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').

[1715545974]

1715545974

[1715545974]

1715545974

[1715545974]

1715545974

[1715545974]

1715545974

[1715545974]

1715545974

[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.

[wmcleod]

It's too easy for OPs to manipulate threads to fit their own agenda when you can self-moderate.

I think disabling is a good idea.

[Flashman]

What's wrong with the OP having an agenda?

For instance, the agenda might be to disseminate official information about a product or service. Trolls say this is unfair, I want to warp the thread to my OWN agenda... start another frigging thread then, dumbass.

Also the agenda might be to sell your stuff, write a nice description with pictures and some lazy asshole comes in and says, I gots one too, I'll take 0.01 less.. fuck off and make your own sale thread!!!

On other forums, the official moderation tends to look after breeches of politeness and etiquette such as shitting all over a thread you disagree with instead of using reasoned discourse, or crapping classified threads. Here, no such service really, so leaving it to the OP if they desire it is a great idea.


Basically I think anyone complaining just wants every thread to be about THEIR agenda, i.e. selfish sociopathic assholes... and can't stand anyone NOT wanting to talk about it.

[hilariousandco]

What's wrong with the OP having an agenda?

For instance, the agenda might be to disseminate official information about a product or service. Trolls say this is unfair, I want to warp the thread to my OWN agenda... start another frigging thread then, dumbass.

It's a double edged sword for sure. The thread starter might have a few trolls who just follow him around causing trouble etc, so in this instance it may be useful.

[b!z]

What's wrong with the OP having an agenda?

For instance, the agenda might be to disseminate official information about a product or service. Trolls say this is unfair, I want to warp the thread to my OWN agenda... start another frigging thread then, dumbass.

It's a double edged sword for sure. The thread starter might have a few trolls who just follow him around causing trouble etc, so in this instance it may be useful.

Yep. It also helps to keep some sales threads tidy.

[Stunna]

Self-moderated is useful in many cases, but I think it should be disabled in certain sections if it isn't already (securities for example). Alternatively, what would work well is having an option to "view hidden posts" on self-moderated threads.

[film2240]

I say leave self moderation enabled as it is because this helps people like me be safer on this forum (if someone harasses you,not simply because they disagree with you,that's something else) since the mods don't seem to intervene enough anyway and I have every right to be safe online.

[hilariousandco]

I say leave self moderation enabled as it is because this helps people like me be safer on this forum (if someone harasses you,not simply because they disagree with you,that's something else) since the mods don't seem to intervene enough anyway and I have every right to be safe online.

Deleting posts could also have a negative effect if you later needed them to show proof of harassment or slander etc.

[babeq]

Add third option to pool "Modify self-moderation" Just add simple button to show post before edit, then all should be fine

[hieroglyph]

interesting topic I'd say just post threads warning people of self moderated threads.  This thread opened my eyes for example so I see it as a useful tool for others.  That does suck that you can't warn others in the thread.

[guybrushthreepwood]

I try to stay away from self-moderated topics because it chaps my goddamn arsehole when people delete my comments for no good reason.

[nahtnam]

I love self moderation, but keep it so that people have to contact a mod if they want to make a self moderation thread.

[PrintMule]

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

That's actually a great idea. Only defendable use of self-moderation would be to visually stop useless spam. And your idea gets job done. Hide the post with option of un-hide.

Other implementation of moderation could be downvoting, but I doubt this would work in this environment, and even more doubt that someone will be bothered enough to implement that.

[nahtnam]

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

That's actually a great idea. Only defendable use of self-moderation would be to visually stop useless spam. And your idea gets job done. Hide the post with option of un-hide.

Other implementation of moderation could be downvoting, but I doubt this would work in this environment, and even more doubt that someone will be bothered enough to implement that.

Ya, I dont think that +1, -1 wouldnt work. Otherwise it would just turn into a Q+A system.

[Stark-Fujikawa]

Self-moderation seems especially bad in the altcoin section. A new coin maker can delete all the criticism of their coin and in the worst possible case delete people warning of a virus in the code during the coin release rush.

[nahtnam]

Self-moderation seems especially bad in the altcoin section. A new coin maker can delete all the criticism of their coin and in the worst possible case delete people warning of a virus in the code during the coin release rush.

There should be some limitation on this. Probably stop websites threads from having self mod unless its for a giveaway and they have to remove spam.

[hilariousandco]

Self-moderation seems especially bad in the altcoin section. A new coin maker can delete all the criticism of their coin and in the worst possible case delete people warning of a virus in the code during the coin release rush.

Yeah, it shouldn't be allowed in forums like this for sure. On a whole I'd say self-moderation isn't a good idea and is abused more than not.

[cczarek123]

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

[nahtnam]

Self-moderation seems especially bad in the altcoin section. A new coin maker can delete all the criticism of their coin and in the worst possible case delete people warning of a virus in the code during the coin release rush.

Yeah, it shouldn't be allowed in forums like this for sure. On a whole I'd say self-moderation isn't a good idea and is abused more than not.

I see it useful in giveaway threads because it helps bots perform better.

[guybrushthreepwood]

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

Ha, yeah, as I mentioned before I usually stay away from them.

[Rampion]

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

That's actually a great idea. Only defendable use of self-moderation would be to visually stop useless spam. And your idea gets job done. Hide the post with option of un-hide.

Other implementation of moderation could be downvoting, but I doubt this would work in this environment, and even more doubt that someone will be bothered enough to implement that.

I agree. This is a great idea.

[-ck]

One could also limit the ability to post self moderated topics to posters with a high enough activity level, say 100+ to prevent new scammers from using them.

[guybrushthreepwood]

One could also limit the ability to post self moderated topics to posters with a high enough activity level, say 100+ to prevent new scammers from using them.

Good idea, but it still wont stop petty tyrants using abuse this system .