Because we have to draw a line somewhere. Passionate discussions are one thing but the moment people start throwing insults and whatnot is the moment a good faith discussion is over in my opinion. And then we either remove the instigator or just close the thread completely.
Dunking on libs is fine as long as it doesn’t get to wild. Disagreeing about certain topics is fine as long as you don’t behave like a complete ass over it. But as soon as people lose their composure and both sides in the discussion spam the report button then either 1) behave or 2) we’re closing the discussion.
We’re not running a daycare. We are adults.
Good policy.
Why don’t you just ban the culprits for a couple of days? It is not fair that everyone has to pay for a couple of rowdy people.
That’s what we try to do but it depends on the situation mostly
Often that is what’s done, though you may not have noticed.
Mods are authoritarian
Can you share an example you’re referring to? Here in the grad it basically only happens when a discussion has fully devolved from anything useful into angry shit slinging.
It isn’t useful for anything at that point, and no one wants to ban a bunch of longtime users for losing their shit.
I’m not an admin or mod, so I can’t speak for them tho
that’s pretty much it
No FeEeZ sPeEch /s
They don’t want to babysit the thread.
Then don’t babysit it. We’re not babies, let us have our heated discussions rather than acting like a complete Karen and shutting it down.
Try running your own instance, don’t moderate it, and let us know how long it took before it became a Nazi bar.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Heated discussions between 2 communists =/= letting a Nazi on Lemmygrad
Moderating is a volunteer position, if a topic has brought a discussion to the point that multiple people are breaking community/server rules it becomes too much work.
Don’t like it? Start your own community.
I can sympathize with wanting to hash stuff out sometimes, but that only really works with the assumption that the parties involved have any desire to hash things out and are acting reasonably enough to do so. This isn’t like a chatroom where a mod could watch the flow of conversation and course correct it as it goes. It’s harder to monitor the progression of a thread and keep an eye on things getting out of hand. And if the evidence is leaning toward, “The parties involved are trading insults and anger and not progressing meaningfully beyond that,” I think it’s fair for them to want to shut that down.
If you feel the subject matter itself sans fighting needs further addressing, you might be able to bring it up again in a new thread and attempt to address what you felt was left unsaid on the topic itself, while avoiding the fighting aspect of it. But I’m not a mod, so I don’t know how they feel about doing that in cases where the conflict is still fresh.
I am not an admin here in any respect, but honestly the mods seem quite lenient for the most part. It is very rare I see locked posts unless there is a LOT of infighting going on. In which case, fair, because that isn’t particularly productive.
Libs get banned semi-frequently, but they’re always given a fair chance first, and very often mods/admins are the ones giving them the benefit of the doubt and engaging with them in good faith. I don’t think I have once seen someone banned too prematurely honestly.
Post clear examples otherwise this is just useless exercise.
Mods not wanting users to affirm another users mental health related gang stalking delusions is not “heated discussion being shut down”.
Maybe read the room of that conversation, and don’t foment its reenactment, unless you want this post to get locked as well.
