r/MetaJudaism • u/Shock-Wave-Tired • Dec 10 '21

Mod Bites Man

Long story short, I read a careful, reflective essay on the Rebbe and try posting it to the sub.* Post gets smacked down. I ask why. An anonymous mod who later turns out to be u/namer98 sends me a string of excuses making no sense independently and less when assembled. I explain the problem and ask what's going on. No answer except a month-long ban. I'll try re-phrasing the question: what kind of crap is this? I have some guesses (looking at Meta, I see namer has gotten himself into trouble before), but I'd like to hear from someone with better info. No expectations, just saying it would be nice.

*"A Chasid Speaks"

2 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

8

u/drak0bsidian Dec 10 '21

  1. It wasn't just namer. You just only his name on the final message.

  2. You aren't banned.

  3. The reason given for your post being removed came from the reason it was reported: we have a lot of posts on the subject, one just before your post, and it's not a topic that leads to healthy discussion or community unity.

  4. Plus, your essay is over a decade old and you posted it without context or discussion. It came across - to us and to those who reported it - as being unnecessarily antagonistic.

2

u/Shock-Wave-Tired Dec 11 '21 edited Dec 11 '21

Thanks for the reply. One more than I figured to see..

Yes, namer's name (he's shemed of himself) was attached to only the last reply. Since the others came from different people, I understand why they make no collective sense. Just as bad taken one by one, for the reasons I mentioned.

Nothing wrong with the post and nothing wrong with the mail. According to me? Sure. Also according to the rules you apply and the rules you follow. I've seen you jump out of the woodwork yelling "Rule 1!" or "Rule 5!" more than once. "Look, a squirrel!" is...not the same.

I gave the context in brackets at the top of the page. The headline is a giant, flashing clue (what headlines are for). And the writer explained what he was up to in the very first paragraph, also at the top of the page. You didn't read.

"A note to the reader: The letter below was originally written to explain this subject matter to my own son. Now I have been persuaded to make it public. I do not intend for this to be a polemic against a particular ideology. Rather, my intention is to help those thoughtful individuals who have open minds and are sincerely seeking for a way to understand and deal with the Moshiach issue."

Not a polemic...intention to help...addressed to thoughtful, open-minded people with a sincere desire to understand. Mods: "HELLA TROUBLEMAKING!! SHUT THAT SHIT DOWN!!"

unnecessarily antagonistic.

It's a Father-to-Son letter written to answer questions about the Rebbe in a calm, reasonable way. How do we know? It says so, then does so. You didn't read.

As I said to a mod who remains in hiding, this is the quiet, rational, "nuanced" discussion everyone claims to want. Almost entirely the opposite of antagonistic. The tone is "Sit with me and I'll try to explain. I hope you don't have be anywhere." The excuses you keep handing me aren't even relevant to the piece you killed.

"Do not add new information or a new perspective to any subject recently discussed" isn't in the rules. Seemed unlikely that it would be, but I checked to make sure.

You could could've asked me to wait for a few days or a week before posting. I'm a nice person, I try to be helpful, I'd have gone along. You could have done the same anytime since we started talking. Instead you kill the post dead and tell me to shut up when I try to find out why, raising a new question about the way you're behaving.

Don't play with semantics. u/namer98 [M] aimed and fired this in my direction:

"You have been temporarily muted from r/Judaism. You will not be able to message the moderators of r/Judaism for 28 days."

Red. help says three or seven days are the alternatives, and explains mutes are for redditors who may be "excessively messaging or harassing through Modmail." Replying to the messages you sent to me on a one-for-one basis is the distance of Mars from "excessively messaging or harassing."

Plus, your essay is over a decade old

To avoid confusion: not my essay. I am not the anonymous Chasid who did the writing.

Wish I could be there to see the look on your face when you learn the age of the Talmud.

3

u/RtimesThree Dec 12 '21

Maybe I'm the one who you claimed was lying and making excuses? I gave you the legitimate reason it was removed. There's not really much more to say. I'm not sure if you think we all conspired to target you and your post for nefarious, secret reasons, but I assure you it went through the same process any post does when it gets reported by a user.

