Moderation of Gina Rinehart thread in VPT

[David]

WPT, I'm sorry you got that impression. It was a response to 1061's post, which was subsequently deleted after she re-edited it.

Stui, I've just posted a long response explaining my views on two specific issues and asking for any further critical feedback on my moderating style in general, and you respond to that by suggesting that I be less defensive and more self-reflective?

I'm not going to get into these games. I don't care what you think about my personality or maturity. I'm under no obligation to defend myself to you. Discuss the issues or move on.

[1061]

WPT, I'm sorry you got that impression. It was a response to 1061's post, which was subsequently deleted after she re-edited it.

Stui, I've just posted a long response explaining my views on two specific issues and asking for any further critical feedback on my moderating style in general, and you respond to that by suggesting that I be less defensive and more self-reflective?

I'm not going to get into these games. I don't care what you think about my personality or maturity. I'm under no obligation to defend myself to you. Discuss the issues or move on.

Hey don't go blaming me, you did all this all by yourself.

But she does have some great earth moving equipment.

[stui magpie]

WPT, I'm sorry you got that impression. It was a response to 1061's post, which was subsequently deleted after she re-edited it.

Stui, I've just posted a long response explaining my views on two specific issues and asking for any further critical feedback on my moderating style in general, and you respond to that by suggesting that I be less defensive and more self-reflective?

I'm not going to get into these games. I don't care what you think about my personality or maturity. I'm under no obligation to defend myself to you. Discuss the issues or move on.

being able to properly self reflect and self critique is a learned skill. I didn't get it properly until in my early 40's, some get it earlier, some never get it.

You want specific feedback? OK, my main criticism of your moderation style is as follows.

1. Thread splitting. You are way too fast to split a thread off for my tastes. Yes, it can be annoying when, as happens sometimes, every thread gets hijacked by the current debate of the moment. However, these things can also often be self correcting with a couple of on-topic posts dragging the thread back. IMO the intervention of a Mod to split a thread and take off topic posts elsewhere should happen only rarely and should be the exception.

2. This particular instance of moderating the Gina thread is, for mine, an example of your over zealous approach and how you moderate very much in accordance with what you believe. I don't have a major problem with drawing the line on the fat jibes with Gina, they do get old very fast, however I don't consider making reference to someones weight to be on an equal footing to similar remarks about their sex, race or sexual orientation. Nor, I suspect, do the majority of people. Weight is one of your personal issues that you feel strongly about and so my moderating in that way, you make it about you and about your personality. The Mod is there to moderate, not to make everyone else conform to their own belief system.

So, in summary, I find your moderation style to be much too highly interventionist and too much based on your own personal value set. You can point to the rules to justify your behaviour and on a technicality would be correct. That doesn't make it good moderation, in my opinion at least, and it would seem others agree.

[David]

Re:

1) Okay, I respect your view and I'll take it on board. I would be interested to hear what others think, though.

2) Is it an example of a tendency, or is it a one-off? Of course my beliefs inform how I interpret the rules, but I'm not making rules up on the spot or interpreting them in a novel fashion. As I posted on page 1, the rule reads as follows:

Posts that are abusive, hateful or intolerant of the differences of others will be removed or edited and the posters may be warned.

I don't see anything there that suggests race and sexuality apply but weight doesn't. When a poster mocks Gina on the basis of her weight/appearance alone, that to me constitutes intolerance of the differences of others. My own views actually have nothing to do with it.

Anyway, you'll notice that I just cleaned up your accidental triple posting. Despite what you may think, that sort of thing (along with fixing up coding when people forget a square bracket) constitutes about 80-90% of what I do on here as a mod. I very rarely delete or edit posts if I find them offensive; only if I think they're an obvious contravention of the rules. I'm not trying to make your life difficult or impose some fundamentalist system on people; just help keep this place running smoothly and welcoming for all.

[stui magpie]

Thanks David,

I don't doubt your motivation or intention, just your action.

Thanks for cleaning up the triple post, I'd already tried to minimise that by editing. In regard to fixing posts where someone left out a bracket, why wouldn't you leave that to the person to fix themselves?

[David]

Because often they don't, and when it comes to multiple embedded quotes, you can often end up with an indecipherable mess. It's not a problem; I enjoy doing it.

[watt price tully]

WPT, I'm sorry you got that impression. It was a response to 1061's post, which was subsequently deleted after she re-edited it.

Stui, I've just posted a long response explaining my views on two specific issues and asking for any further critical feedback on my moderating style in general, and you respond to that by suggesting that I be less defensive and more self-reflective?

I'm not going to get into these games. I don't care what you think about my personality or maturity. I'm under no obligation to defend myself to you. Discuss the issues or move on.

Hey don't go blaming me, you did all this all by yourself.

But she does have some great earth moving equipment.

No you went far too far with your comments that were only about her weight and you know it too.

[watt price tully]

Re:

1) Okay, I respect your view and I'll take it on board. I would be interested to hear what others think, though.

2) Is it an example of a tendency, or is it a one-off? Of course my beliefs inform how I interpret the rules, but I'm not making rules up on the spot or interpreting them in a novel fashion. As I posted on page 1, the rule reads as follows:

Posts that are abusive, hateful or intolerant of the differences of others will be removed or edited and the posters may be warned.

I don't see anything there that suggests race and sexuality apply but weight doesn't. When a poster mocks Gina on the basis of her weight/appearance alone, that to me constitutes intolerance of the differences of others. My own views actually have nothing to do with it.

......

I utterly disagree on the thread title.

There is humour there & your view on this is fundamentalist IMO.

In fact not only was it funny it was apt.

Opera & soap opera.

It wasn't over till she sang FFS she rightly or wrongly got the last say through her lawyers.

I'm afraid you're wrong on this.

Yes I can understand that we shouldn't abuse people because of their weight but the application of rules to not only the thread title but what I wrote was wrong & an error of judgement on your part.

Anyway, let's not talk about the elephant in the room

[1061]

Anyway, let's not talk about the elephant in the room

Talking about taking it too far!

[David]

WPT, would you approve of a racist or antisemitic joke being used in a thread title on Nick's, no matter how mild or funny some might find it? Would you complain if it was moderated? I think I already know the answer to that one.

I'm sorry you think that obese people, among the most despised, vilified and poorly represented social groups in our society, are not deserving of the same protections as others. But you don't write the rules for this forum, and neither do I. Thankfully, the owner and long-time moderators of this site consider that your right to make jokes at oppressed groups' expense is secondary to the right of all users and visitors to feel comfortable and welcome here. I support that principle, and as moderator will continue to uphold it.

[watt price tully]

WPT, would you approve of a racist or antisemitic joke being used in a thread title on Nick's, no matter how mild or funny some might find it? Would you complain if it was moderated?

David, of course not.

However David what I posted was not fattist. It was not denigrating the person because of her weight or size. That is your error. You were being literalist and misapplied the rules of Nicks to what I posted.

However, that is the bee in your bonnet.

[watt price tully]

Anyway, let's not talk about the elephant in the room

Talking about taking it too far!

As HAL would say, I was waiting for you.

[David]

[watt price tully]

[David]

No, I would have done exactly the same if Stui or Morrigu or Swoop or anyone else had posted it. I'm not 'out to get' 1061 and I'm not using other posters to do that or any of the other rubbish you're accusing me of. If her posts warrant removal, they'll be removed with no further consequences for anyone else, just like anybody else's would be.

In this case, your thread title was inappropriate and was edited accordingly. Can we move on?