In what way can a moderator say that this website is populated by not bright enough people?

Why would they want to moderate a website if they didn’t respect the participants? Can you provide more context, please.

Not steppin in this one!

What would be the point of saying that? To get people to quit? Or to make them try to be smarter?

Why would a moderator want to say such a degrading thing about the users?? I already know that people in general don’t know everything and it didn’t take me long to figure that out about the visitors to this site.

1. In what way can a moderator say that this website is populated by not bright enough people?
I fail to see the relation of this question and the question in the body of the post. This Q refers to the cognitive ability of the users, and the question in the body refers to the nature of the topics. There are many ways to rephrase this and you can sugar coat the wording, but the message will still be insulting.

2. In what way can a moderator say that without saying these words? This website is mostly fluffy topics
Our users enjoy unsubstantial exchanges.
This website is about idle debate.
This website deals essentially with futile blather.

[Mod Says]

For the record, this question is not based on anything that a moderator here has actually said (to @flo or anyone else).

Assuming I’m accurately guessing what you mean, perhaps: “Remember, if you know any bright people who would enjoy the site, you can invite them with the INVITE button!”

@SavoirFaire Since it wasn’t in Meta, I assumed it wasn’t about our brilliant cohort!

@SavoirFaire I would just LOVE to see you juggle this one!

We can only aspire to being as intelligent and good looking (not to mention good natured) as the Mods.

“You seriously have no idea what people are dealing with in their personal lives, so just be nice, it’s that simple.”

Let’s get to the root of the question.

Is brightness important, at all?

It seems like the real attributes necessary – here or anywhere – are:

1) ability to communicate clearly and cogently
2) adding original thoughts or opinions to the conversation

Neither of those are predicated on brightness. Much more on other abilities, like organizing and writing down thoughts.

All of that said, this is still a wacky question.

I think it would need to be buried within a lot of useless rhetoric, or it wouldn’t matter the wording used.

I would try posting a question: “In what way can a moderator say that this website is populated by not bright enough people?”

Well one way to try to ensure that only reasonably intelligent people become, and stay, members is to enforce higher quality writing standards, and spank the hell out of them if they can’t comply!

Disclaimer: This is not Mensa Connect, all are welcome here regardless of IQ score.

We all might prefer high standards, but I shouldn’t think that the purpose of our club. We all bring to the table whatever tools we have, and as long as I can make out what I read, I’m satisfied. I will definitely bitch when I can’t make it out. And that should do the trick.

The phrase “light fare” comes to mind. Who is your audience? Is the purpose to draw in more articulate users or to warn them away? If the intent is to discourage users from posting fluffy topics, that seems futile unless the rules explicitly prohibit them.

Having been a Moderator on other Q&A sites I can say that a genuine and caring Moderator would not say such a thing.

A proper Moderator would treat EVERY subscriber with respect and would not judge them.

Can a modeator say ( without actually saying it, as I wrote above) only to the poster of a question (i.e in editing), “the question [would] make no sense” to the users of this website, since they are so clueless.

@flo I think what the moderator might be saying is that the question makes no sense as asked, rather than that the user base is clueless. And yes, I think it is valid for a mod to say that to a poster. It’s a judgment on the question as phrased, not on the poster or the readers.

[Mod Says]

Again, this is not based on anything that was actually written by a Fluther moderator. That said, we do sometimes point out when a question is worded in a nonsensical way (e.g., “What is do more the fun place?”). The problem is not that the users of the site cannot figure it out. The problem is that the question does not meet Fluther’s writing standards. Many jellies are able to decipher nonsensical questions when they come up, but they shouldn’t have to because the question standards require more of askers. We don’t require questions (or answers, for that matter) to be perfect. We do, however, require them to be generally intelligible. And since questions can be edited, we have somewhat higher standards for them than we do for answers.

I stated 2 times without actually saying (writing it), (Edited to add:i.e I never read it/ heard it said by any one in any website I have known so why refer to Flurther? By the way can a moderator be only “brave” (quote unquote brave) enough to moderate some (Edited too add:people’s questions) and never others?

….Others i.e his/her puppet masters?

What are you saying @flo ? ?

I think she’s asking if the mods play favorites. In my experience they do not.

@Dutchess_III But she has stated twice that it’s not about Fluther so what is it about??

Other websites have moderators….maybe she’s referring to one of them.

^^ well, yeah, that’s what I was saying, although she says she is not referring to any website she has known.

So WHAT is she referring to?

Once again, I’m telling you all that there is peculiar, even demonic talent involved here. All of those “off topic” moderations above amount to arbitrary and rather cavalier dismissal of the fact as well as pointless obliteration of the evidence that we are dealing with language NONE of us understand. There is no getting around that topic and the deletion of conversations around the issue is short sighted, pompous and counterproductive.