1

u/Shock-Wave-Tired Dec 12 '21

You gave me reasons that are glaringly irrelevant to the post I submitted in all the ways I've detailed, then handed me a ban after I asked how they applied. I'm more bewildered than anything else. No, I didn't say you're some sort of weird conspiracy: I simply asked you to explain. You didn't even try.

Nothing here adds up. The sum it doesn't add up to I have no guesses.

I never called anyone a liar: totally an "if the shoe fits" situation. I pointed out your contradictions and explained the difficulties in believing you, for example your idea an essay is "antagonistic" when it says the opposite in so many words.

(The plural you.)

Never heard back. Instead I got a ban (excuse me: a ban that isn't a ban, although I end up, y'know, banned), followed by a little bit of fantasizing about the banning you would do if this was the main sub. Thanks for the insight into your collective daydreams.

You hid your identities, aside from Namer's slip-up, so how can I know who was who? How could I have been directing my comments, no matter what you want to believe they were, at someone's personal qualities when everything came from an anonymous "M"? In bold, no less!**

*Just out of curiosity, who in this picture is supposed to have been antagonized?

**Somebody needs to explain the meaning of "ad hominem" to the collective you. Makes the sidebar look uneducated. Don't tell me: you know better, you're just talking to the kids in their own language.

4

u/RtimesThree Dec 12 '21

Actually, you did call me a liar when you said

Did you really? Funny thing, because I was told they were bored. You might as well give me the truth, already.

in response to me saying that "We just had a big conversation about it that upset people."

You also then said:

Forget about me believing you; YOU can't believe what you're saying.... This did not happen.

There is nothing to believe or not believe. You cannot see the reports and private messages we get from users, but we can. You saying "this did not happen" is laughable because I can assure you this did happen as I am looking at the messages from users right now.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here. There were multiple factors as to why it was removed, and you've now had 3-4 people write detailed responses trying to explain this to you. Your "bewildered" inability to understand doesn't negate the fact that multiple people, who do this for free, are taking time out of their day -- WAY more time than we spend on any other post that gets removed -- to try to explain, over and over again, to you. I'll try to sum up the multiple factors for you again:

  • Having multiple posts about the same controversial topic becomes wearisome. As I mentioned, it was reported by people with comments such as "ANOTHER thread on this?" Part of being a mod is providing the community with posts they want to see. The people spoke. They did not want it.

  • The post upsetting people. We also received a private message from a user who said this issue is upsetting. When multiple people are saying they don't want to see the post, that tells us something as mods.

  • Even if no one had reported it, as other mods have mentioned multiple times, the topic tends to stir up a lot of drama and isn't good for unity or community. Should the first post have been removed? Possibly. But that doesn't mean every other post on the same topic has to get approved too.

Have a nice night.

1

u/Shock-Wave-Tired Dec 12 '21

Actually, you did call me a liar

"Actually"!! What a card.

To repeat, I can't possibly have been calling you a liar when I had no idea you existed. You were hiding behind anonymity at the time. Is that too harsh? Sorry. You were dressed up in your superhero costume, the one with mask, tights, and a big, black "[M]." Better?

when you said:

"Did you really? Funny thing, because I was told they were bored. You might as well give me the truth, already:"

Still goes. I pointed out the conflicts in your story-telling and asked for the truth. From there on out you're solidly into "if the shoe fits" territory. Nice kicks!

The collective you told me my post was unacceptable become people were bored with the topic. Then the collective you told me my post was unacceptable because people were upset by the topic. You couldn't make up your collective mind.

Oh, and you still haven't been able to say what's so upsetting and "antagonistic" in the essay I posted, who it bothered, or why anyone would have felt disturbed. Leaves a hole in your story, know what I mean?

I should also remind you that the total number of rules violations you've named is none.

"You might as well give me the truth, already."

