Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

10

boringskip wrote

"argue whether the DPRK is good" sounds a bit creepy.

6

______deleted_ wrote

Oppose. User supports Kim Jong-un.

1

sudo wrote (edited )

This is what they're referring to. I never even mentioned Kim Jong-un.

Besides, this is a science forum - that's as close to non-political as this website can get.

4

______deleted_ wrote

I can see conflicts arising.

Combine this odd corporation-defending with authoritiarian politics and I get a little nervous.

As leftists, we need to be able to embrace science while critiquing corporate science. I don't know you from Adam so it'll be good to hear from others how you handled your other forums, specifically f/AskRaddle, which by its nature is home to strong disagreements. Have you deleted any threads from there?

2

DissidentRage wrote

Asking for burden of proof to be satisfied is not defense of corporations. Fash and a lot of liberals are fond of using misinformation to forward their goals. We should take it as a point of pride that leftist thought is so grounded in a scientific understanding of the world and its social systems. I don't believe sudo was asking for concrete information in bad faith, but I can understand why responding "[citation needed]" would rub one the wrong way, because it's definitely a cynical way of going about that.

1

sudo wrote

F7inseat linked to the Monsanto emails. I'm reading over them now - once I do, I'll make a judgement on whether or not Monsanto deliberately covered up any evidence for Roundup being carcinogenic. But besides all of that, I don't see how calling for a source is "corporation defending."

As for how I've acted as a moderator on other forums, you have this statement from /u/josefStallman. And here is the public moderation log for /f/AskRaddle - you can see that the only action I've taken since the mod logs were implemented was banning an islamophobe from the forum for making this post.. I don't specifically remember if I removed any threads before the mod logs were implemented. There was a post on /f/meta or /f/lobby asking not to completely delete posts made by reactionaries, because that would delete the good comments on them as well. I haven't removed any threads since that post.

3

BlackFlagged wrote

What would you do if someone posted a link in f/science that was negative towards Pesticides/GMOs/etc?

1

sudo wrote (edited )

Same thing I would do with anything else - leave it up if it has solid evidence backing it up. If I don't have time to review the source material, I would leave it up, unless it comes from an untrustworthy source. If it's known pseudoscience that has been thoroughly debunked, like flat earth or cold fusion nonsense, I would take it down, as I hope any good moderator of a science forum would.

5

josefStallman wrote

Support. /u/sudo has demonstrated excellent moderator skills for /f/freeasinfreedom, and their Free Software Application of the Week Program is consistently the one of the biggest draws to the forum.

2

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

Could you add a mod or two to faif that isn't an ML/M? u/boringskip and u/zombie_berkman for instance.

6

josefStallman wrote

Political orientation shouldn't be an issue for any of the forums I moderate, we have a specific rule against any political content that doesn't relate directly to free software, even if it's pro MLM.

7

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

It never makes sense to me when people say something is not political when everything is political. Politics influence bias for inclusion/exclusion of links, the framing of what are useful tools or needs, and the care about who the developer's support in their efforts. Sometimes what can seem like a non political pursuit, can have huge political ramifications.

For example, nobody thinks that exploring and understanding space is a "political" pursuit per se, but under the guise of "exploring space" you find that NASA helps create technology for war. They spend a lot of time showing liberals pretty pictures of the stars, only to turn those expensive lenses on Earth from satellites in space.

edit: I realize that while my points are valid, it really has nothing to do with what you said...I'm too tired to be responding right now...

3

josefStallman wrote

That's why I said "any political content that doesn't relate directly to free software"

2

GrimWillow wrote

Ah, yea, whoops. I apologize for that. I just reacted as if you were making this claim...and now I realize that you weren't... I just hear it too often these days....maybe it's time for me to take a break of the net for now...

1

BlackFlagged wrote

It's still good to have a diverse mod team that represents all the factions present on raddle, since it's the fastest growing sub.

1

josefStallman wrote

I don't actually have the ability to add moderators, but if somebody applies and the community supports them they will be added. However (to my knowledge), we have never had to take negative action against someone, even a spammer, so having moderators is mostly just to provide new content.

4

ziq admin wrote

This is the first time a vote has been triggered for a mod nom. We'll have to decide what formula to use to decide the vote.

1

sudo wrote (edited )

Any update on this? /f/Science still has only one (inactive) mod. If not me, then somebody else. Just don't let it be anyone who believes in pseudoscience - I know there are a few users here who do.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

2 or 3 opposes vs 1 support, so the proposal fails at the current count. The voting can stay open for another 5 days, but it doesn't look like it'll happen. Nominate someone else?

