Warning To Members Here

[Joseph Maynor]

One face -to-face Zoom call can solve a lot of this.   Be willing to communicate, and that will avoid a lot of misunderstandings.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

9 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

A simple moderation policy could work: if someone repeatedly posts low-quality content and receives enough warnings or bans, they get kicked.

This is how it works

As users get more and more naughty, they accumulate enough points to hit a level they are auto-banned.

I will remark that some users have been allowed back, despite this policy. This is based on Leo's discretion. 

Often, behaviour does not change. Even warning points are not incentive enough.

We try to appeal directly to the user, through discussion, prior to points being assigned. 

Unless it is a clear and deliberate violation.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Xonas Pitfall]

11 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is how it works

As users get more and more naughty, they accumulate enough points to hit a level they are auto-banned.

I will remark that some users have been allowed back, despite this policy. This is based on Leo's discretion. 

Often, behaviour does not change. Even warning points are not incentive enough.

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying!  Then I don't really see a need for this specific post unless, for some reason, it wasn't already allowed to ban or flag people if they claimed it was "a cult"...?

Just keep moderating rude, accusatory, and low-quality posts. There's no need to make it specifically about cults or anything like that. At least that's my opinion.

I feel like this whole discussion is better kept between the mods and Leo when deciding what should be flagged. Otherwise, it just makes Leo look more suspicious for no real reason, even if the request itself is completely reasonable. Haha.

I'd hope Leo himself would gladly welcome constructive criticism about why someone might think his community is becoming a cult, as long as the arguments are reasonable and made in good faith.

Obviously, if someone is just posting beyond-brainrot points or making bad-faith accusations, you can't really expect anyone to tolerate that instead of banning or flagging them.

And if you want extra proof that you aren't being cult-like, you could showcase those discussions publicly and transparently for all to see. That demonstrates you're open to criticism while still moderating low-quality or bad-faith content. What got banned? When? Removed? Why?

Edited 2 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Joseph Maynor]

There should be term limits for moderators on here lol.

[Xonas Pitfall]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

There should be term limits for moderators on here lol.

Terms don't really make sense to me, tbh. If someone is consistently good and reliable, why would you want to remove them? If you're unreliable or do a bad job, you're out. If you're good, you stay.

It's like wanting to fire a great employee just because their "term" is over. No, obviously you'd want to extend their contract if they'd like to keep working with you.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Terms don't really make sense to me, tbh. If someone is consistently good and reliable, why would you want to remove them? If you're unreliable or do a bad job, you're out. If you're good, you stay.

It's like wanting to fire a great employee just because their "term" is over. No, obviously you'd want to extend their contract if they'd like to keep working with you.

I feel the opposite.  But it is just my opinion.  It is good to serve for a term and then go back to being a regular member.

[Jirh]

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

One face -to-face Zoom call can solve a lot of this.   Be willing to communicate, and that will avoid a lot of misunderstandings.

I notice you bring this up quite a lot. But I can't comprehend why it feels so essential to you.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It is not like Leo doesn't see exactly how the moderators operate. 

Moderators serving a term puts additional strain on Leo's workload.

He is quite particular with who he selects.

Also noting how behaviour changes over time. This is a pattern in all humans.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Mods should just not have any greentext.

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, Jirh said:

I notice you bring this up quite a lot. But I can't comprehend why it feels so essential to you.

Before you ban or demote someone why not have a simple Zoom call with them to flesh out any issues?  Seems like common sense to me.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is not like Leo doesn't see exactly how the moderators operate. 

He is quite particular with who he selects.

And this has pros and cons too.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Before you ban or demote someone why not have a simple Zoom call with them to flesh out any issues?  Seems like common sense to me.

Do you think this is enough incentive to change behaviour?

IMO - to really get the most out of a person, connection must be made and maintained. I think a zoom call can make the connection, but maintaining it is another ballgame. And Leo has expressed he likes to be very hands off with the Mods, and let us use our own discretion independent of him ( which is a method that dovetails well with very invested selection process, do it once, do it right - not as much maintenance in between as we just do our thing without needing management/micromanagement). The caveat being, connection over time can degrade - whether it is connection to Leo (a bit parasocial imo, members have enough issue with this as is) or connection to the teachings.

[Jirh]

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Before you ban or demote someone why not have a simple Zoom call with them to flesh out any issues?  Seems like common sense to me.

Regular members can't and shouldn't have that.

But yes when it comes to mods, as that's just teamwork.

[Joseph Maynor]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Do you think this is enough incentive to change behaviour?

IMO - to really get the most out of a person, connection must be made and maintained. I think a zoom call can make the connection, but maintaining it is another ballgame. And Leo has expressed he likes to be very hands off with the Mods, and let us use our own discretion independent of him ( which is a method that dovetails well with very invested selection process, do it once, do it right - not as much maintenance in between as we just do our thing without needing management/micromanagement). The caveat being, connection over time can degrade - whether it is connection to Leo (a bit parasocial imo, members have enough issue with this as is) or connection to the teachings.

Sometimes you can hash out an issue with someone face-to-face, one-on-one, which has a misunderstanding at its basis.  I'm noticing we don't even want to deal with people face to face anymore.  That distance thing is weird to me and an issue.  There are consequences to not wanting to communicate well with people.

Edited 2 hours ago by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

4 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Regular members can't and shouldn't have that.

But yes when it comes to mods, as that's just teamwork.

Hmm.  Why should moderators get demoted but regular members get banned?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

 I'm noticing we don't even want to deal with people face to face anymore.  That distance thing is weird to me and an issue.  

Society is structured to atomise us now, distilled into little worlds, isolated from other humans. 

Capitalism works with this system as it costs much more to live like this, unintegrated with a sharing community.

Maybe I notice it also being born early 80s.

I have something to compare the change with.

[Jirh]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Hmm.  Why should moderators get demoted but regular members get banned?

That's not always the case. It's not like mods have two lives 

I think we're getting into technical management issues that are not my business. So, I'll have have a nice day.

Though, I think you wanna look into why you are fixated on the face to face thingy.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

That's not always the case. It's not like mods have two lives 

I think we're getting into technical management issues that are not my business. So, I'll have have a nice day.

Though, I think you wanna look into why you are fixated on the face to face thingy.

I would want to talk with someone face to face even if it were by Zoom ideally before kicking them out of my community or demoting them.  But then again, I live in the real world where this is what we do.  

[Jirh]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

I would want to talk with someone face to face even if it were by Zoom ideally before kicking them out of my community or demoting them.  But then again, I live in the real world where this is what we do.  

You can't really do that in practice. It's just too idealistic. Requires too much time and effort and investment into strangers that might be trolls living on the opposite side of the globe. It just gives the trolls what they want; attention. So that very mechanism, as benevolent as it seems, will be fuel that creates more trolls, ironically. Too much benefit of the doubt is dangerous. You gotta have boundaries and draw the line at some point.

[Joseph Maynor]

4 minutes ago, Jirh said:

You can't really do that in practice. It's just too idealistic. Requires too much time and effort and investment into strangers that might be trolls living on the opposite side of the globe. It just gives the trolls what they want; attention. So that very mechanism, as benevolent as it seems, will be fuel that creates more trolls, ironically. Too much benefit of the doubt is dangerous. You gotta have boundaries and draw the line at some point.

What I am talking about is the inverse of idealism.  A lot of problems can be solved by talking to someone face-to-face.  Developing a real relationship with them.