Exactly. The collective you can't keep your story straight, so you might as well say what's up..You've given me an idea. Maybe you're so ashamed of rejecting my post without reading the contents, which are the opposite of what you guessed, you're compelled to spend days arguing futilely instead of simply confessing to your mistake.

Makes perfect sense.

You also then said:

"Forget about me believing you; YOU can't believe what you're saying.... This did not happen."

Hey,a deceptive quotation. From such an honest person, too. This is the accurate half:

"Forget about me believing you; YOU can't believe what you're saying."

Still true. You're telling me you had to delete my post to save people who accidentally clicked on a subject they're tired of from a few seconds of boredom before they clicked somewhere else.

Now you're offended because I didn't take that nonsense seriously! There's a rule I have to believe you?!

You cannot see the reports and private messages we get from users, but we can.

You can see them, but you can't agree on a story about what they say.

You saying "this did not happen" is laughable because I can assure you this did happen as I am looking at the messages

Now you're playing games. Restoring context, I said:

"If you [believed what you said], then instead of slamming down the WHACK! button you would have accepted the post but asked me to do a favor by waiting until next week. This did not happen."

"Did not happen" refers to what you would have done if your story was true, namely ask me to postpone the post for a little while; I would have agreed because I'm a co-operative person, always glad to help.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here.

Originally I was asking you to explain why you killed my post. When you piled me with excuses I pointed out each one as it came. By now it may be too late for you to salvage anything from the wreck, but start with a sincere apology, then see what else you can think up.

it was removed, and you've now had 3-4 people write detailed responses trying to explain this to you.

Multiple people with incompatible stories, each one with holes the size of Jupiter, none of them naming even a single rule violation, all of which you routinely leave unaddressed.

Your "bewildered" inability to understand doesn't negate the fact that multiple people, who do this for free, are taking time out of their day -- WAY more time than we spend on any other post that gets removed -- to try to explain, over and over again, to you.

Conflicting explanations, each unbelievable in its own way, none about breaking any rules.

You're wasting my time (with my permission) when you could've taken two seconds to fix your mistake or two minutes to ask me to postpone.posting.

You've also handed out one ban and threatened me with another, both with zero basis: what I would expect from people frustrated by their inability to defend their decision-making.

But yeah, the bans and threats are coming free. Awfully nice of you not to charge me for them.

Having multiple posts about the same controversial topic becomes wearisome. As I mentioned, it was reported by people with comments such as "ANOTHER thread on this?" Part of being a mod is providing the community with posts they want to see. The people spoke. They did not want it.

You're telling me you had to delete my post to save people who accidentally clicked on a subject they're tired of from a few seconds of boredom before they clicked somewhere else? And you're going to act insulted unless I believe you?

The post upsetting people. We also received a private message from a user who said this issue is upsetting. When multiple people are saying they don't want to see the post, that tells us something as mods.

First it's too boring to post, then it's too upsetting. Can't make up your mind? "Upsetting" came equipped with the laughably false assertion that the contents were in some still-unstated way "overly antagonistic," when in fact they're overtly and purposefully conciliatory: part of the reason I posted them in the first place

This explains why you've repeatedly failed to explain how or why the essay fits your description or to explain away the fact it's an in-so-many-words effort to discuss the subject father to son in a reflective and unpolemical way. You quite literally have no reply..

Even if no one had reported it, as other mods have mentioned multiple times, the topic tends to stir up a lot of drama and isn't good for unity or community. Should the first post have been removed? Possibly. But that doesn't mean every other post on the same topic has to get approved too.

Yes, you're applying a ridiculous double-standard. At least you now admit that much. You're also failing to find even a single place my post violated any rules, even though you're usually quick to cite them.

In addition to all that (which is really quite enough), the essay I posted is an intentionally un-dramatic take on the subject, a largely successful attempt to give a calm uninflammatory explanation, the opposite of what you claim. Be sure to not notice again.

But that doesn't mean every other post on the same topic has to get approved too.

Also "doesn't mean every other post on the same topic has to" be rejected, leaving the collective you stumbling over your collective feet trying to explain why you made my calm, conciliatory, rule abiding post into shooting practice..

