Should the mods delete threads that are considered irrelevant for /r/anarchism?

dbzer0 · 2012-05-25T11:02:21.029995-07:00

Not in reddit, where the community has already the power to decide if something is relevant or not.

dbzer0 · 2012-05-25T14:07:48.835832+00:00

The problem is that when you give free reign to the mods to decide what is and isn't irrelevant, you'll undoubtedly get them remocing threads that many do not feel are irrelevant. This has already happened.

The second problem is that we accepted mods using mod actions to combat oppression in /r/@, and now we've reached the point that they're grabbed so much power, that they've become the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant to anarchism. Every few months, someone will ask or demand for more mod power that has nothing to do with combating oppression. And apparently other mods find nothing wrong with that, as long as they promise never to abuse it. Pah!

ipsumdolorsitamet · 1 day

Thanks for the info.

dbzer0 · 1 day

General maintenance and clean up is necessary for any forum. Thats a mods responsibility.

No. We have downvotes as well. This is not general maintenance because it's not been decided that such maintenance is required. What this truly is, is once again removing agency from the larger community because so many people consider that subscribers of /r/anarchism are too stupid or immature to know what they're voting on.

Do post spongebob episodes every day if you wish. You'll get downvoted and soon hit the spamming filter.

dbzer0 · 1 day

I'm picking what I noticed. Bad decisions don't become less so just because very few people care. We've already seen that /r/anarchism mods are all too eager to slide down the slippery slope, so I prefer to nip it in the bud.

dbzer0 · 1 day

If moderator power should only be used when a mandate is given by a democratic community decision, there shouldn't even be mods to begin with.

Not true. Mods are still the only ones who can do some tasks.

If we implement the system you suggest I'd be worried about the standard problems with a direct democracy situation: populist overruling of minority issues, content gradually moving more towards mass gratification than quality content, etc.

We've found ways to deal with the tyranny of the majority issue and I prefer the chance that the "plebs" might not be perfect enough, than risk an intellectual elite forming an oligarchy of a good ol' boys club.

EDIT: Also by your own ideas you should agree with us, since there are more posts for removing irrelevant content and they have more upvotes. Just saying.

I'm asking for community input. Raw majoritarianism does nobody any good.

dbzer0 · 1 day

Downvoting has the same effect as removing the posts. Functionally there's no difference. And the analogy is not accurate because the trashmen don't decide willy-nilly what is garbage and remove it without getting the OK first from those who might be using it.

Theirs is nothing wrong with removing irrelevant items, but there's everything wrong with not allowing people to moderate themselves from the bottom up.

dbzer0 · 1 day

It. Just. Doesn't. Work.

Then convince the community that there is a problem and to give you a mandate to do so. Don't just do it regardless. You're not smarter than the rest of us.

dbzer0 · 1 day

Are you saying you think r/@ should be a no-holds-barred shit show of random trolls and bullshit that has no bearing on the anarchist community? I think thats dumb.

That implies that if the mods do not step in, the community is incapable of moderating itself via the votes. That is far from true. So no, sorry, you don't get point. I'm just not sure if this is deliberate or accidental obtusity.

Plus, the point of our mod system is to make all active users into mods all with the same "powers".

Not all active user become or want to become mods. To ignore the fact is delusional. There's 50 mods and 20k subscribers. Do the friggin math.

dbzer0 · 1 day

We're not talking about spam. Stop being disingenuous.

dbzer0 · 2 days

I dont get it. This is an anarchist community, so we try to eliminate irrelevant crap.

And we do that from the bottom-up. By downvoting irrelevant crap. I.e. the stuff that is organically declared as irrelevant, not the stuff that some mod oligarchy decides is irrelevant.

Can you explain how you disagree?

Because you missed the point. This post is not questioning whether we should allow irrelevant stuff, but how we should be dealing with them.

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

temper temper.

Sometimes I wonder why the reddit hivemind gets upset at shit like that.

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

Actually, it wasn't very clear at all to me, which is why I posted.

StudentAtlasEdition5 · 2 days

Talk about misaligned priorities...

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

I'm not really arguing here.

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

So? This is not Guild Wars.

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

Yes, but as I said, I've never heard of 55 monk being generic game jargon. It's far too specific to be self-explanatory.

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

It's how build is called.

That's far from a standard unless someone was playing Guild Wars. I'm playing quite a lot of games and this is the first time I heard of it.

It's like cantrip in some card games. It's originally from magic but we'll call it that anyway even if there are no spells/curses.

That's far from a standard in CCGs either. I've never seen anyone use this word actually in any of the dozen CCGs I play.

dbzer0 · 2 days

Yes.

Sorry, but "yes" what?

I think that creates hierarchy: mods should be members of this digital community who can afford the time to moderate the sub.

Given that we are a mod hierarchy, as unfortunate as that is, we can't pretend that we're equal in subreddit power to the non-mods, when we clearly have more power than them to decide what is appropriate or not in the sub. If we want to act as equals, we need to use the same tools they use. Votes. Moderator power should only be used when a mandate is given by a democratic community decision.

Most non-mods absolutely have very little voice in the sub. Not only because there's very little effort extended to make people part of the decision making (i.e. making decision in the modchat, not advertising metanarchism aggresively enough and how it impacts everyone, taking unilateral actions and not telling anyone about it, thus forcing the discovery to individual users etc) but because even when many disagree with a decision, there's very little chance that they'll get their way if someone in mod hierarchy opposes them and decides to just continue acting unilateraly.

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

But calling it "55 monk" when there is also a monk class in D3, with its own invuln tactics, makes things confusing. Why not call it "55 Wizard"?

ipsumdolorsitamet · 2 days

the 55 monk is basically how that dude soloed Inferno as a Wizard

wat.

TooSexy · 2 days

When something is more fun than something else, then it is a compelling argument. That's how it works. Your analogy is weak, because you conflate "fun" with "pain" which is nonsensical.

Three-Year Club	reddit mold
Charter Member	Verified Email

dbzer0

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login