Making a genuine effort here to make this post within the rules of this community. I notice there is no qualifier for meta-posts; mods I’d love if you could just let me know to take this down rather than ban me. :)

Pretty much what is in the image.

  • I appreciate the effort and values behind responding to reports with the reason.
  • But I don’t appreciate how the responses, especially to trolls, give them bait to double down in their offensive rhetoric.
  • .world already has an @AutoMod@lemmy.world which DMs users with the reasons for mod action on their content.
  • About half the time this mod will also continue to engage with the trolling user.
  • Lemmy doesn’t allow unflaired mod comments as of now so this just proves to add more fuel to the flames and make this community more toxic than it was without this action.
  • I recognize this will be an unpopular post, and believe me, again, I appreciate the effort put into informing us why things are removed.
  • But please consider stopping, or at least doing it in a way which doesn’t amplify trolling.
  • This also goes for other communities @jordanlund@lemmy.world moderates but this is the primary source of the issue.
  • Thank you with peace and love.
  • LibertyLizardEnglish
    221·
    14 days ago

    Can you give an example of what you’re talking about? I think more mod communication is good so my initial response is to oppose this suggestion.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.mlEnglish
      152·
      14 days ago

      There’s been rather public infighting on lemmy.world based on the previously pinned posts on this community.

      A moderator on this community (@MightBe) collected community feedback on a post (https://lemmy.world/post/10102462) because of discontent with how the community was being run. The other moderators were unhappy with that mod, so they removed him, removed the post, and pinned this post instead: https://lemmy.world/post/10656753

      I’m not sure what’s going on in private, but publicly there’s been a lot of drama. It’s also been revealed that some members of the current group of moderators have been rather unprofessional imo. I’m quoting from a previous comment:

      Some mods have also been deleting comments that add context to mod abuse. @naturalgasbad gave me the full DM context for their “bad faith argument” with a moderator (they did not specify which one), which I posted in a comment in the other pinned thread. It’s a rather childish escalation sequence imo. That comment was deleted for “violating Rule 6”, but I have copied it below for the record:

      For the record, naturalgasbad sent me their exchange with the moderator, which stemmed from the moderator in question removing SCMP articles due to “SCMP not meeting reliability guidelines.”

      @moderator:

      Al Jazeera is reliable when they aren’t talking about things that involve Qatar, that seems to be their specific blind spot.

      Kyiv Post and the Telegraph I haven’t specifically looked at, if they get reported I’ll check them out.

      @naturalgasbad:

      Literally by the standards on SCMP you quoted, they’re unreliable.

      @moderator:

      SCMP: Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing.

      Al Jazeera: Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar.

      You: “bUt ThEyR’e ThE sAmE!!!”

      Poor sourcing is poor sourcing. You picked a shitty news agency. Try to do better next time.

      (for reference, the Daily Telegraph is also “mixed due to poor sourcing” and Kyiv Post is “mixed due to failed fact checks”)

      @naturalgasbad:

      MBFC claims SCMP has poor sourcing based on the suggestion that they’re misrepresenting the US import ban on China (the one “failed fact check” according to them). That’s how MBFC gives the commentary on their ratings. It’s based on a sample-size of one. There’s no long-term commentary provided by MBFC because their entire ratings system and commentary is based on sampling a small number of articles (we don’t know which ones) and going off of what goes wrong within that sample.

      It’s also reflecting the problem of a US-based bias assessment > website: it suggests that ideas within the US Overton window are “correct” will those shared by the Global South are “less correct.”

      From what I can tell, some of the problem is what they assume the basic level of skill is for readers. A few weeks ago, I posted a story about SCMP reporting on a research study published in Science. Members of this community failed to find it, despite being told the subject, authors, where it was published, and when it was published. That’s not poor sourcing, but poor research ability on behalf of the readers.

      @moderator:

      Continuing to argue with a mod who has made their decision will not win you any favors. Keep it up and you’ll get a ban on top of having your shitty links removed, oh, wait, you’ve already been banned for abusing the report feature. I can easily extend that.

