Petition: disable 'self-moderation'

[mishra]

Please disable 'self-moderation'.  Legitimate debate does not need to silence dissent.  And this is exactly what its being used for, people trying to control perceptions of something.  And it has a chilling effect - why bother to type out a post if you know there is a chance your reply will be deleted.  And why clutter up the site posting a competing thread if the topic is only marginally important to you (and a competing thread doesn't address the problem of the original poster controlling perception for people that only saw their thread).

And if you look at what its used for: I see only people disparaging bitcoin with lies while deleting rebuttals, and some highly questionable services trying to maintain a positive image (I can't find the thread again, but a guy was offering bounties for links to forums using particular old versions of some software and the thread was 'self-moderated').

[jackjack]

Leave the self-moderation but don't delete the deleted posts completely (make them like the ones from ignored people)

[ReCat]

Please disable 'self-moderation'.  Legitimate debate does not need to silence dissent.  And this is exactly what its being used for, people trying to control perceptions of something.  And it has a chilling effect - why bother to type out a post if you know there is a chance your reply will be deleted.  And why clutter up the site posting a competing thread if the topic is only marginally important to you (and a competing thread doesn't address the problem of the original poster controlling perception for people that only saw their thread).

And if you look at what its used for: I see only people disparaging bitcoin with lies while deleting rebuttals, and some highly questionable services trying to maintain a positive image (I can't find the thread again, but a guy was offering bounties for links to forums using particular old versions of some software and the thread was 'self-moderated').

Forget about it.

If you don't want to be moderated, then don't post in that thread in create your own.

Problem solved.

[dogie]

Please disable 'self-moderation'.  Legitimate debate does not need to silence dissent.  And this is exactly what its being used for, people trying to control perceptions of something.  And it has a chilling effect - why bother to type out a post if you know there is a chance your reply will be deleted.  And why clutter up the site posting a competing thread if the topic is only marginally important to you (and a competing thread doesn't address the problem of the original poster controlling perception for people that only saw their thread).

And if you look at what its used for: I see only people disparaging bitcoin with lies while deleting rebuttals, and some highly questionable services trying to maintain a positive image (I can't find the thread again, but a guy was offering bounties for links to forums using particular old versions of some software and the thread was 'self-moderated').

Forget about it.

If you don't want to be moderated, then don't post in that thread in create your own.

Problem solved.

Its not that simple in many cases.

Take the exam of 'XYZ mining' a ficticious mining company that rocks up pretending to have stock. We may find out information that categorically labels it as a 99% scam, but it gets deleted. A newbie rolls in and falls for it because they don't see anyone saying otherwise.

Its dangerous.

[sevenVII]

Personally, I think a lot of newbies need to realize they have to take everything here with a grain of salt. Instead of maybe limiting newbies to the amount of posts they make, perhaps have them go through a tutorial that requires them understand the risks that are out there?

[Lethn]

No, leave it, self-moderation lets me know the people you should never have a debate with in advance!

[beetcoin]

No, leave it, self-moderation lets me know the people you should never have a debate with in advance!

how though? especially if you're not around when there is a deletion. only way is the person whose post that is deleted opens up another one to complain, which i've seen a few times.. but what about the other times when it goes unnoticed?


in the end, though, it doesn't really matter that much to me.

[jackjack]

No, leave it, self-moderation lets me know the people you should never have a debate with in advance!

how though? especially if you're not around when there is a deletion. only way is the person whose post that is deleted opens up another one to complain, which i've seen a few times.. but what about the other times when it goes unnoticed?


in the end, though, it doesn't really matter that much to me.

Solved:

Leave the self-moderation but don't delete the deleted posts completely (make them like the ones from ignored people)

[SaltySpitoon]

I talked to Mike Christ about this a while ago, and we came to the conclusion that Self Moderation is a handy tool in certain sections, however in sections like Politics and Society, having self moderated threads kind of gets rid of the point of being able to speak whats on your mind.

So mayhaps remove Self Moderation from certain sections where its detrimental and has little to no use, and leave it in places where it is useful.

[hilariousandco]

Forget about it.

If you don't want to be moderated, then don't post in that thread in create your own.

Problem solved.

I suppose this is the first rule, but free speech shouldn't be stifled in most cases. Self-moderation is a double-edge sword. I don't think it should be allowed in some sections like the politics section, but for others I guess that's up to them. But like dogie said, it can be handy for scammers. If you're a scammer, you can delete the negative feedback or when people express doubts. Obviously this will immediately become a red flag to most, but not always.

It really annoys me when moderators on websites delete posts or even ban your accounts etc just because you've said something they don't like. It's pathetic.

I asked what the source for Max Keiser's coins was in rpietila's Bitcoin TOP-500 Richest thread, and he deleted my post without warning. When I questioned him he gave me this response:

What did you delete my post for?

