someone explain moderation to me like I have not read a paper in years
someone explain moderation to me like I have not read a paper in years — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice. Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer. Sponsor units are labelled as sponsored. Each vendor source page carries one outbound link to that…
The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a named service behind any claim about a supplier. It is what makes those threads worth reading years later.
Adopted with an amendment, announced with the reasoning. Thank you for writing actual text.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.
Yes.
dose_creep_dan is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Agreed — concrete wording or it is not a proposal.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.