Should 'excessive hyperbole' as a moderation option exist?

[Virginiá]

Curious what the broader community thinks of this.

(For those who don't know what this is, it's one of the reasons moderators must choose when moderating a post. It describes why action was taken)

[KaiserDave]

Hyperbole is fun

[Mr. Morden]

Remember this classic?:

Posts deleted for "Excessive Hyperbole". I'm turning 30 years old next month and I had to freaking google what the hell "hyperbole" was.

[Mr. Morden]

Also, legendary thread here:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122436.0

On Page 6, Dave arrives to debate "excessive hyperbole" with Libertas.

[Bacon King]

No it shouldn't exist.

Frankly the only reason it ever existed in the first place was because back in 2012 or whenever we needed a category that could actually apply to Libertas. We all agreed his posts were worthy of infractions, but there wasn't a clear label to apply to them. Most of his posts existed in a weird gray area that simultaneously was almost-but-not-quite an attempt at trolling, and almost-but-not-quite a personal attack. So we split the difference and used his penchant for exaggeration as the basis for this new type of infraction

Honestly since Libertas was first banned probably 90% of "excessive hyperbole" incidents were just occasions where moderators really wanted to infract a post of someone they hated but couldn't find any legitimate reason to do so


honestly if someone is trolling, just call it trolling. If it's a personal attack, call it a personal attack. If it's not either thing then there's no justification to ban someone for being hyperbolic (especially when it's selectively applied by biased moderators)

[Esteemed Jimmy]

No - it is far too vague

[Boobs]

Yes, but it should only be used against Republicans.

[Bacon King]

Also, legendary thread here:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122436.0

On Page 6, Dave arrives to debate "excessive hyperbole" with Libertas.

OMG! page three is the infamous "Rochambeau 'accidentally' reports the same post 34 times in a row" incident. True forum history!

[Gracile]

It depends on how excessive (and frequent) said hyperbole is.

[T'Chenka]

No I don't think so. If a user wants to discredit themselves like that, let them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is a device to boost the reported post count of conservative posters.  It will not be used fairly.  I'm willing to bet that, to date, far more Republicans/conservatives have been so cited than Democrats/liberals, and this is a product of the world view the majority share here.

It is built-in bias.  It is a tool to make bias OK.  But if it stands as a reason to infract, rest assured that I will report such posts every time I see them.  If it's an infraction for me, it ought to be an infraction for thee.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. Some degree of hyperbole is good to spice up discourse, but abuse of it lowers the quality of discourse and thus needs to be regulated.

[DINGO Joe]

If the mods stop enforcing excessive hyperbole this blog would implode within three days creating an http black hole that will take down the entire internets.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No it shouldn't exist.

Frankly the only reason it ever existed in the first place was because back in 2012 or whenever we needed a category that could actually apply to Libertas. We all agreed his posts were worthy of infractions, but there wasn't a clear label to apply to them. Most of his posts existed in a weird gray area that simultaneously was almost-but-not-quite an attempt at trolling, and almost-but-not-quite a personal attack. So we split the difference and used his penchant for exaggeration as the basis for this new type of infraction

Honestly since Libertas was first banned probably 90% of "excessive hyperbole" incidents were just occasions where moderators really wanted to infract a post of someone they hated but couldn't find any legitimate reason to do so


honestly if someone is trolling, just call it trolling. If it's a personal attack, call it a personal attack. If it's not either thing then there's no justification to ban someone for being hyperbolic (especially when it's selectively applied by biased moderators)

This.

[S019]

Yes, it’s a valid way to moderate the forum, getting rid of it allows for the extremists to voice their reprehensible, extremist views in extraordinarily offensive ways. A way to enforce civility and restraint must remain.

[Donerail]

Yes, it’s a valid way to moderate the forum, getting rid of it allows for the extremists to voice their reprehensible, extremist views in extraordinarily offensive ways. A way to enforce civility and restraint must remain.

your views are not more valid just because plugging them into a quiz puts you at the center of the political compass

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, it’s a valid way to moderate the forum, getting rid of it allows for the extremists to voice their reprehensible, extremist views in extraordinarily offensive ways. A way to enforce civility and restraint must remain.

your views are not more valid just because plugging them into a quiz puts you at the center of the political compass

Hard to believe, but I heartily concur here.

Agreement is possible when one places principles before personalities.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Don't let Fuzzy control moderating policy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Honestly since Libertas was first banned probably 90% of "excessive hyperbole" incidents were just occasions where moderators really wanted to infract a post of someone they hated but couldn't find any legitimate reason to do so


honestly if someone is trolling, just call it trolling. If it's a personal attack, call it a personal attack. If it's not either thing then there's no justification to ban someone for being hyperbolic (especially when it's selectively applied by biased moderators)

Some people are preoccupied with pushing their own biases, rather than promoting fairness.

[Sestak]

I trust BK’s judgement enough here to say no.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also, legendary thread here:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122436.0

On Page 6, Dave arrives to debate "excessive hyperbole" with Libertas.

You even have a Dibble post at the very bottom of the page.

[Joe Republic]

Also, legendary thread here:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122436.0

On Page 6, Dave arrives to debate "excessive hyperbole" with Libertas.

Jaaaaaysus, that was quite a trip down memory lane.

What ever happened with Libertas?  I know he had his own hot mess update thread in AAD, but there was no way I was getting into that sh**t.  Something to do with being high on amphetamines all the time?  (Which explains so much about that 2010 thread in hindsight.)

[Virginiá]

Don't let Fuzzy control moderating policy.

Eh, I think it's pretty vague myself. If I was letting Fuzzy control policy, I wouldn't be polling FC. It seems fair that the users who make this forum into a place worth visiting should have input into how it is governed.

[S019]

So, as someone who has actually had a post moderated for "excessive hyperbole," I support this rule staying in place. My post deserved to be infracted, and if posts of that nature remained on the forum, the forum would be a much worse place.

[TJ in Oregon]

Every moderator who infracts for this is literally Hitler.

In all seriousness, it doesn't necessarily need to exists as a separate description since it is basically always either trolling or a personal attack, but sometimes it is the more apt description.