Davis Square Area Presidential Poll

[cemeterygates.livejournal.com]

The moderator has approved this poll. Please confine discussion of the primary to the comments of this post, and note that individual votes are private unless you chose to comment openly. Thank you!

[Poll #1118346]

Comments

[ellf.livejournal.com]

"As I've stated elsewhere, there is a minority who agree with the contention that inconsistent application of this community rule based on who's talking the loudest is a-ok."

You've stated that previously, but it remains a mis-statement. The community has hummed along nicely, and then some posts came that a few people weren't interested in. As a result, those few people are clamoring for a significant change to how the community is managed, vis a vis a more stringent application of the first community rule.

I'm with you, believe it or not, on wanting a "sane space". I think we're defining "sane" differently.

I like this community as it is. As with most things I like, I am skeptical about efforts to change it, especially when the change is being couched in doom-and-gloom language about what will happen if it's left alone. I don't believe the current moderators are about to start posting about national political issues, or (as you suggested elsewhere) that the community is about to become swamped by posts about everyone's parking tickets.

If I'm wrong, or if a sizeable majority of this community DO feel that the moderators are falling down on the job, then things should be changed. However, I believe that you have a personal issue with the moderator(s) who deleted one of your posts, and are using that as fuel for a smokescreen argument about "applying the community rules" and the supposedly inconsistent moderation that is occurring.

Finally, I am OK with Ron deleting other posts about the primary, and pointing the posters to this thread, since he has said that this is considered an "one-time experiment in seeing whether something like Blue Mass. Group's "Open Thread" can work here." If the circumstances around his moderation change as dramatically as you are suggesting, then a different response will be in order.

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

[komos.livejournal.com]

You would be incorrect in assuming that I am advocating a "major change." To the contrary, the idea that a post should be deleted based on the level of complaint it receives or if some discussion that develops at some point deep in the 50+ comments eventually ties it to the locality as opposed to whether it meets a "What does this have to do with DS?" measure appears to represent a pretty radical departure from the approach that had been used previously.

As to whether any sort of consistency has been shown in application of community rules? In the past couple of months, we've gone from:

The deletion of an event spam (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_meta/4117.html) because "did not contain any information suggesting that it was relevant to Davis Square."

To I agree that this doesn't really belong, but I'll wait for another mod to back me... but wait, there are enough people complaining now so I'll delete it (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_meta/4694.html).

Back to something "too far away from Davis Square to be considered local and relevant here (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_meta/5490.html)."

And then another clear enforcement of comm rules as written (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_meta/5931.html).

And another (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_meta/6790.html).

And another (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_meta/7642.html).

And then, the "HALP! Aren't I 20 feet from the curb?" post gets left up, as does a multi-community spam that provides incorrect information concerning winter car care. I have a topical post deleted solely because Ron assumed trolling, yet a clear troll concerning the sexual orientation of the staff Diesel (which arguably violates another core comm rule) is left up.

Sane, huh?

Yes, I brought up the bugaboo of my deleted post... Not because I have any sort of rage-on for Ron, but because it's relevant if we're going to look at a larger picture of what has been happening with moderation. Your attempt to characterize this as some sort of personal vendetta does not change the fact that moderation and deletion have been applied selectively over the past couple of months. If you are able to point to a consistent line of thought behind these actions, I will happily applaud you. A quick review shows approaches ranging from direct appeal to community rules, mob opinion, moderator fiat, and benign neglect. You appear to be insisting that that's just cool. I'm going to disagree. Sorry.

[komos.livejournal.com]

And just to clarify, "a different response will be in order," means that you are in favor of deleting off-topic posts in the event that they become unwieldy, correct?