2

sudo wrote

I would've gone with the score of the post itself, which is +6, -6 (which I suppose is still a fail).

I suppose this is as good a place as any to bring this issue up. What would you do if a "tyranny of the majority" situation pops up on Raddle? Speaking hypothetically here, let's say Raddle gets mentioned on another major news website, and we get flooded with new members. After you guys finish banning all the fascists, we now have ten times the number of users we had before, and most of them are liberals. IIRC, you guys have explicitly said you won't ban liberals, unless they say something that's against the terms of service. So, radical leftists are now in the minority.

Then, let's say one of the old users (who is a radical leftist) applies to be a moderator of some neutral forum, like /f/DIY. When the time comes to vote, all the new liberals vote against them, solely because they're a radical leftist (even though /f/DIY is about as non-political as you can get). Obviously that's a shoddy reason, especially for a website built for radical leftists, but the "no" votes far outweigh the "yes" votes. Do you honor the votes of the liberals? Or, if an anarchist applied to be a mod of /f/Anarchism, but liberals vote against them, should the liberal votes count then?

I don't know about you, but I would not honor either of those reasons. For the first one, political ideology doesn't matter much if the subforum isn't political in nature (politics always finds its way into everything, so there's no truly "non-political" forum, just ones that are more or less political). If I had to choose between a capitalist mod who is competent at moderating forums, or a communist mod who is incompetent, I would go with the competent one, as long as the forum is non-political. And especially for the second one, liberals should not have a say in who moderates /f/Anarchism.

You probably see where I'm going with this. I believe a similar scenario is happening here. For one, half of the "oppose" votes were only due to my political views (and to be clear, I don't support Kim Jong-Un - cults of personality are bad. But I do support the people of the DPRK in their struggle against US imperialism), views which are hardly relevant to /f/Science, a mostly non-political forum. The rest oppose me because I argued against conspiracy theories. To be frank, I think several people on here are really misinformed when it comes to science, and I'm not just talking about GMOs. I remember seeing some posts on /f/Science about free energy and "electric universe" BS, and a few links to conspiracy theory websites in other forums. Just like how liberals shouldn't have a say in how /f/Anarchism is run, people who believe in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories shouldn't have a say in how /f/Science is run. Now, I don't know if the people who voted against me believe in pseudoscience or not, since I don't remember who submitted the links to the aforementioned pseudoscientific articles, but one of the reasons given for why I shouldn't be a mod was because I was arguing against a conspiracy theory about Monsanto.

Now, if there is someone else who wants to be a mod of /f/Science whose political views don't offend anyone, great. But it needs to be someone who will remove conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Sorry for late reply. You should make this a self post so you get more responders.

Each forum can set its own rules, so if liberals start infiltrating deliberately radical spaces like f/socialism, the community can enact rules to exclude them. Admins won't ban liberals site-wide, but we encourage the mods of each forum to take measures to protect their communities from trolls.

If the forum in question is one of the 'featured forums', admins keep a closer eye on the mod team. So certain rules/actions might be called into question if they're seen to exclude other radical leftists or otherwise damage the site's reputation.

As for your theoretical f/DIY scenario, it's not a political forum, so I'm fine with letting its community decide who they want as a mod. Admins wouldn't ignore the will of the community to install a mod just because the mod is a leftist. Those protections (not letting liberals vote) should only apply to political forums.

I encourage the mods of political forums to create a rules Wiki that states 'liberals / etc don't get a vote'. But I wouldn't be okay with that rule being applied on non-political forums.

I think the reason most people are opposing your nomination is because you've made statements that make them think you'll censor too broadly. I doubt anyone would care if e.g. u/ShiningWing were modded on f/science, and she's an ML too. Or u/emma, who's a Marxist. You didn't handle the PR very well here tbh.


This is just my personal opinion, but I think a person's politics can also influence their moderating style. If you think the North Korean regime is good - it's natural that people will expect 'authoritarian' moderation policies from you, and respond with scepticism.

2

Mullvaden wrote

I can't present proof of Elon Musk being an asshole, I just know he is :) Would such a statement be left up? Ok, I might be able to duckduckgo up some anti-worker stuff on him but it's tedious to do every time.

2

sudo wrote

I was really referring to posts - you'd be fine if you left that as a comment. If you posted that in /f/science, then I'd say something like, "I agree with you, but this fits better in /f/EatTheRich. Please post it there instead."