4) We're going to track some posters over time and see if we need to deal with their collective work rather than their individual posts. We generally like to evaluate each post on its own but should we modify this.
5) We've added a reason when reporting for posts for people to note the post is just in the run category. 6) What should our "misgendering" policy be. 7) Should we ban VPN servers?
Weldon, I have to say your message is discouraging to me. The result of this moderator thread is…more moderation, more rules, more ways to get targeted by the moderators, more reasons to get banned. It’s disappointing.
Weldon, I have to say your message is discouraging to me. The result of this moderator thread is…more moderation, more rules, more ways to get targeted by the moderators, more reasons to get banned. It’s disappointing.
For many of us, it is not.
I don’t know, perhaps you’ve never had seven of your post deleted in a row, because they were critical of moderation, on a thread dedicated to discussion of moderation.
I don’t know, perhaps you’ve never had seven of your post deleted in a row, because they were critical of moderation, on a thread dedicated to discussion of moderation.
I have not, because I don’t constantly complain about the moderation.
It would be nice to have some minimal transparency about the moderators.
To be clear, I am NOT talking about any personally identifiable information.
Specifically, how many moderators are there? Can we have some basic, general info about each? Maybe PRs, pastimes, gender, voting history.
But most importantly, show us what they delete. Say there are 10 moderators and we know them by numbers 1-10. It would be illuminating to know who is "on duty" at any given time and what threads/comments they choose to delete.
I don’t know, perhaps you’ve never had seven of your post deleted in a row, because they were critical of moderation, on a thread dedicated to discussion of moderation.
I have not, because I don’t constantly complain about the moderation.
True enough. But when the mods decide they don’t like you and act accordingly, you can’t really complain.
I have not, because I don’t constantly complain about the moderation.
True enough. But when the mods decide they don’t like you and act accordingly, you can’t really complain.
An owner of the site responded to your list on this thread and you were disappointed by it. Seems like you aren’t satisfied unless they cater to your every whim.