you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Yes - though the stated reason for my removal from 2 subs (from d3rr) was "that chipit post removal".

    I am trying to stay on the POD with this question, which is why I do not wish to mention names. But if you note that I antagonized anyone, we're onto a different topic, wherein I can easily argue that I constantly get angry low-POD responses from users like Chipit, to which I respond - not with oh, Chipit, I love you, you're awesome - but with a counter argument to Chipit's abuse, without abusing Chipit (in all cases I can think of, but perhaps not every case). Mods are also not prohited from arguing, or alternatively, thanking people for their abuses. But this is not what I've asked about in the present post. I was removed as mod from 2 subs because of a duplicate removal. In order to properly debate the censorship of mods who argue with users, I'd have to make another post. But I did not know that that was related to the censorship of my mod activities.

    Regarding apologies - should I apologize for removing a 24-hour exact duplicate (under its duplicate) on the front page of /s/politics? That's related to the OP question.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It's not antogonistic to reply to someone and disagree with them. That's certainly not the point of a debate. Did Chipit feel antagonized? I doubt it. He antagonized me and I responded. It's known as a debate. Regarding M7, he had many additional comments on what he wanted Saidit to be. If you've not seen those other comments, I can potentially find them for you, in his posts from long ago on Saidit and Reddit. Saidit - parts of it - did not become what he wanted it to be. And regarding "respectful, rational, conversations", that has happened. And given the amount of abuse I receive, especially from Chipit and others - without my prompting them to be abusive - I've had the patience of Job with these people, in order to develop conversations that will tell me more about their way of thinking. Thus I've learned a lot at Saidit, which as I've said many times before, was my reason for being here. Learning develops especially with debate and questions (per Socrates &c). I've had the thick skin that you note here.

      The question I've asked is related to moderation methodology, and you've not addressed that question. What you indicate in your comments is that you will interpret what is considered the "higher standard" for the moderator, and that you will interpret who is antagonistic, and that you want a 'wall' between the mod's actions and the user's actions. None of these are requirements for the moderator on any other sub. The tradition with moderators - as I've seen in the past 15 years at Reddit and as I've seen here at Saidit - is that they can and do argue with others in the subs, as you've done quite often. Do you see a double standard here?

      Did you follow a higher standard when you supported the ban of a moderator who had merely done hiw job? Did you see this as 'respectful' of the mod team and of a user? Did you unfairly see me as the the 'antagonistic' one in these conversations? Did you not appreciate that I do indeed have a thick skin on Saidit? (How many Democrats are here?) Did you - as a mod - consult the other mods when you made your decision? Have you deleted duplicate posts at /s/politics? Have you argued with anyone at /s/politics? None of my questions here about you specifically, but about the methods of a moderator. Per my original question, and per the points here, I've not done anything as a moderator that would qualify as a reason for banning me.