Stop here

Posted Sep 30, 2025 17:54 UTC (Tue) by daroc (editor, #160859)
In reply to: Stop here by prokoudine
Parent article: NixOS moderation team resigns

Unfortunately, there are only four of us. So when there are several comments in quick succession, we may only get to the thread afterward.

... but I agree that we could probably do a better job of indicating _why_ a particular subthread is asked to stop.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Sep 30, 2025 22:32 UTC (Tue) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (12 responses)

I would in general say that it often seems like there's a pattern of calling attention to the comment that calls someone out for bad behavior (e.g. flagging the point where people start arguing) rather than calling out the incitement of bad behavior.

Or to put it another way, LWN moderation sometimes comes across like an awful primary school teacher saying "I don't care who started it" and acting like everyone involved was *equally wrong*.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Sep 30, 2025 22:52 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

As someone who gets flagged a lot, I do feel sometimes that it's just clamping down on "off topic". That said, if things drift off topic that can let in bad behaviour.

In the old days when it was just Jon, there wasn't much calling out of off-topic (to be honest there wasn't much calling out), but LWN has grown and I think there's also more people looking for places they can stir up trouble (I gather there's quite a lot of Russian "espionage/subversion" going on), so I can understand the team clamping down.

But I do feel it doesn't seem there's much attempt to clamp down on the real bad boys - although the problem there is one person's bad boy is another person's "agent provocateur" is another person's "just asking questions".

I think PJ's rule of "if I wouldn't have it in my living room, I won't have it on my site" was a good one, but it relies on getting to know your posters ...

Cheers,
Wol

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 7:55 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (10 responses)

Moderation is not something anybody here at LWN wants to be doing; perhaps it is not surprising that we do not do it as well as some would like. When a thread is going off the rails, our first objective is to get it to stop; that seems rather more important than determining who should be decreed guilty for starting it. We also lack a ready strike team ready to react within milliseconds of the first bad post, sorry; we can only react after we see a problem.

When we do take action against a specific user, such as putting them on permanent moderation, we do not make public proclamations about it. You just don't see unpleasant stuff from that person anymore and never notice.

We are doing the best we can; if you see us as an "awful primary school teacher" I can only apologize. Time for recess!

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 10:53 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (9 responses)

I think the primary school teacher method works well. No one is singled out (mostly), and the lack of specific blame allows everyone to walk away.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 11:26 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (4 responses)

One common problem in moderation in general is that many people are very good at "calmly" inciting in a fashion that garners a well-needed negative response and/or call-out.

The net result can often be:

A) "Dispassionate" but toxic statement

B) Well-deserved call-out

Mod) This is getting heated, please stop

That comes across as the problem being exclusively the heat, not the toxic statement, or other toxic comments like people attacking the call-out for being "impolite" (where the implied "polite" would be "tolerant of intolerant/toxic people").

This is one of many patterns where it's important to flag the underlying problem, and not doing do lets people get away with trolling and incitement, repeatedly.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 11:50 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> That comes across as the problem being exclusively the heat, not the toxic statement, or other toxic comments like people attacking the call-out for being "impolite" (where the implied "polite" would be "tolerant of intolerant/toxic people").

This highly-relevant comic came across my feed just yesterday:

https://leftycartoons.com/2025/09/26/doin-discourse-with-...

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 18:02 UTC (Wed) by ferringb (subscriber, #20752) [Link] (2 responses)

> One common problem in moderation in general is that many people are very good at "calmly" inciting in a fashion that garners a well-needed negative response and/or call-out.

You pretty much nailed it on the head, in regards to the most dangerous version of behavior.

It's absolutely the hardest to keep in line w/ CoC- it never crosses the line blatantly, but the responders all get nailed as problematic or crossing the line in the sand. Eventually you get additions to CoC and moderation to try and address the lawyering, etc. Said additions to the rules just makes things worse, and harder to bring back to the spirit of the communities original intent.

This sort of thing is what I now watch for in communities; if it's left unchecked I just find somewhere else to go, assuming I have any choice in the matter. If I have to consume their code, sure, but even bug reporting is something I'd prefer *not* to do since I just don't want that crap in my life.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 22:27 UTC (Wed) by amacater (subscriber, #790) [Link] (1 responses)

Some people are Olympic class figure skaters - *just* over the line with something then quickly pulling back, then *just* over the line as a pattern of behaviour. That makes moderation and community building hard.
Many communities exist on a barely articulated common understanding that lasts until someone questions it.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 2, 2025 4:26 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

Once you identify the pattern of behavior, of someone skating on the line like that, you can recognize it as the toxic behavior it is and bounce the person out of the community. As the owner of the platform you don't need to put up with people who troll other users that way, and _that_ keeps the temperature down, conversation civil.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 11:47 UTC (Wed) by hkario (subscriber, #94864) [Link] (3 responses)

> allows everyone to walk away.

that only upholds the status-quo and is not conducive to constructive criticism

and yes, calling out toxic behaviour is constructive, even if it's not "polite"

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 11:51 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

+1 to this.

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 14:36 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

Hmm.. if the LWN mods have come into a sub-thread in primary school mode then it is very safe to assume that the sub-thread has gone long past any kind of constructive criticism.

I'm not sure what you're advocating for, that the LWN mods then start to "constructively criticise" people in the thread? That may well just make things worse - it will make LWN worse. LWN is not mired in the US-culture-war caustic shite that other parts of the media/net are, to any significant extent. LWN commenters seem largely sensible and able to take hints to shut-down chains that have stopped being useful. Advocating for moderation solutions here that assume it is may be counter-productive, and cause it to MOVE TOWARDS that undesirable state of toxicity, as much as anything else.

Or ??

Where moderation steps in

Posted Oct 1, 2025 18:05 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

I suppose the issue being raised is that the moderation comment is visible to readers as a reply to the latest (at the time it was posted) comment in the thread. This could give the impression that the latest post was primarily responsible for the moderation comment.

I don't believe that this is how the LWN mods intend for it to be perceived: they are talking about the entirety of the thread not specifically about the post they're replying to.

I suppose the people concerned about this perception would prefer that the LWN mods should back-track the thread to find the post that appeared to be primarily accountable for the problematic digression, and reply to that rather than the "latest post".

I'm not sure how feasible that is; it is assigning blame much more directly and thus, could cause more arguments than it prevents. Is it enough for us all to understand that the reply is not intended to indict the direct parent post? Or maybe there needs to be some standard disclaimer language in moderation comments?