OR Candidates StopWorryingLoveTheBomb for Moderator

[Mrsrx]

. I'll add it to the manifesto

Atheistforjesus*

 

[loubnaniTO]

question to all candidates:

- What will be your approach to trolling, repeated trolling, personal attacks, and fake news?

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

question to all candidates:

- What will be your approach to trolling, repeated trolling, personal attacks, and fake news?

Trolling and Repeated Trolling:
While we can all agree that trolling is a persistent and annoying phenomenon that needs to be managed, we likely wouldn't agree on one clear definition for what it actually is. This is problematic, as someone on the receiving end of moderator intervention might not feel like they did anything wrong. For this reason, my initial approach would consist of three things: identifying whether or not trolling is actually taking place, determining what action needs to be done, and communicating with the perpetrator.

Identifying whether trolling is taking place or not needs to be done via context, in my opinion. Is someone intentionally derailing the conversation? Is someone attacking someone, or bullying someone? Is someone trying to drown someone out? Is it a tasteless joke with no intention to troll? Is the opposing party in on it, and is it in the context of fun? Most importantly, is there a real need to intervene, and what degree of intervention is needed? A private word, or a public one? Deleting a post? Temporary time out? In my opinion, the softer the intervention the better, but it will certainly have to depend on the case. Once this is determined, communicating with the user before any action is taken is preferable. When things are simply too frantic for that, clear communication as soon as possible after moderation is a must, so as to avoid escalation.

Repeated or persistent trolling is another issue. If the trolling is done in defiance of a moderator's decision and despite clear and open communication, then a slightly heavier hand might be needed. Bel 3arabe el mshabra7, iza el wa7ad 3am ya3mol nkeyet for the sake of it, ma lezem ykoun fi ghenej (domn el 7doud el manti2iyye, akid). If the persistent trolling is directed towards other users, then I'd rather make sure the behavior is not being instigated by someone else before taking any action. In any case, communication needs to be clear so that everyone understands where they stand.

Fake News:
Deleting news is a slippery slope. A lot of the time, the truth of the matter doesn't appear until later, or until much later. Personally, I'd rather see unreliable news items and sources being labeled with an inoffensive tag (if technically possible), rather than being taken down. Fake news that is proven fake should be labeled as well, but not deleted. I have many more ideas regarding the matter, but it's something I'd rather discuss first (I'm not entirely sure what is possible and what isn't). Some football subreddits have tier lists for reporters, for example. We could also set up fact-checking threads, but this would require user engagement.

 

[Iron Maiden]

question to all candidates:

- What will be your approach to trolling, repeated trolling, personal attacks, and fake news?

he will change their usernames to something from one of kubricks movies

 

[The_FPMer]

Trolling and Repeated Trolling:
While we can all agree that trolling is a persistent and annoying phenomenon that needs to be managed, we likely wouldn't agree on one clear definition for what it actually is. This is problematic, as someone on the receiving end of moderator intervention might not feel like they did anything wrong. For this reason, my initial approach would consist of three things: identifying whether or not trolling is actually taking place, determining what action needs to be done, and communicating with the perpetrator.

Identifying whether trolling is taking place or not needs to be done via context, in my opinion. Is someone intentionally derailing the conversation? Is someone attacking someone, or bullying someone? Is someone trying to drown someone out? Is it a tasteless joke with no intention to troll? Is the opposing party in on it, and is it in the context of fun? Most importantly, is there a real need to intervene, and what degree of intervention is needed? A private word, or a public one? Deleting a post? Temporary time out? In my opinion, the softer the intervention the better, but it will certainly have to depend on the case. Once this is determined, communicating with the user before any action is taken is preferable. When things are simply too frantic for that, clear communication as soon as possible after moderation is a must, so as to avoid escalation.

Repeated or persistent trolling is another issue. If the trolling is done in defiance of a moderator's decision and despite clear and open communication, then a slightly heavier hand might be needed. Bel 3arabe el mshabra7, iza el wa7ad 3am ya3mol nkeyet for the sake of it, ma lezem ykoun fi ghenej (domn el 7doud el manti2iyye, akid). If the persistent trolling is directed towards other users, then I'd rather make sure the behavior is not being instigated by someone else before taking any action. In any case, communication needs to be clear so that everyone understands where they stand.

