Return to Answer

deleted 7 characters in body

Source Link

edited Jun 13, 2023 at 16:16

6.3k
2
16
25

criticizing moderators for levying “unnecessary suspensions” on users.

We're still waiting for even one example of a suspension which was unnecessary. Phillipe has sort of addressed this:

it is impossible for us to generate a list of cases where we know moderators have made a mistake

We didn't ask for a complete list; but Phillipe said it would be impossible to provide a list of known cases at all (not just a complete list). That can only be because those known cases don't exist.

So Phillipe is levelling this accusation at moderators on the basis of SE, Inc.'s analysis which purports to show that GPT posts occur at a lower rate than GPT-related suspensions. This is disappointing to say the least, because that analysis has been roundly debunked at this pointby now. But apparently SE, Inc. still believes it strongly enough to smear moderators in the press.

If SE, Inc. staff will break their own rules and smear moderators in the press, why shouldn't moderators defend themselves in public ─ even if doing so requires breaking some of the same rules?

criticizing moderators for levying “unnecessary suspensions” on users.

We're still waiting for even one example of a suspension which was unnecessary. Phillipe has sort of addressed this:

it is impossible for us to generate a list of cases where we know moderators have made a mistake

So Phillipe is levelling this accusation at moderators on the basis of SE, Inc.'s analysis which purports to show that GPT posts occur at a lower rate than GPT-related suspensions. This is disappointing to say the least, because that analysis has been roundly debunked at this point. But apparently SE, Inc. still believes it strongly enough to smear moderators in the press.

If SE, Inc. staff will break their own rules and smear moderators in the press, why shouldn't moderators defend themselves in public ─ even if doing so requires breaking some of the same rules?

criticizing moderators for levying “unnecessary suspensions” on users.

We're still waiting for even one example of a suspension which was unnecessary. Phillipe has sort of addressed this:

it is impossible for us to generate a list of cases where we know moderators have made a mistake

So Phillipe is levelling this accusation at moderators on the basis of SE, Inc.'s analysis which purports to show that GPT posts occur at a lower rate than GPT-related suspensions. This is disappointing to say the least, because that analysis has been roundly debunked by now. But apparently SE, Inc. still believes it strongly enough to smear moderators in the press.

If SE, Inc. staff will break their own rules and smear moderators in the press, why shouldn't moderators defend themselves in public ─ even if doing so requires breaking some of the same rules?

Source Link

created Jun 13, 2023 at 15:57

kaya3

6.3k
2
16
25

criticizing moderators for levying “unnecessary suspensions” on users.

We're still waiting for even one example of a suspension which was unnecessary. Phillipe has sort of addressed this:

it is impossible for us to generate a list of cases where we know moderators have made a mistake

So Phillipe is levelling this accusation at moderators on the basis of SE, Inc.'s analysis which purports to show that GPT posts occur at a lower rate than GPT-related suspensions. This is disappointing to say the least, because that analysis has been roundly debunked at this point. But apparently SE, Inc. still believes it strongly enough to smear moderators in the press.

If SE, Inc. staff will break their own rules and smear moderators in the press, why shouldn't moderators defend themselves in public ─ even if doing so requires breaking some of the same rules?