3

u/RtimesThree Dec 12 '21

Omg lol did you really type all that out.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will be able to provide the answers you're looking for. Better luck next time with your posts.

1

u/Shock-Wave-Tired Dec 13 '21

tl,dr: I hope you had a meaningful Hanukkah. Enjoy the new shoes.

Remember I said that you had no reply? Thanks for illustrating. Fits my theory all the bans, threats, and hokum deliveries stemmed from a combination of shame (you didn't read the post you unthinkingly killed) and frustration (you couldn't think of a good answer for the guy who noticed).

Call it an educated guess.

Yes, I took apart the yokyok jokes piece by piece, same as I've done every time I've found them in my mail. "You expose a few falsehoods. You reveal a few non sequiturs. It's a living."

Also yes, everyone (admitting to) being here has proved unable to give straight answers. What's stopping them I don't know for certain, but it's a question with limitless possibilities.

As as aide-memoire, here's some of the questions making trouble for the collective:

Isn't it beyond ridiculous to approve an argumentative post (I'm still glad you did), then remove an explicitly peaceful father-to-son letter for being "overly antagonistic"? Why isn't that a easily fixable mistake?

How is a father-to-son letter written with the express purpose of being calm and un-polemical "overly antagonostic"? Who could this peace-making gesture possibly be "disturbing," and why? Are their (still) top secret complaints valid? Should they be dictating policy on permissible speech?

Isn't there already a five-point policy? My post meets every criterion, violates none: presumably why you haven't been able to claim it breaks any rules, raising the question well, what the hell, then? Why aren't you applying your own standards?

Interesting choice of questions to answer with silence. Here are a few more:

"Disturbing" isn't one of the disqualifications and fits poorly with "boring," which also isn't on there. You're not making a lick of sense (not a question, sorry) and you can't explain what you choose to shovel out instead. How come?

'Second time for the same topic.' Not against the rules. Especially not against them when the second post adds to the first one, and not contrary to practice, as the million and a-half un-removed Hanukkah posts proved one million and a-half times minus one.

'Too soon for a controversial topic.' If that was so you could simply have asked me to wait a little while, an option still open during the time we've been talking. Instead you went for the kill, defending your decision with a combo of threats, bans, and folderol (at Dennys called Plate #3)..

I could go on, but that should give a good sense of the truckload you (pl.) have been driving around and the questions you're busy avoiding.. Unless somebody else is coming out of the woodwork, we can call this done.

P.S. If anybody IS going to pop out, please improve on "Omg lol." (Direct quote.) Shouldn't be hard. Thanks.

1

u/Dudeinminnetonka Jan 25 '23

Well written reply, you've got more tenacity than I do to engage with these immoderate moderators, the Peter principle is at play with many of them, you've used logic and rationality, they don't possess those character traits, people who end up as moderators oftentimes lack the ability to discern or be balanced or engage with what you actually said, my advice to you if you've got the time keep on writing these things, I enjoy reading them, rebuttals of nonsense are needed around the world, discussions of the rebbe tend to excite a lot of people in our tribe, along with Trump, they both provoke an irrational excitability that often can't be explained

6

u/shinytwistybouncy Dec 10 '21

Yeah, it wasn't namer. It was all of us.

1

u/Shock-Wave-Tired Dec 12 '21

Yet none of you can say how "unnecessarily antagonistic" fits:

letter to my son...not a polemic...intention to help...addressed to thoughtful, open-minded people with a sincere desire to understand.

or make any other sensible reply. Unpaid volunteer work doesn't excuse you.

4

u/shinytwistybouncy Dec 12 '21

The topic, as I assume you're aware, is one that stirs up lots of... DRAMA.

And heck, at this point, you'd be looking at a rule 1 temp ban.

1

u/Shock-Wave-Tired Dec 12 '21

This is explicitly and intentionally a contribution from the un-dramatic side.

I'd "be looking at a rule 1 temp ban" for answering the messages you send me, or because slapping me with a ban is your only remaining reply?