Are the moderators here over-moderating?

[major_merrick]

@Paul I have asked questions in the last couple of months regarding moderation on this forum.  I have yet to receive a response, from you or the mods regarding my messages, so I’ll put it here. 

1.  Moderation seems excessively active and picky this year.  Why not back off a bit?

2.  Mods are now anonymous.  I don't know if this is a result of the site update, or what's going on.  Knowing who's who would be helpful.

3.  Can't even see what post triggered an infraction.  Just a comment from an anonymous mod.  Not helpful.

4.  Seems like every issue now triggers moderation of all posts for 24 hrs, 48 hrs, or longer.  Is that intentional?  If so, seems like you're spending a lot of your time on that.  And some posts just "disappear" into the gaps in the site.  Like the last TWO I wrote into this thread.

5.  As others have mentioned, with auto moderation the discussion stalls. 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

On 11/28/2020 at 12:35 PM, major_merrick said:

@Paul I have asked questions in the last couple of months regarding moderation on this forum.  I have yet to receive a response, from you or the mods regarding my messages, so I’ll put it here. 

1.  Moderation seems excessively active and picky this year.  Why not back off a bit?

2.  Mods are now anonymous.  I don't know if this is a result of the site update, or what's going on.  Knowing who's who would be helpful.

3.  Can't even see what post triggered an infraction.  Just a comment from an anonymous mod.  Not helpful.

4.  Seems like every issue now triggers moderation of all posts for 24 hrs, 48 hrs, or longer.  Is that intentional?  If so, seems like you're spending a lot of your time on that.  And some posts just "disappear" into the gaps in the site.  Like the last TWO I wrote into this thread.

5.  As others have mentioned, with auto moderation the discussion stalls. 

 

The moderation on this site has always been completely asinine.

And one wonders why what used to be hundreds and hundreds of posts a day has dwindled down to this... even when so many are stuck at home with fewer alternatives.

 

Mods are "anonymous"....  that's brilliant.  

 

[Retracted political viewpoints]

 

The clueless people who have moderated this website over time cannot seem to drum it through their heads that when somebody lands here with some real-life story in which they are way out of bounds, they need to hear as much...  often times bluntly, because it won't register via any other means.

 

[Retracted political viewpoints]

 

Moderation on this website should be limited to getting rid of spam and little else, particularly in this age of [retracted political viewpoints].

 

(what's the risk otherwise?    Murder?    Rape?     avoidable death???    ----   just what is this absurd moderation gaining for everyone else other than moderators arbitrarily introducing  their opinions into the "free-flowing discussions"  which are said to be a goal here? )

 

End the stupidity already!

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Retracted political viewpoints in a non-political forum

[dangerous]

I agree, there should be less moderating. The only things to be banned should be personal rudeness/ abuse and spam. Disagreeing with someone or even the majority needs to be allowed. But then again, this is the sign of the times: just look at the mainstream media & govt propaganda on [retracted political viewpoints]. I think and hope we will learn of the misinformation and corruption in time, and the perpetrators will be accountable.

Now, is my comment here inflammatory? I am not sure I feel as though I could have said this in the [retracted other section of the web site in which these comments would have been completely off-topic] section? 

And yes, i also noticed that this forum used to be so much more active than recently, and a more diverse audience than the regulars - is it due to the censorship/ moderation?

Edited November 29, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Retracted political viewpoints in a non-political forum

[dangerous]

PS: I do find it frustrating when a thread is closed due to moderation and no explanation, or offer of appeal.

[Ruby_Red]

 

I think the site was down for a good while, and many of the “old” posters, who formed a well-balanced body of different opinions and voices, never returned. After that, the variety of opinions diminished. I noticed that especially in the political forums, where - on top of a quite one-sided group of posters - certain contributions have been more favored than others. This is definitely due to moderation, and while moderators are supposed to operate “anonymously”, they have been easy to spot. It would probably be better to have moderators who don’t post at all (just weed out unacceptable posts), but I understand that this would reduce the amount of active members even more. At the same time, having moderators who are biased will not help attract new active members, either. So I understand it’s a difficult choice to make. 

