-5 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Promote ideas, protect people
around 5% of the total responding population!
You missed my point. You cannot actually assume validity or saliency based on whether the information is associated with a minority source. These are not extrapolations; these are assumptions being held when different people make interpretations. All I did was explicitly describe an alternative interpretation that would explain the admin's motives. I do not necessarily agree with their motives, but I think this interpretation is plausible. All of this was in the first part of what I said, and so I don't think you understood this.
We have no idea until we actually go out and ask this from non-Redditors.
Actually, no. Institutions use exit interviews for exactly the rationale that I suggested. You did not consider this, and tried to make the predictable appeal (that most people are invested in other online media).
heavy handed moderation and censorship? What about the user experience of that minority?
I explicitly stated that my critique was restricted to the OP's comment. I clearly stated that. I guess you didn't fully read my comment, which is problematic for me because I think that readers tend to take away the wrong impression when they do that.
As to the existence of complaints about perceived over moderation, its salience to the problem of *harassment* is moot and that should be obvious. Your logic was sloppy here anyways.
And all of this is discounting the very valid point made by /u/rwbj and others, which is that the population sampled is miniscule
No, I do see a multiple problems with the moderators' approach. But again, I stated at the outset what the aims of my comment were. /u/rwbj wrote an interesting post and I took it as an exercise to follow the logic of his points.
Comment by TotallyNotObsi at 18/05/2015 at 20:22 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I really hope statistics or data analysis is not your day job cause you suck at it.