What Can Be Done About Twitface?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-under-fresh-pressure-to-remove-racist-content-sooner-after-labour-frontbencher-david-lammy-reveals-abuse-12042261
I think the Home sec has done the right thing in condemning this awful abuse and supporting Mr Lammy but surely this cesspit needs a rocket up it's April.

[jim360]

I suppose that's why she went on about "EVERY" post. I've read threads, noticed a post, come back to that thread later, and wondered where it had gone and why there was an "answer removed" appearing in its place for some reason. Presumably it's not impossible for Naomi to have noticed the same.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // So, Andy's little gang can chirp in with erroneous support but no-one can support Naomi. ( who is 100% right) //

I don't have a 'gang' of any size, and to be fair, I don't believe Naomi has either. Defending her is unnecessary, as is defending me, and being offensive doing it is not acceptable.

Back to the thread ...

[Spicerack]

Everyone has seen ' innocent' posts removed while favoured ABers can't get a post deleted for love nor money.

[AB Editor]

Hi all,

Popping in and reopening this thread to clear some things up. When a moderator deletes a post or thread, closes a thread, or suspends or bans a member, the editors automatically receive an email report about the action taken. We review every one of these emails and if we agree with the action taken, the action stands. If we don't agree, we reistate the post, or member, or whatever. It is very rare that we reverse moderators' decisions to delete posts, but if we do disagree with the action, we will reverse it. If you think a post has been removed unfairly, you can still bring it to our attention - perhaps, particularly in long threads, there is some context we missed when reviewing, or there has been some misunderstanding. Our moderators are only human and so are we, and moderating decisions are not all black and white. So we do review all actions, but it might not happen straight away - we're busy gnomes and we're not here on evenings and weekends. And the majority of the time, we agree with the actions our moderators take, which is why deleted posts are rarely reinstated.

[douglas9401]

Spread the word about the reopening before this post about deleted posts is removed! :-P

[iluvmargie]

Mods can suspend people??

[AB Editor]

Yes and ban, but it doesn't happen often - these are mainly for tackling spammers.

[jno]

their heads are placed on poles along London Bridge, ilm. Admittedly, this isn't much of a deterrent to provincial ABers, but it adds something to the urban skyline.

[Bobbisox1]

I guess we learn something each day :0/

[andy-hughes]

Thanks Ed.

Can you also advise on the bizarre notion held by one AB'er that an individual Moderator oversees any one section, and the regularly expressed view that Moderators are exempt from Site Rules, as are their 'friends'.

Thank you.

[ToraToraTora]

well there is some evidence of certain members being exempt Andy, PP for example gets away with insulting people every day, in fact he insults the whole site on a regular basis.

[jno]

I've always hoped that when I'm made a Mod I'll be put in charge of the Pregnancy sub-section, as I like a quiet life and there hasn't been a post there since that highly implausible one in 0 BC. However, Covid has disrupted the Modding exams this year so I may have to wait.

[iluvmargie]

Mmmm there are some heads I'd like to see on poles (just joking!!).

[AB Editor]

Mods are not assigned to oversee any particular section, and if there were favourable treatment going on, moderators would not be moderators for much longer.

TTT, as far as PP's posts are concerned, I don't recall them being reported or insulting people or the entire site on a daily or regular basis (though if they were, someone may need to translate them for me first. :) )

[LadyCG]

I've compiled a PP to English Dictionary. It will be on sale from Monday in all good bookshops.

[SparklyKid]

someone may need to translate them for me first. :) )


Glad it's not just me then Ed.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi at 20.06 on Friday - // naomi - // That said, I know of one mod who has carte blanche to ‘preside’ over the Science section to ensure that opinions posted there do not contradict the ‘scientific model’. For example, he will remove posts postulating theories that oppose mainstream science on climate change. Quality control he calls it. I call it stifling discussion and an assault on freedom of speech, and it’s the reason that I, personally, no longer post there. //

Ed at 09.51 Tuesday - // Mods are not assigned to oversee any particular section, and if there were favourable treatment going on, moderators would not be moderators for much longer. //

There you go - a regular contributor claims not to lie, but is clearly posting assertions that are not true.

[Bobbisox1]

A-H, why can't you let things lie?

[jackthehat]

Andy - Why not let this go?

The ABer in question had a comment removed by, or at the behest of (apparently), a Mod simply because it wasn't scientifically rigorous enough. The reason for the removal was given which, unsurprisingly, caused no little irritation - hence the repetition since then that this Mod has carte blanche to remove any and all posts simply because they are 'opinion' and not 'fact' in the fact-based Science section.

Continuing to prod and poke at the ABer in question simply drags matters out and spoils threads.....

[THECORBYLOON]

ANDY, I am sure you know there is a difference between untruthful or lying and being mistaken.

If NAOMI genuinely believed what she claimed, she was mistaken.