 

 

[gaius]

I honestly haven't witnessed a whole lot of moderation based on particular political views. If it's happening I missed it. The big thing now seems to be anything that can be interpreted as disrespectful in any way shape or form is being targeted for deletion and harsh punishment.

I had another member PM me because their response to me got deleted and they received a harsh punishment for it, but I read what they said and they didn't personally insult me and I wasn't offended in the least. I certainly didn't report them for it. But now it's bred a lot of animosity apparently.

I have found myself posting less because I feel I have to go over my posts 5 extra times just to make sure nothing I said can be interpreted as disrespectful in any way, which is a lot of extra work and hoops to jump through when you're just trying to spit out an opinion. I don't think most posters really care if someone comes off as a little blunt or has a whiff of sarcasm or snark but it will get you in trouble anyway.

[Paul]

Hi all,

Thanks for your feedback. Sorry we missed your message, @major_merrick.

On 11/28/2020 at 12:35 PM, major_merrick said:

Moderation seems excessively active and picky this year.  Why not back off a bit?

If you have some specific examples you'd like to discuss, please contact us privately. Generally speaking, people that have found themselves moderated have been nasty to each other, have surrounded themselves with highly polarized ideologies and can't handle that someone has a differing viewpoint than themselves, live in an alternate reality where science doesn't exist and spreading dangerous disinformation is okay, or enjoy imagining a world where the only truth that exists is the one in which you personally experience. I apologize and take full responsibility for my part in setting the standard that we're not the place to welcome any of that.

On 11/28/2020 at 12:35 PM, major_merrick said:

Mods are now anonymous.

This was an intentional decision, as people who did the things I outlined above followed it up with Moderator X is biased against me when being reminded that this not the place to welcome any of the items listed above.

On 11/28/2020 at 12:35 PM, major_merrick said:

Can't even see what post triggered an infraction.  Just a comment from an anonymous mod.  Not helpful.

We'll work on doing a better job detailing what the issue was, as yes, it's not always clear what post is referenced if the post has been removed. Our bad. My guess, though, is it's one of the things outlined above. We've got a full list here: Community Guidelines

On 11/28/2020 at 12:35 PM, major_merrick said:

Seems like every issue now triggers moderation of all posts for 24 hrs, 48 hrs, or longer.  Is that intentional?  If so, seems like you're spending a lot of your time on that.  And some posts just "disappear" into the gaps in the site.  Like the last TWO I wrote into this thread.

We're actively discussing how to improve the implementation of things like requiring a moderator's approval before a post appears. Some of the things you're describing are triggered automatically, and that's part of what we're looking at revising.

On 11/28/2020 at 12:35 PM, major_merrick said:

As others have mentioned, with auto moderation the discussion stalls. 

We've been working on bringing new moderators up to speed and continue looking for those who would like to volunteer here with us in that capacity. We're all volunteers here and approve posts as we are able to. We apologize for the delay. Please reach out if you're interested.

Best,
Paul

[Paul]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:32 PM, SincereOnlineGuy said:

The clueless people who have moderated this website over time cannot seem to drum it through their heads that when somebody lands here with some real-life story in which they are way out of bounds, they need to hear as much...  often times bluntly, because it won't register via any other means.

It's not nice to call people names, like "clueless." It violates our Community Guidelines regarding civility and respect. All of us volunteer our time here and share a common goal of cultivating a community where individuals are able to grow and learn from each other in an environment free from such hostility.

It is also not nice to drum your idea into someone else's head, and to do so bluntly. It is not how we engage with others here. This is not a place to preach. This is not a place where your idea is the only correct idea. Places where this is okay exist elsewhere in the world; just not here.

[Paul]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:32 PM, SincereOnlineGuy said:

[Retracted political viewpoints]

 

20 hours ago, dangerous said:

[retracted political viewpoints] ... [retracted other section of the web site in which these comments would have been completely off-topic]

 

 

6 hours ago, Ruby_Red said:

I noticed that especially in the political forums, where - on top of a quite one-sided group of posters - certain contributions have been more favored than others.