Fake News:
Deleting news is a slippery slope. A lot of the time, the truth of the matter doesn't appear until later, or until much later. Personally, I'd rather see unreliable news items and sources being labeled with an inoffensive tag (if technically possible), rather than being taken down. Fake news that is proven fake should be labeled as well, but not deleted. I have many more ideas regarding the matter, but it's something I'd rather discuss first (I'm not entirely sure what is possible and what isn't). Some football subreddits have tier lists for reporters, for example. We could also set up fact-checking threads, but this would require user engagement.

Tiers are a bit tricky because in politics they will be entirely subjective. I imagine OTV will be Tier 1 and others will be categorized as reliable as The Sun.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Tiers are a bit tricky because in politics they will be entirely subjective. I imagine OTV will be Tier 1 and others will be categorized as reliable as The Sun.

Obviously.

(Actually, I feel the top tiers would mostly be investigative reporters and independent journalists. TV stations, if tiered at all, would likely be towards the low end of the spectrum. And yeah, I agree that it's tricky, borderline implausible... But still an interesting idea.)

 

[Resign]

Do not vote for Dontworrylivethebomb
Do not vote for oppression
Do not vote for opposing views bans
Do not vote for fascism
Do not vote for disrespect

Vote @The_FPMer
Vote @Aoune32!
Vote @Apostate

only

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Do not vote for Dontworrylivethebomb
Do not vote for oppression
Do not vote for opposing views bans
Do not vote for fascism
Do not vote for disrespect

Vote @The_FPMer
Vote @Aoune32!
Vote @Apostate

only

I'm only gonna comment on one thing: disrespect. I've always tried my best to stay respectful to other users on this forum, and in general. Sure, I might have made a couple of snarky jokes here and there, but never with the intention to hurt. In fact, I've stated several times my opposition to calling people "sha3b ratch" and other derogatory slogans, by FPM supporters or others.

The only time I think I really lost my cool and targeted someone's person was when I called you a fanatic. I do kinda feel bad about that, but you do live up to it well.

Anyway, I don't want to be too serious here. The 3 users you're championing would make great moderators, and I hope they all make it. I know I'll have a hard time deciding who to vote for!

 

[The_FPMer]

Anyway, I don't want to be too serious here. The 3 users you're championing would make great moderators, and I hope they all make it. I know I'll have a hard time deciding who to vote for!

Kezzeb, sharmattelna kelna whilst typing those words.

 

[Isabella]

Kezzeb, sharmattelna kelna whilst typing those words.

Ma assar fikun

 

[The_FPMer]

Ma assar fikun

Leh shou 5assne ana? What's my cardinal sin that I've committed?

 

[Isabella]

Leh shou 5assne ana? What's my cardinal sin that I've committed?

Ma ba3rif bass I'm sure fi shi sin

 

[The_FPMer]

Ma ba3rif bass I'm sure fi shi sin

 

[Isabella]

I'm going to hell running, you name it I've done it well short of murder incest and you know stealing and all that stuff

 

[The_FPMer]

I'm going to hell running, you name it I've done it well short of murder incest and you know stealing and all that stuff

I never took you for a boring person. You've disappointed me, my child.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm going to hell running, you name it I've done it well short of murder incest and you know stealing and all that stuff

إثراء غير مشروع؟

 

[Isabella]

إثراء غير مشروع؟

Need to be rich lah

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Kif ya3ne hardcore? Ana I lurked for years until I finally made an account as well. If we can trace that reason, nullify it, the forum would gain more members and Jo will fill his pockets with more $ : P

It felt like running before learning to walk, if that makes any sense. Debate is usually heated and emotional, and most users are already know each other and where they stand. Also, forums are a bit alien to people who are used to modern social media platforms. It's intimidating, I guess.

I do remember @Iron Maiden greeting me in the introduction thread and that was nice. Kinda broke that initial anxiety, if you get what I mean. I'd like to see more spaces for less heated discussion, be it non-political or political... Like a newbie zone or something. Maybe that would encourage people to jump in?

 

[Picasso]

You have my vote, especially that you are interested in giving more attention to the community forums.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

You have my vote, especially that you are interested in giving more attention to the community forums.

Thanks! I hope we'll be able to do them justice, and I'll be sure to contribute to them whether I get elected or not.