Moderation philosophy posts started out as an exercise by myself to put down some of my thoughts on running communities that I'd learned over the years. As they continued I started to more heavily involve the other admins in the writing and brainstorming. This most recent post involved a lot of moderator voices as well, which is super exciting! This is a community, and we want the voices at all levels to represent the community and how it's run.

This is probably the first of several posts on moderation philosophy, how we make decisions, and an exercise to bring additional transparency to how we operate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] douglasg14b@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Considering that one of those is about executing someone with an internationally recognized mental illness that is out of their control. For a thought crime.

Probably not.

Objectively, no "sympathizing" happening here, factual discussion can't happen when one party assumes the other is arguing in bad faith and uses that as a premeditated weapon to push the argument in their direction.

You make a good example as to why such content should be discouraged. Because most people will be ignorant of the real-world details, and instead follow the crowd on social media opinions and misinformation. Thus, leading to nonsensical statement such as that, where the thing they think they are talking about is entirely different than the actual thing they are talking about.