@Ruby_Red, I recently addressed this notion with you here: 

 

[Happy Lemming]

If you tell a personal story related to the original posters topic and how it turned out, you get put on punishment for 3 days.

When you share a personal experience, sometimes the outcome may give the original poster some direction or even "food for thought". (ie... this is how I handled it or this is how a friend handled a similar situation, etc.)

Similar to @gaius, I've been re-reading all of my posts multiple times to make sure there isn't any little item that might upset the moderators.

Do you just want us to "parrot" everyone else and tell people what they want to hear or do you want differing opinions and points of view??  Possible solutions??

And @Paul I never received any answer from my PM.  So, I'll ask my question here... Why is it necessary to punish any posters and put them on restriction/moderation??  We are not petulant children that need to sit in the corner.  If a post actually violates some rule, just delete it and move on.

[Paul]

31 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Do you just want us to "parrot" everyone else and tell people what they want to hear or do you want differing opinions and points of view??  Possible solutions??

Absolutely not. Differing opinions and points of views about the subject of the thread are why we're here.

We want folks to stay on-topic, and respect that the person who started the thread asked for insight and input on whatever they brought to the table. It can often be interesting to share an aside, yet when it becomes tangential, it often results in competing dialogues that make it difficult to keep the original poster's topic in focus. If you find yourself in that position, start a new thread, link to the one that inspired your thoughts if you'd like, and share there. Others can then talk about your ideas in the context of that thread.

36 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

And @Paul I never received any answer from my PM.  So, I'll ask my question here... Why is it necessary to punish any posters and put them on restriction/moderation??  We are not petulant children that need to sit in the corner.  If a post actually violates some rule, just delete it and move on.

It's best if you reach out to moderators via Contact Us rather than via PM. It makes sure we don't miss your messages as all of the moderators are able to see and reply.

We are working to improve the application of automated restrictions. Unfortunately, it's taking a bit of time, but our intention is that one should never be restricted from posting, or have their posts approved in advance unless that person is willfully or blatantly disregarding our guidelines. These should be measures of last resort.

Unfortunately, the way this worked on our previous platform came over a bit wonky, and we're working to correct it.

[major_merrick]

2 hours ago, Paul said:

 live in an alternate reality where science doesn't exist and spreading dangerous disinformation is okay

 

This was an intentional decision, as people who did the things I outlined above followed it up with Moderator X is biased against me when being reminded that this not the place to welcome any of the items listed above.

I find it interesting that the mods consider themselves to be the exclusive determiners of what is true and what is not, and they appear to silence whatever doesn't meet their standards.  While you may disagree, I find that it is the antithesis of free discussion. 

I find it absolutely unacceptable and creepy that moderators are anonymous.   A moderator (like any other human being) is capable of being biased - and sometimes completely wrong.  I'd like to know who is who, and to be able to address it if I see the same person out to get me over and over again.  In effect, by making mods anonymous you have created a "secret police."  Perhaps secret enforcement is acceptable in some cultures, but for some of us it brings back ancestral memories of significant unpleasantness.   While this may sound political, I believe it is a life principle that transcends nation and party.  People typically flee from hostility and authoritarianism, and censorship has a chilling effect on discussion.  Compared to other forums I'm on, it is this forum alone where it feels like I'm frequently having to deal with moderation....and over pretty minor stuff. 

For a while, it was possible to message the mods and discuss infractions, modify statements, and clarify what was meant in a post.  Not everybody writes or understands in the same way.  Why don't we do this anymore?  Too much work?  Too much negative feedback?  If you want things to be taken as a "friendly reminder" then doesn't it make sense to do things in a friendly and cooperative way?  Because right now, it feels anything but friendly. 

