| |
|
Neens, I get it. You have explained what it will take for you not to veto a motion of this kind in a thread you moderate. I have taken it on board. I don't see where else you want to take it.
As it is, this does highlight a disjunct between what moderaors can do and what is done. The identification and banning was not actually done by moderator actions, as no such mechanism exists - it was done after discussion between a number of people and a decision by Tom. Where the process bogged down was the clean-up afterwards, which is to a greater or lesser degree optional. It is already the case that one moderator in the Conversation has a heterodox approach to deleting posts and threads by known trolls, and nobody is particularly bothered to sort this out. It is now also known that without links to supporting evidence another moderator in the Conversation will not believe that posts identified as coming from a known troll are from a known troll. That's fine, too. The important bit here is the banning, really. Whether the removal of that bit from the power of the moderatig process is probably a worthwhile topic - whether it is a technical blunder or a tacit admission that some things are actually cannot be trusted with moderators, for starters. |
|
|
