yog's Journal: Flamebait and Politics

I've noticed that quite often when I make a comment on a political topic such as the presidential elections, Islamic terrorism, and the Iraq war, it tends to get moderated as "flamebait". Now, I am not interested in starting flame wars, as anyone who reads my comment history will note.

Yet, on political subjects, if I express something the least bit opinionated beyond merely quoting the "facts", several moderators will step in and hit the comment with "overrated", "flamebait", or "troll".

There are in fact very few true flamebait postings on this forum, though lots of deliberate trolls. But someone commenting on a topic, no matter how opinionated they are, should not be modded down unless they are disrupting the conversation in some way. When I have mod points, the first thing I do is search for "flamebait" in a forum and, if appropriate, I will re-mod it to something more applicable.

I'll fight and die for your right to disagree with me.

It's too bad that not everyone sees it this way, and it's a damn shame that the metamoderation system, which is supposed to prevent this kind of incompetent use of mod points, does not work, apparently.

Slashpolitics

[damn_registrars]

Unfortunately as you see there is no shortage of polarized discussion, which gets followed by polarized moderation. There probably ought to be tags to apply to comments that are inaccurate or otherwise not accurately categorized by the standard modifiers. If you email CmdrTaco about this, he will tell you that function will be in the "new moderation system", though of course there is no promise to when that will arrive.

Of course you have seen that the "new metamoderation system" is in place though it

Re:

[yog]

Yes, I think "overrated" should just go away. Maybe "flamebait" should only work if 2+ people use it. If 1 person mods you flamebait, it would have no effect. Then, of course, the political moderators would just go to "troll".