I understand that you've still got some bugs to work out in your system.  I respect your private property and your guidelines, so I only posted publicly because after over a month, I was getting nowhere, either in "Contact Us" or in PM.  At least I finally got a response.  I would offer the opinion that in 2020 there has been a fundamental change in the tone of moderation on this forum, and it is not for the better.  Hopefully since the election is past, we might be able to return to the way things were before.

 

[Paul]

31 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

I find it interesting that the mods consider themselves to be the exclusive determiners of what is true and what is not, and they appear to silence whatever doesn't meet their standards.  While you may disagree, I find that it is the antithesis of free discussion. 

This is a community with a special purpose and with expectations, standards, and guidelines for participation and discussion. This is not a venue for free, unfettered speech. That said, I don't think it's accurate to say that we make decisions on what is accurate and what is not.

Moderators determine whether or not a participant, making a claim or statement of objective fact, have provided an appropriate reference to a source of repute (widely acknowledged by professionals in the corresponding field of study as authoritative). If you'd like to state something other than your personal opinion here, we ask that you link to such a source to help educate others.

If you'd like to discuss why those professionals are wrong, or whether or not established sources are legitimate, those are conversations that are beyond the scope of a relationship community and are topics to discuss elsewhere. On-topic discourse here will be most appropriately referenced in peer-reviewed scientific literature, published in various academic psychological and sociological journals. Information about current events will be most appropriately referenced by well-established journalistic outlets.

31 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

I find it absolutely unacceptable and creepy that moderators are anonymous.

I appreciate your feedback. We have tried making the identity of moderators publicly known and have made moderators anonymous over the past. It is clear to us that anonymity works best here.

31 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

Compared to other forums I'm on, it is this forum alone where it feels like I'm frequently having to deal with moderation....and over pretty minor stuff. 

We recognize that the expectations here are notably different than other venues and platforms. This is by design. We're always looking at how we can improve.

31 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

For a while, it was possible to message the mods and discuss infractions, modify statements, and clarify what was meant in a post.  Not everybody writes or understands in the same way.  Why don't we do this anymore?  Too much work?  Too much negative feedback?

There's a link in the menu at the top and bottom of every page where you can contact us. We ask that you do it via this mechanism and not via private message. We will work to make this clearer.

38 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

Hopefully since the election is past, we might be able to return to the way things were before.

I believe that the majority of these perspectives surround political discourse here. This is not a place that we created to have political discourse, is off-topic for the community, and is something we've been actively discussing for a while. Please see:

 

[Libby1]

I think it's far better than it was a few years ago, when questioning moderators' decisions - however politely - would result in an instant perma-ban.   For a while, some years back, you were only allowed to discuss the President on one particular thread - and on that thread, discussion was restricted to presidential decisions.  If you criticised the US president on that thread, it was deemed to be off topic, but if you opened another thread to voice your criticism it would be deleted on the basis that there was already a thread to discuss the President.  And I think before that, there was a period of time where posters couldn't open a new thread if there was an existing thread that dealt with a similar topic.  So there'd be something like "the Porn Thread" which would run on for hundreds of pages.  It was a bit of a discussion killer, because a lot of people will look at a humongously long thread and just think "I can't be bothered dipping into that."

It might feel a bit oppressive to people that they've got to take a greater amount of care not to offend other posters, but that's not such a bad skill to learn.  I still see a diversity of views here, but the tone of the discourse feels a bit more thoughtful and considered than it used to be.  Having an "everything is up for discussion, but be mindful of how you conduct yourself in those discussions" approach is better than what LS had for a while, in Paul's absence, which basically involved keeping a tight leash on what topics could be discussed and sending posters who tried to discuss these banned subjects (however politely) nastily worded infraction PMs accusing them of using their wordsmith skills to get around the rules.  Discuss what you like, but keep it polite seems far less oppressive than that was.

[gaius]

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning going on with the stricter moderation style. I do understand Paul has a vision for his site but he's been away for a long time and most of the established member base is used to being able to communicate in a more direct and honest fashion. That's part of what attracted them here in the first place.