Double-post. You have posted the same thing already, and nobody has answered. Also the original will soon be deleted, because it is useless to have a question which is not answered.

That is absolutely ridiculous logic. What's the meaning of life? Oh, it hasn't been answered so far so it's a useless question and must be repressed and removed.

Fine to delete a double post, but why delete a valid question that people are still looking for an answer to? I haven't seen any sources for Keiser's coins or many of the others on the list, so without sources this list is useless, not my comment looking for some facts. I'll never get an answer if you remove it.

He then removed both my posts asking for sources on Keiser's coins. Completely bizarre.

[ReCat]

Please disable 'self-moderation'.  Legitimate debate does not need to silence dissent.  And this is exactly what its being used for, people trying to control perceptions of something.  And it has a chilling effect - why bother to type out a post if you know there is a chance your reply will be deleted.  And why clutter up the site posting a competing thread if the topic is only marginally important to you (and a competing thread doesn't address the problem of the original poster controlling perception for people that only saw their thread).

And if you look at what its used for: I see only people disparaging bitcoin with lies while deleting rebuttals, and some highly questionable services trying to maintain a positive image (I can't find the thread again, but a guy was offering bounties for links to forums using particular old versions of some software and the thread was 'self-moderated').

Forget about it.

If you don't want to be moderated, then don't post in that thread in create your own.

Problem solved.

Its not that simple in many cases.

Take the exam of 'XYZ mining' a ficticious mining company that rocks up pretending to have stock. We may find out information that categorically labels it as a 99% scam, but it gets deleted. A newbie rolls in and falls for it because they don't see anyone saying otherwise.

Its dangerous.

People create threads saying they are a scam. Problem solved.

If newbies still get scammed then they're idiots for not investigating first. Natural selection takes place.

[whiskers75]

Leave the self-moderation but don't delete the deleted posts completely (make them like the ones from ignored people)

This. This 100 times over.

[TiagoTiago]

So basically, nerf the self-moderation functionality so that it will only appear to be present? Why not just remove it and rename the "Ignore" link to "Delete"?

[whiskers75]

So basically, nerf the self-moderation functionality so that it will only appear to be present? Why not just remove it and rename the "Ignore" link to "Delete"?

Well, add a notice that a post has been deleted, and link to it.

[hilariousandco]

Please disable 'self-moderation'.  Legitimate debate does not need to silence dissent.  And this is exactly what its being used for, people trying to control perceptions of something.  And it has a chilling effect - why bother to type out a post if you know there is a chance your reply will be deleted.  And why clutter up the site posting a competing thread if the topic is only marginally important to you (and a competing thread doesn't address the problem of the original poster controlling perception for people that only saw their thread).

And if you look at what its used for: I see only people disparaging bitcoin with lies while deleting rebuttals, and some highly questionable services trying to maintain a positive image (I can't find the thread again, but a guy was offering bounties for links to forums using particular old versions of some software and the thread was 'self-moderated').

Forget about it.

If you don't want to be moderated, then don't post in that thread in create your own.

Problem solved.

Its not that simple in many cases.

Take the exam of 'XYZ mining' a ficticious mining company that rocks up pretending to have stock. We may find out information that categorically labels it as a 99% scam, but it gets deleted. A newbie rolls in and falls for it because they don't see anyone saying otherwise.

Its dangerous.

People create threads saying they are a scam. Problem solved.

If newbies still get scammed then they're idiots for not investigating first. Natural selection takes place.

I agree with this to a certain extent, but it's not always as easy and as simple as that, especially if the thread is buried or whatnot. And most newbs by definition are quite naive and are just looking to get some coins quick and easy, so this can lead to problems, but yeah, they should be weary of everyone and everything to minimise fuckups..

[DeboraMeeks]

I too don't like censorship but sometimes moderated threads are of good use -in case of trolls posting meaningless stuff or out-of-topic is contests or similar and the moderators can't maintain every thread on this large forum.

[yogi]

How are you supposed to warn people about potential scams if your post gets moderated?

[Lucky Cris]

How are you supposed to warn people about potential scams if your post gets moderated?

Exactly. Deleting posts can be perceived as deception - got something to hide eh? If the option is left as is... can that be perceived as fostering/encouraging that who have something to hide?

[HeroC]

How are you supposed to warn people about potential scams if your post gets moderated?

Make another thread, and click the 'Report to Moderator' button.

[yogi]

How are you supposed to warn people about potential scams if your post gets moderated?

Make another thread, and click the 'Report to Moderator' button.

The likelihood of a potential victim seeing the other thread is small as this is a very active forum. A moderator will only act after some one has been scammed, or if the scam is so obvious that you wouldn't need to warn people about it anyway.