Edited but not for content.:
No government would say’’ Our citizens are clueless”, no employer corporation would say ’‘Our employers are clueless or incompetent, etc., No moderator of a Q&A website would say or write ’‘Our users are clueless’’ so, ’‘Again, this is not based on anything that was actually written by a Fluther moderator.’’ is a straw man (or similar) argument.

@flo So please tell us what your question is about because we truly don’t understand what you are asking and why? Truly! I get that you’re not referring to Fluther, I got that the first time you said it so what are you asking?

Go ahead and dance birdie.
And, once more let our mod pick up the juggling gauntlet. This is going to be entertaining,

@flo no government would say it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true or that said government need not behave as though it were.

Actually our founding fathers didn’t think the population had the brains to govern themselves. Trump suggests they might have been on to something.

If a question doesn’t make sense to a moderator, it can’t make sense anyone else, since moderator is all knowing. There is no such thing the content not making sense to moderator because it’s over the head of him/her.
Or, no such thing as moderator being puppet mastered, the question.

(Moderators are not all knowing.)

@All, I run out of time editing the last post. Please ignore the last part (“the question”).

[Mod Says]

”‘This is not based on anything that was actually written by a Fluther moderator.’ is a straw man (or similar) argument.”

It’s not a straw man (or similar) argument because it is not an argument at all. It is a statement meant to clear up any potential confusion. When someone asks “Why would a moderator say [blank]?” or “How could a moderator say something like [blank]?” it is natural for some people to think that the question might be based on something that actually happened.

The original [Mod Says] message was meant only to make it clear that no such thing had happened. The second [Mod Says] message repeated that original point and also clarified that questions moderated for being nonsensical are removed on the basis of the writing standards (as opposed to being some judgment about the intelligence of other jellies).

“If a question doesn’t make sense to a moderator, it can’t make sense anyone else, since moderator is all knowing.”

No one is all knowing, moderators included. But there are rules to things like grammar, spelling, and syntax. We do not require absolutely perfect compliance with those rules, and we recognize that there are circumstances in which purposefully breaking them is appropriate. But those exceptions exist within a context that justifies them.

On Fluther, other jellies should be able to get the idea of your question from the title (with the question’s description adding important details, such as context or nuance). Posting nonsense on the premise that it is comprehensible if one tries hard enough violates the site’s writing standards. And on that basis, it will be moderated regardless of whether any individual jelly—moderator or otherwise—is willing and able to decipher it.

For pete sake, everybody, why not just let this one go?

Is part of clearing up everyone who is on the thread learning that it’s not the the poster of the question who flagged it as “Unhelpful”? as in the post above the last. That is, it could be for example that the OP found that the direction a location is * very helpful* and to another person it is not, since they learn direction given in another way. So, is it nonsensical, that the option of “Unhelpful” is not reserved for the OP?

Editing the last post: ”...that the direction a location is” Pease read: ”...that the OP of a question about the direction to a location is…”

Also, Moderator wants all to learn why a post is unhelpful to her/him so he/she discusses it in the thread. or is it better to hide it from view, and not let people learn?

“Which is nonsensical: “The san ryzs een eest” , versus “The sun rises in the waist”.

How does everyone learn that the moderated post (the last one of this thread) was a great counter to the post just above it, for example, if it is removed?

…“For pete sake, everybody, why not just let this one go?” versus the one above it that got flagged as “Unhelpful” which again is not by me, and which I hadn’t read before it got removed, which one actually addressed the topic of the thread?

…I meant “The sun rises in the west (3rd post above last)

@kneesox “why not just let this one go”? Here’s a reason— no one here knows exactly what “it” is. Or rather, one of us presumably knows and cannot tell us. And here’s a more pertinent reason. This is not an isolated or once in a blue moon episode. “It” will be back. As I say above, if there is something written here beyond my ability to understand it, labeling any discussion or reasoning on that fact “unhelpful”, “off topic”, etc aids little toward resolving the matter. Clearly, I am not alone.

And again, this will certainly be moderated away, but which of you has ever encountered anyone so skilled at obfuscation through the employment of English. If it is deliberate, it is absolute genius. If not, there must be a fortune to be realized through its monetization.

[Mod Says]

“Unhelpful” is a charitable way of saying “technically on topic, but not constructive.” It is the label used when a response is not off topic but nevertheless does not actually answer the question or contribute to an ongoing and constructive conversation. It is almost exclusively used in the General section and has nothing to do with the asker’s opinion of the answer.

Removed moderated deleted as ‘Unhelpful’’ without any indication (abbreviation /word etc ) that it’s not the asker/OP who found it unhelpful is what this is about.

The websites that ask ‘Was this Helpful to you?’’ should ask everyone other than the asker that question, re. the ‘Unhelpful’ ’’...has nothing to do with the asker’s opinion of the answer.’’