If you want to use moderation to teach people a new, more proper way to communicate with each other ok. But do you think that's what draws posters here to post? To be taught a lesson like they're 5 years old? I think I'm one of the youngest regulars here at 37. Most are older and don't come here to be taught a lesson. Like Happy Lemming said. A significant amount of regulars have already left, most that remain post less now. Younger people are on Tiktok and social media. They rarely join online forums. It's unlikely there will be a rush of younger people to replace those who have left.

 

In the past it was a golden age for site owners and moderators. You could ban members by the truckload and still generate traffic because forums were the only game in town. Now every year there's more and more competition. In that kind of atmosphere I would think catering to your base and finding new ways to attract people to generate content would be the way to go. Especially with the fact that content generation is at one of the lowest points since I've been here. But content is being culled more than it ever has before and it's been decades since I've seen so many people united in their displeasure over something. Not being happy with the new moderation style might be the closest I've ever seen LSers come to having a unanimous opinion about anything. 

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, gaius said:

In the past it was a golden age for site owners and moderators. You could ban members by the truckload and still generate traffic because forums were the only game in town. Now every year there's more and more competition. In that kind of atmosphere I would think catering to your base and finding new ways to attract people to generate content would be the way to go. Especially with the fact that content generation is at one of the lowest points since I've been here. But content is being culled more than it ever has before and it's been decades since I've seen so many people united in their displeasure over something. Not being happy with the new moderation style might be the closest I've ever seen LSers come to having a unanimous opinion about anything. 

In the past, as you say, people were banned by the truckload...so they weren't in a position to voice their displeasure on here, since they were no longer provided with a platform to do so.  

It sounds as though some of the issues are due to site glitches and auto-moderation that are taking a long time to sort out...but I also think that LS is probably trying to draw in some young posters, and is facing the possibility that the blunt, tough love approach favoured by previous generations isn't likely to go down that well with Gen Z.  My personal experience of Gen Z (my own younger relatives, their friends, children of my friends etc) is very positive.  They tend to come across as very nice, accepting, friendly and kind...but I think they're used to an environment that places more restrictions on free speech than previous generations have been used to.  I can imagine a lot of them would react to the tough love approach that has sometimes been favoured on LS by laughing and calling it "savage"...but I also think that they would be a bit put off by it, and maybe regard it as a bit toxic. 

Taking a look at some marketers' conclusions about this up and coming generation, they seem to concur.  My guess is that Paul has been doing some marketing of his own, and has decided that if LS is to appeal to the next generation, it will need to make some changes that long term members might not like very much.  I get that younger people might not be keen on forums like this, but I don't think I would have been at the age of 18 to 21 either.  Today's 18 year olds will probably be a bit more reflective and looking for forums where they can post in more depth in a few years time.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Libby1

[major_merrick]

2 hours ago, gaius said:

 But content is being culled more than it ever has before and it's been decades since I've seen so many people united in their displeasure over something. Not being happy with the new moderation style might be the closest I've ever seen LSers come to having a unanimous opinion about anything. 

This is the part that sticks out to me.  Based on the other thread that I originally posted in before this one was created, it seems there are unhappy people on the left as well as on the right.  Obviously, I tend to "caucus" more with the right, and I've seen long-term members of that group leaving in frustration.  I'm guessing the same thing is happening on the other side.  I get that there's a need for balance and civility, but in my opinion what's been happening this year goes beyond "balancing" and editing out a few comments.  

The biggest thing for me is that posting is becoming just too much work.  I have other things to do in my life that don't involve the internet, and my involvement here is, for lack of a better term, entertainment.  I'm mostly on when I'm laying in bed or lounging on the couch....and at those times I'm looking for something to do that fills a few minutes while I get my energy back. 

Now when I post on anything, I've got to check and recheck to make sure the wording is exactly right so nobody COMPLAINS.  And if I make a reference to any kind of fact at all, its like I'd better have a complete APA-style bibliography.  I know my writing skills aren't the best and my command of the English language isn't top-notch, but it seems to be that native speakers/writers are having a tough time now too!  The experience is becoming unpleasant.  It is logical that people who find it unpleasant will reduce or cease their involvement. 