      @naturalgasbad

      But again, MBFC’s entire commentary on SCMP’s issues is reliant on this single sentence from a single article. It’s inherently because MBFC relies on a small sample set of each site to determine a rating because they lack the manpower and the educational foundation to provide comprehensive analysis of a news source. Either way, that article was an editorial, not a news report. (In any cases, SCMP is commenting on Chinese reports written in Chinese, which American readers struggle to find because they don’t speak Chinese).

      [The [U.S. import ban] has been taken without evidence being provided.]

      Unlike SCMP’s reporting, Polygraph is unable to source the article this claim can be found in. From the articles I can find that, SCMP is comnenting based on this statement:

      [The ban creates a “rebuttable presumption” that any Xinjiang goods were tainted by the use of forced labour – a “guilty until proven innocent” principle that effectively inverts US customs laws related to forced labour]

      In fact, Ad Fontes’ media bias chart considers SCMP to be “reliable” (reliability score of 41.56 on a 0-64 scale) and “centrist” (bias score of -3.3 on a scale of -42 - 42). This is on par with Al Jazeera (41.65, -6.71) and New York Times (41.92, -7.96) and better than Washington Post (38.08, -8.69). (Ad Fontes also has issues, but your obsession with MBFC in particular is a little odd).

      @moderator:

      7 day ban. Want to go for 30?

      @naturalgasbad:

      I cited Ad Fontes. Feel free to criticize their methodology.

      @moderator:

      30 days. Keep going.

      @naturalgasbad:

      So… Do you not like Ad Fontes’ methodology, then?

      @moderator:

      And permaban. Good luck on your next account.

      • LibertyLizardEnglish
        10·
        14 days ago

        Very concerning if true, though unless this is regarding the mod OP mentioned, this is not the exact issue at hand.

        In my opinion, the mod structure established by Reddit and perpetuated by Lemmy is extremely flawed and will inevitably lead to abuses like this. This is the predictable result of all governance structures that lack democratic oversight. Exactly what the best oversight would look like I do not know but I hope there will be experimentation in this vein in the future. Until such time, I doubt this issue will be resolved very successfully.

        • zephyreks@lemmy.mlEnglish
          31·
          14 days ago

          I can neither confirm nor deny, but the moderator in question is still on the active mod team.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      71·
      14 days ago

      Absolutely agree that more is good; I think it’s about making sure the quality of communication is constructive rather than destructive. :)

      Here is an example of a user using the mod response to continue their use of the r slur.

      Here is an example of a user using the mod response as bait for further trolling.

      Here is an example of a user getting to platform their misinformation long after the conversation should have just ended. There are others, this was just what I found first.

      edit. added more

      • LibertyLizardEnglish
        6·
        14 days ago

        OK I agree it probably should have been a clear statement of the rules and then conversation over. Going back and forth with a combative attitude is not an effective moderation strategy.

        But this seems like a minor criticism. Overall I appreciate the attempt to explain the rules, I just think it could be done better.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldEnglish
        93·
        14 days ago

        That user is pretty active and often tries to start debates but idk if I’d call them a troll

        • StinkyOnions@lemmy.worldEnglish
          114·
          14 days ago

          That user is a troll. Just take a look at the user’s post and comment history. He calls himself an agitator, but he derails entire threads spouting russian propaganda.

          • LibertyLizardEnglish
            74·
            14 days ago

            I did and I didn’t see anything like what you’re describing. Low effort, provocative content, yes, trolling, no. Trolling is not just an opinion you find offensive.

            This the issue with trying to police trolling. No one can agree on what it means. Moderation standards need to be based on clear definition in line with community consensus. Vague prohibitions like trolling lead to bias and moderation abuse.

            I’m not opposed to removing these types of comments but if so it needs to be based on a clear standard that everyone can understand. A prohibition on “trolling” clearly is not adequate for this purpose.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      41·
      14 days ago

      Yeah, I don’t think “peace and love” is what’s being sold here. Someone’s fishing to weaponise the moderation process.

      The removed comment in OP’s response was criticism of the moderation style, which honestly should be left up for transparency’s sake, and then the rest of the exchange was just conversation about the modlog, where the two fighting users actually come to agree.