New Style of moderating Viki's main page of a show's comments

General Discussion
149

My answers in bold

I’m used to ppl mansplaining ■■■■ to me already, most of the mansplaining can actually be proven incorrect, you just need to get past all the standard self-justifications ppl have for doing it, which takes energy. Same with these rules, their so broad that anything can be considered against them, thus leaving it to others to enforce them, according to their own cultural norms. Also, I’m active in politics, it’s part of my daily life, I know exactly how broad the topic of “politics” itself is. Basically anything that concerns a community of more than one person. So technically discussing this topic is de-facto against the rules, since it discusses the rules, which “guide” the “community”. Let’s se if we can’t prove it to boot…

Ok, so according to @mariliam (see Sources section) “Politics” is among “no longer accept[ed] topics”. Ok, then what is politics? According to Wikipedia (see Sources section), it’s “the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.”. Now then, what is this thread? It’s an activity to set/discuss/attempt to set things associated with making decisions in groups/community. Thus this thread should according to the guidelines be banned. Still it isn’t. Why? Because of a positive moderator bias?
This is just for “politics”, what about another topic such as “nationality”?
This topic; Which country are you from? - #556 by mattlock should probably be ban-able, just based on the set “Community Guidlines” alone, not to mention places where “nationality” has been discussed.

These are just a few points from one source that I very quickly and easily picked apart. I could go on. Should I? Ok, sure. Let’s jump over to the Viki Community Guidlines.

Here it mentions a lot more specifically stuff, which I’m glad about, though still way too imprecise on certain topics. Like what? Uhm let’s pick the first runner up, “Personal attacks”, ok so? I mentioned @mariliam above, in form of citing him/her/it/etc, thus the mention is meant as an citation of what @mariliam has said, not an “personal attack”, right. So why do I now mention it then? Because of the tone of my current post being negative in it’s tone. It is conceivable that @mariliam could get upset or se it as an personal attack, thus have I or haven’t now broken the “Viki Community Guidlines”? Who has the responsibility in communications? The sender, the receiver or both? is it reasonable to expect that the sender should know the cultural norms of every potential receiver or should we also expect some sort of understanding in these sorts of situations from the receiver? Where does the line go? Can I cite a person in a negatively toned post about a topic not about the “receiver”? What if this form of citing is tabuu in country x but normal in country y? Again I could go on and pick more stuff out of these, but I think my point is starting to get illustrated, I hope.
" Follow the law " Lol, yeah, I tend to follow Finnish and EU law, what about you viki? Should I run out and buy some law books…

Honestly, I don’t know if I should cry or laugh at the horrible state of the rules that this community is based around.

As I commented in another place;

“At this point tbh, I’m stopping to care, considering leaving completely Viki”

Sources:

2 Likes