[Libby1]

I remember a point when if you said something like "your boss is being a [redacted]" or spoke up against "[redacted] shaming" you would be infracted for using an abusive term...even though you weren't using it as part of any attack on anybody on the board.   It did lead to people having to post in a formalised, careful style that took away a lot of spontaneity.  I think that rule has been relaxed now, but there's still far less spontaneity and life on the forum than there once was.  Ages ago, a whole lot of people who liked to post a lot in the watercooler were banned - because, I think, they were deemed to be too much of a clique.  Inevitably it's hard for once lively discussion boards to recover from that sort of thing.

For me,  I enjoy a lot of the discussion topics that come up on here, but I've long since accepted that there isn't much scope on LS to have a laugh and that if I don't curb certain aspects of my normal way of communicating with people I'll soon get infracted.  That's primarily been down to clashing with one or two moderators in the past...or, occasionally, having exchanges with people who are prone to baiting and reporting.  So for me,  Loveshack doesn't feel any more restrictive than it has ever done - and maybe even less so.  It's a very long time since it felt like a place I'd come to for a laugh and a chat, or where I'd express myself in the forthright manner I use with friends and family.  It's more like a place for my inner "earnest helper" to do its thing...or a place to analyse things to a degree that you wouldn't want to bore people across the kitchen table with.

I was previously banned for questioning moderating decisions in every bit as polite (or more so) a manner as people are using here.  That was all there was to it.  I wasn't abusing another poster or subjecting them to a personal attack, I wasn't piling on a vulnerable poster who was starting to wish they hadn't opened up on here.  All I did was suggest that the parameters for discussion had become so rigid that it was inhibiting people's freedom of speech.  I don't know if people still get banned for disclosing that they're previously banned members, but I'll take the chance.  The impression I get is that Paul realises that moderation had become too authoritarian, and that it had more to do with mods' personal feelings about posters than it did with the interests of the actual site.

It didn't seem to be an issue for remaining posters here that so many posters were banned because they had personality clashes with moderators.  Remaining posters seemed happy to apply the "it's their party and they can do what they like" thinking, so long as they shared the moderators' views about the banned posters.  But when they find themselves getting moderated in a more restrictive manner, it's a different story.  In a nutshell, there has always been restrictive moderation here that made a lot of us far more careful about how we posted.  It's just that in the past it hasn't been fairly or consistently applied.

Edited December 1, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed inappropriate words.

[Angelle]

I haven't found posting here to be too much work. I hadn't intended to keep posting, once I reached the amount of posts needed to send a private message. I changed my mind, because posting here was actually better than it had been for a long time (and I appreciated them cutting down on misinformation, in this very strange and chaotic year). It was odd to be here again, and it is different, but for the most part, it's a "good" different. 

[lana-banana]

I find moderation here has vastly improved. In the Before Times, a moderator sent me abusive messages and even vague threats! While moderation was maybe overly heavy-handed in the election thread, that's far preferable to an environment where disinformation is flying and people are accusing their enemies of being terrorists (yes, that happened). I was greatly alarmed when the "Plandemic" disinformation video was posted to this site and stayed up for several days---if anything that is proof that more intensive moderation is required. You cannot have productive conversations or even help people who are posting lies and hoaxes, full stop, and if people can't present accurate information then they shouldn't be posting it.

[trident_2020]

Friend of mine was on this site for quite a while had 1000's of posts and got lots of great feedback from his well received advice to many members.

Due to a post that seemed innocuous he was placed "under moderator approval" for new posts.

He's a doctor, 58 years old, and doesn't need someone babysitting him - he left LoveShack and won't be returning.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed reference to other web site.

