« first day (3951 days earlier)   

20:13
.
ACuriousMind has unfrozen this room.
ACuriousMind has stopped a feed from being posted into this room
hi. i dont aim to argue, i just want information to ensure i do not internalize the situation in the wrong way. from reading your response to the meta post, i understand the motivation behind the action, and i agree the motivation is fair. my question is if you believe that they way you executed the moderation was the (or a) right way to do so? @ACuriousMind
20:29
@Relativisticcucumber I certainly don't think it was wrong. Was it the best way? Probably not, though the problem with these counterfactuals is always that I can't go back and see how it would have played out with a different approach.
is your issue the fact that the question about climate change was asked in the first place or the response to allie saying smth along the lines of "say smth productive or save ur breath" (i dont remember the exact statement) @ACuriousMind
@Relativisticcucumber The way the question was asked already rubbed me the wrong way (asking for "most thorough studies" in a context where no one can be expected to even be an expert on the topic to the extent to have favourite studies) and that immediate demand for evidence/substance just confirmed that impression - as Buzz comments on meta, sealioning on this topic is a common strategy.
I've said this on similar topics in the past: You might not consider this kind of response entirely fair for a random topic, but I would ask you to consider the broader cultural context in which questions like this exists.
20:46
@ACuriousMind but am i missing some context? the convo i saw was initially one question, and as the definition says, sealioning would be incessant or relentless. i actually think the stance that allie advocated for is quite dangerous -- strikes me as someone who doesn't actually have any reason for what they believe but has heard "this is what scientists believe". is it not fair to question that in your opinion? i agree this site is a strange place to seek evidence for or against [...]
[...] climate change, and that one is probably better off just researching themselves, but i think i am so rubbed the wrong way that i feel like allie was just validated for behaving in a way that is harmful (imo) and also executed in a rather rude manner (this is not even the first time this has happened).
im not meaning to beat a dead horse just trying to mentally straighten this out
@Relativisticcucumber (There are several questions here, I'll first deal with the "context") The context is that I (and others who have been around on the 'net for a while) have seen this pattern often enough to try to stop it before the "incessant" part of the sealioning starts. On topics like this, where bad faith is so common, the assumption of good faith is simply a good deal weaker than usual.
If this had been a question about some random topic not famous for bad faith debates about it, my reaction would probably just have been to ask everyone to be more constructive. Maybe that would still have been the better action, but I think you're wrong if you try to abstract this situation away from the very specific case to some general "someone just asked a question and got kicked for not immediately agreeing with the scientific consensus" (this is what I feel this came across to you)
That phrasing of the first question is inappropriate even if the topic is not climate change, and it is particularly tripping over all sensible approaches to moderation because it is copying directly from a climate denialist playbook. The combination of the two warrants a slap on the hand.
21:01
@naturallyInconsistent i dont have or want a beef with you but can i please just discuss with ACM.
Now for the second part: There is nothing harmful in stating that one believes in the scientific consensus (just as there is inherently nothing harmful about saying that one doesn't in an abstract situation). The only action from Allie I see here that is questionable is the facepalm-emoji/"ridiculous". (But again, pointless and bad faith debates on this topic are common so I understand a somewhat frustrated reaction. Is that fair? Perhaps not.)
It seems to me you want to argue here that a position like "you should always just believe what the scientists say without checking anything for yourself" is wrong, which I would agree with, but also no one argued that (for better or worse I interrupted the conversation before it got to a point where that could have been said)
Now, for the rudeness of my action: Moderation is inherently rude. I've had this kind of conversation before, and Shog9 back then said something I still remember (and which is also why I generally try to not have to take action): Moderation is a hostile action. Removing someone from a conversation is hostile to them. Banning them from the site is hostile to them. We can sugarcoat it all we want but there is nothing nice about being on the receiving end of most moderation actions. /end
I see. Well, my two biggest qualms are 1) the statement by Allie that the belief is ridiculous. In my opinion there is no need to make these kind of statements regarding what someone believes (or doesn't believe). As I see it, all that serves to do is judge or shame someone, neither of which I perceive as productive. [...]
[...] 2) the statement "take your climate change denial elsewhere". I agree moderation is needed and I see the view that it is not a kind action, but that statement strikes me as you treating the user as if you don't even know them an explanation. It also leaves large room to misinterpret what the user is being booted for. Regardless of if the person is being problematic or not, they are still a person (at least I really hope), and I think they [...]
[...] deserve the decency of being told why they are being booted so they have the option to correct the behavior and so that we don't enter a totalitarian regime. After this situation I feel uncomfortable to discuss things in this chat because I feel people will be supported in judging or antagonizing others.
by "this chat" I mean hbar.
21:31
@Relativisticcucumber 1. It's a chat room, not a government. Phrases like "totalitarian regime" are rather inappropriate as the moderators here have no control over any aspect of your life except the part where you choose to engage with the site.
2. It was a 1 minute kick. The user had every opportunity in the world to correct their behavior, or, if they didn't understand why they were being told off, to ask for clarification. (Something as simple as "I'm not a climate change denier, what gave you that impression?" would have gone a long way)
3. Some amount of judgement or antagonization will always be there when people disagree about something. Where one draws the line to inappropriate attacks is always subjective. Like with moderation: All criticism is a hostile action. It should be constructive, sure, and calling something "ridiculous" is not constructive. Does that mean you want me to moderate every expression of disagreement that I personally do not judge objective?
Also, "take your climate denial elsewhere" is an informative and constructive reply that explains the reason for the 1 minute kick.
I just wanted to reply one thing to ACM and I won't pry further: I don't think that there was any rudeness in your actions. I wouldn't consider a police officer rude for fining somebody. Moderation does not act on a personal level, even more so in a scientific chat room: attacking ideas is not the same as attacking people, just like an officer who fines you does not (necessarily) have a grudge with you
Okay, I understand. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't internalizing the information wrong, and I got the clarification I was seeking. I respect that this is your take on the situation. I just do not wish to be a part of a community that acts this way, so I will refrain from engaging in the future.
2
@Relativisticcucumber :( sorry to hear that. I hope you will still pass by from time to time at some point. (Or do I misunderstand you?)
21:53
@Relativisticcucumber I've always enjoyed talking to you, but if this is a dealbreaker for you, then so be it. I hope do not find yourself end up in communities that are overrun with people like climate change deniers.
Good lord, seems like we got the bad ending :(
I hope and think that RC may just need some time to think. People are not always rational with these kind of decisions in the moment they take them and probably he/she had some reason in his/her past that made him/her feel uncomfortable with this kind of situations. People are complicated
let's see
Well, anyways @ACuriousMind it's probably needless to say but I hope you don't feel guilty, as it was his/her own (legitimate) choice, but I do not think your actions can be considered the cause
Probably "guilty" is not the best word, but you know what I mean, "responsible"
22:03
@HerrFeinmann Oh, they definitely are the proximate cause. But that's part of what you sign up for as a moderator. No need to feel sorry for me.
I had my fair share of conflict that goes in the wrong way online, so I can feel sorry for everyone :P
Even if I have a "side" in this
 
2 hours later…
23:41
@Relativisticcucumber I'm sad / disappointed to read all this :( I hope you come back when you feel ready. the chat was enjoyable with your contributions. I felt the same way regarding a certain newer user and the tone of the room.

« first day (3951 days earlier)