Hi there.

A short introduction: This is an alt account. I’m a moderator here who has been unhappy with the state of news/political discussions here for a long time. The admins have kindly given me the opportunity to see if we can make some improvement the community here.

We will be doing some major revision of the rules left by the previous moderators and will use discussions in this thread as feedback on the direction we should take our community.

This will be an open discussion on the state of our community, the rules and our moderation practices. Feel free to give your inputs.

  • Might Be@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    93·
    11 months ago

    To add to that, personally speaking, I do not think multiple ban escalation as shown in the modlog in response to criticism of mod action in direct message is appropriate behavior for our moderation team, nor do I think it should be accepted going forward.

    • BoJo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      11·
      11 months ago

      IMO bad apples don’t suddenly get reformed when rules change. If they’re willing to go on power trips, they’re going to keep going on power trips lol

      • Might Be@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        18·
        11 months ago

        So I ask you, the community, to keep an eye on our community modlog to keep us honest.

          • intelshill@lemmy.caEnglish
            9·
            11 months ago

            There’s a few people in the current batch of mods who are letting mod powers get to their head.

          • Might Be@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            33·
            11 months ago

            I can tell you that the mod in the exchange with naturalgasbad and the mod who removed the comments are different.

            Nevertheless, dismissing valid concerns about inconsistency in rule enforcement, threats of escalating bans, talking down to our community as children, as well as using mod power to remove valid criticism, as YoBuck has demonstrated, are all unacceptable behavior for LW moderators moving forward and will not be tolerated.

            I have requested the moderators in question to apologize here, and based on the sincerity they demonstrate, I would be recommending further actions from our admin team.

            • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caEnglish
              6·
              11 months ago

              I’m not holding my breath waiting for an apology. I might not like mods’ agenda, but they have the power here.

              • 🌱 🐄🌱 @lemmy.worldMEnglish
                41·
                11 months ago

                While I did not ban you I may have removed some of the posts or comments in the past that were reported for rule violations.

                I apologize if the process for appealing is unclear or if any of your posts or comments were removed in error.

                Above all else I apologize if you were made to feel unwelcome here as it has been important for me the past 6 months moderating this community to try and develop a place for discussion from many sides on topics around the world.

                Before the most recent additions to the mod team we had a practice of using a 1 day temp ban, 3 day temp ban, 7 day temp ban, and then permanent ban for many rule violations. (the exception being clearly racist trolling type of users) I think it would be good to return to a standardized structure as well as removing the MBFC requirements as the best way to fight misinformation is to prove its bias in comments rather than being the arbiters of good journalism.

                • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  I appreciate the work you mods do to clean up the community and respect that y’all can’t be perfect when cleaning up rule violations. I don’t think I’ve had any issues with your moderation in particular (it’s been fair and level-handed as far as I can tell) and I really love to see all the work you’re doing to make this community more welcoming. Looking forward to seeing what the new mod team does!

                  Happy New Year!

            • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              Still waiting for that apology from jordanlund. Figured as much. Some of the mods here are great (or at least have good intentions - I respect that), but one bad mod ruins the bunch.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.mlEnglish
      121·
      11 months ago

      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.

      Children, please stop fighting.

      • Adanisi@lemmy.zipEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        Wow. What a terrible mod lmao.

        “Here’s my point”

        -Ban

        “Here’s another point”

        -Longer ban

        Are they 13?

      • 🌱 🐄🌱 @lemmy.worldMEnglish
        36·
        11 months ago

        I removed the comment for publically posting direct messages of a moderator which is in violation of rule 6 but as things are now changing I did not realize that rule was changing. So I am very sorry for deleting your comment we had been told many months ago that appealing a comment or post that was removed is for the meta communities like lemmy.world/c/moderators or lemmy.world/c/support however many times a user will send me a message to talk about it and i have often gone back and restored.

        Going forward I won’t be deleting comments regarding moderators and hope that we can have a great community to discuss current events