[MrPlop]

I think the biggest issue here is the inability to express personal opinions/views/experiences. People can never be truly unbiased because we all gather our knowledge from our OWN personal experiences. If somebody asks a question I can only give my biased opinion on the matter and many times not all questions have a very precise answer, and that is why is very hard to "stay on topic". You always going to offend someone no matter what, that's the price to pay to argue. Over moderation happens when you try to make everyone happy, and in the end you make none. It is a shame, it's the world we now live in but the door is always open, whether you're leaving or coming in.

[Fair]

The gripe I used to have... I haven't been on here in awhile.... were the times I was very obviously provoked into saying something 'unacceptable' caused by overt, uncalled for attacks by trolls on my threads and then having MY comments removed and the obvious bullies left unreprimanded. Many of those bullies were 'regulars' who seemed to have their own online clique here on LS.... which is why they seemed to get away with it. 

We post questions and all anyone should be doing is answering the question. Not attacking the poster for asking the question. Yet the mods let it go on. All. The. Time. 

I rarely come on here, now. 

[Paul]

On 11/30/2020 at 11:47 AM, Libby1 said:

I think it's far better than it was a few years ago, when questioning moderators' decisions - however politely - would result in an instant perma-ban.   For a while, some years back, you were only allowed to discuss the President on one particular thread - and on that thread, discussion was restricted to presidential decisions.  If you criticised the US president on that thread, it was deemed to be off topic, but if you opened another thread to voice your criticism it would be deleted on the basis that there was already a thread to discuss the President.  And I think before that, there was a period of time where posters couldn't open a new thread if there was an existing thread that dealt with a similar topic.  So there'd be something like "the Porn Thread" which would run on for hundreds of pages.  It was a bit of a discussion killer, because a lot of people will look at a humongously long thread and just think "I can't be bothered dipping into that."

Not a single thing you've described here is remotely acceptable, nor was it ever, in my opinion, remotely acceptable. I'm sorry that it ever happened. We are actively trying to course correct from those previous practices. That said, we do ask the following:

• If you'd like to question a moderator's decision about a specific moderation action, contact us privately (i.e. "I don't think you should have edited/deleted my/that/those posts/threads")
• Anything involving the discussion of politics must be in the politics forum. You can make as many threads in there as you'd like, and all threads, everywhere, should only contain posts that directly relate to the first post in the thread. If a thread inspires you to talk about a new or related topic, start a new thread! It's easy, and you can link back to the thread that inspired it for continuity if you'd like.

 

[Paul]

23 hours ago, gaius said:

In the past it was a golden age for site owners and moderators. You could ban members by the truckload and still generate traffic because forums were the only game in town. Now every year there's more and more competition. In that kind of atmosphere I would think catering to your base and finding new ways to attract people to generate content would be the way to go. Especially with the fact that content generation is at one of the lowest points since I've been here. But content is being culled more than it ever has before and it's been decades since I've seen so many people united in their displeasure over something.

 

21 hours ago, Libby1 said:

Taking a look at some marketers' conclusions about this up and coming generation, they seem to concur.  My guess is that Paul has been doing some marketing of his own, and has decided that if LS is to appeal to the next generation, it will need to make some changes that long term members might not like very much.  I get that younger people might not be keen on forums like this, but I don't think I would have been at the age of 18 to 21 either.  Today's 18 year olds will probably be a bit more reflective and looking for forums where they can post in more depth in a few years time.

This community exists solely through the support of its benefactors and volunteers, operating to give a space to the world to participate in self-discovery and growth. None of us have any interest in any of these measures, nor do we make decisions in the interest of pursuit of audience or profit. A significant amount of this community's operational expenses are donated by those with a desire to keep the lights on here, and while we have advertisements in place to help offset the amount those benefactors contribute out of their own pockets, the income we receive from advertising typically does not fully cover our yearly operational expenses.

In the past, I've seen some rather outrageous claims to the contrary made through speculation, assumption, or worse. The fact remains that we have always relied upon the financial and human capital contributions of those who simply think that the world is better with a place like this existing, and are kind enough to chip in. These investments of time and money are reflective of our intrinsic desire to cultivate a community that provides a place for people to make meaningful change in their lives and to learn from others.