genuine question about moderation that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
genuine question about moderation that I am slightly embarrassed to ask, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion. Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says. A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording…
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague.
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
This is the principle the whole site is built on.
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
Which rule specifically, and which part of it?
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.
[deleted]
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.