Would you be unhappy if there were responses to alerts?

[Boojatta]

I'm thinking that, when it is determined that no rule was violated, there could be a notification from the Moderators to the DU member who sent the alert. This way, the member would understand that having a thick skin is recommended and that there are particular kinds of behavior that one can either ignore or embrace, but that are not forbidden by the DU rules.

There are DU members who, as a matter of pride, put nobody on ignore. There are also DU members who are unhappy about this or that debating tactic. They are free to say that they are unhappy with a particular tactic. However, if the tactic is perfectly acceptable, then wouldn't it make more sense for them to themselves use that tactic rather than trying to deprive everybody else of the opportunity of using it?

[Vanje]

1. Alerting

[Boojatta]

3. Would you be unhappy if that alert elicited a response from the Moderators?

[Vanje]

8. Would the moderators use nice stationary?

I'd very much like to receive a note on nice paper.


If the moderators responded with an electrical shock, I would not like it at all.

[Boojatta]

10. I would expect it to be simply a PM (Private Message).

[Kucinich4America]

2. Nice post, Freeper!

:sarcasm:

[MonkeyFunk]

4. it'd never work

it'd just start a lot of fights. "What do you MEAN it's not flamebait!??!"

The rules are interpreted, and sometimes an alert doesn't get the outcome the alerter wants. You know if your alert works by the outcome - making the mods defend every decision would be unworkable.

[Boojatta]

6. I'm talking about notification, not defense.

I imagine that people who send out alerts don't ration the alerts to some monthly quota. Moderators would have more time to deal with decisions that need thought if DU members who sent alerts knew that a collection of very similar and simple decisions were already made.

[noamnety]

5. Uh, no.

If you've alerted on a post and the post remains, you don't really need a formal notice saying they aren't removing it - you can see it there for yourself.

As for this: "if the tactic is perfectly acceptable, then wouldn't it make more sense for them to themselves use that tactic" - I guess that's great if you are the sort of person who wants to sink to using tactics that you yourself object to. Not sure what that would say about your morals, though. I mostly alert on racist/sexist/homophobic stuff. Pretty often the mods clean it up or lock the thread. But sometimes it stays.

That doesn't mean if I disagree with someone that I should start using sexist slurs to get them to shut up.

I'd be more interested in seeing the people who are making sexist/racist/homophobic slurs get warnings and if it persists, get tombstoned. :)

[Boojatta]

7. Isn't it understood that sexist/racist/homophobic slurs are

not "perfectly acceptable"? It sounds as though you are talking about deciding whether or not a particular message constitutes a sexist/racist/homophobic slur.

[noamnety]

9. Well, you haven't specified what you're talking about.

Those are the things I routinely alert on. Sometimes personal attacks also.

If you are talking more about generally being obnoxious and tiresome as a debating tactic, like being a black hole that just tries to suck the energy out of people and derail meaningful conversation, then my answer is the same - I still wouldn't want to start using that tactic just to score some debating "points." I don't have much interest in others who use those methods, why would I want to contribute to it?

[Boojatta]

12. "you haven't specified what you're talking about"

I'm not talking about one specific tactic. I'm talking about any case involving a tactic that is (quoting my own words) "perfectly acceptable." I mean perfectly acceptable in the opinion of the Moderators.

[SoxFan]

24. Anti-religious slurs?

I've seen a LOT of anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic slurs posted on DU. Some mods are very good about dealing with this trash, but others seem to give it a free pass.

[LittleClarkie]

16. I have resorted to multiple alerts and the question,

"So I could post a thread just like this one and it would be alright? Cool!" Sometimes I will ask for an explanation, but not often at all.

I do like to see even application of the rules. When I think I'm seeing favoritism, I will sometimes have a bit of a conniption. But again, that's not often either. It's pretty good here.

[Lex]

11. More work for the (volunteer) and hard-working Mods?

I'd say No for that reason alone.


If the post stands despite an alert, then it's clear the Mods feel the post is okay.

[Boojatta]

13. See my post number 6 above.

Maybe pressing a "reply to alert/no violation" button would take too long. Maybe that investment of time would pay dividends.

[Boojatta]

14. Kick to elicit more comments and questions.

[Boojatta]

15. Kick

[Lance_Boyle]

17. The moderators are all-seeing and all-knowing.

To question them, or to imply that they OWE you a response, is sheer madness, the likes of which will bring down the wrath of the most holy admins upon you.

[Boojatta]

19. I don't think that the moderators deserve that kind of sarcasm.

You and I have both agreed to respect the rules, including this one:

We reserve the right to remove any post that we consider disruptive or inappropriate, even if that post is not specifically forbidden by our published rules.

Yet, this thread is unlocked or we wouldn't be posting in it.

One of the DU rules contains something that might be relevant to this thread:

If a rule violation is obvious, then action only requires a second opinion from one other moderator. But if a situation is unclear, highly subjective, or likely to be controversial, then the opinions of many moderators are required. Whatever the situation, one moderator has the power to veto any enforcement action.

If a post elicits an alert and all but one of the moderators favor enforcement action, but one moderator uses the veto power, then one might say that the post in question is grudgingly permitted rather than perfectly acceptable.

[Lex]

20. try walking a mile in their shoes and you'll have a better understanding

or you can just take pot shots without knowing WTF you're talking about

[blondeatlast]

18. Y'know, given what they deal with day in and day out, I think things go along here very well.

FWIW, if you seem to be getting too sensitive or nasty, the moderators or Admins will politely let you know--and good on 'em for it.

I know from experience.

[Boojatta]

21. Kick

[UTUSN]

22. The system is fine as it is.

The part I don't understand is the ban on POSTING that one is Alerting. I used to do that, SAY that I was Alerting or *did* Alert. Seems open and aboveboard.

It's not clear in the o.p. what Alerting is done that is NOT a rules violation. Flamebaiting can be very clear or can inch down into a judgment call, but what "tactic" is being Alerted on? Something to stimy an argument?

Most of the time I Alert one time only, and whatever the Mods decide is fine, even if they decide against taking action and obviously I disagree. But when a clear, profanity laced, personal attack isn't acted on, I might Alert again.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. At one time, I would have agreed with you, Boojatta.

Now, I just don't concern myself. I either put the offensive thread or poster on ignore until enough time has lapsed that it no longer bothers me. I guess it works alright.

[Swamp Rat]

25. Considering they are not paid, the Mods have enough work to do.

[NashVegas]

26. The Mods Do Fantastic Jobs

If a message is not removed, it's because the mods don't think it needs to be.

[Poll_Blind]

27. Some mods used to do this back in the "Check your PM!" days.

It was really nice to know that someone had looked at it, even if they discounted or disagreed with your reasoning. Alerts are kind of a void nowadays as, for that matter, are getting messages removed. You send off an Alert and time passes, and continues to pass....and you have no idea whether or not it was received but not agreed with or if the mods are busy putting out a fire somewhere else or just haven't gotten around to evaluating your complaint.

And as far as getting a message removed- there is no correspondence from any moderator that a message you have posted has been removed. You sort of have to eye your messages in the MY DU area and spot whether something you posted (unless 24 hours or whatever the cutoff is) has gone by, and check to see if a post is no longer showing up.

It's too bad- some kind of notification in either (or preferably both) cases would be helpful.

PB