Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
I see no other way to tie these two sentences together. He did not think that Russia would invade, but after seeing that Israel has done it makes a lot more sense. Seems pretty to clear to me that this is saying that if Russia didn't invade then Ukraine could become another Israel.
It's too far from just not trusting the western outpost - here's an example of the worst that can happen in the world to illustrate why that can't be trusted. The situation is very different. Russia has nukes for one.
Even if it includes the extreme possibility (generally very unwise to decide things are impsossible), the meat is that the usa (west) cannot be trusted so that's the point that needs addressing if there's to be meanaingful discussion.
We've seen this argument many times before, here was one of my responses:
Ukraine added that to their constitution in 2019, 5 years after Russia invaded. Since Ukraine was at war, and had a territorial dispute, it was impossible for them to join NATO.
Even before that, Ukraine had a pact with Russia to station the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea until 2042, making it pretty much impossible they could join NATO anyways. This was signed in 1997. I'm assuming the "clear messaging" was Bush's declaration in 2008.
Lets look at some other similar arguments and how they were addressed:
List of countries that share a border with Russia:
Joined NATO:
Norway
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Built Nuclear Weapons:
North Korea
China
Russia Sent Troops:
Belarus
Ukraine
Georgia
Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh peacekeepers)
No Nukes, No NATO, No Troops:
Mongolia
Kazakhstan (technically some Russian troops were sent to quell riots)
The reason for joining NATO should be obvious.
NATO "encroachment" is an impossibility. Countries join of their own
This is just a different flavor of the exact same argument. If anything the entire argument is bad faith because it ignores the numerous well thought out refutations to the argument and then restates it with nothing new to add. At this stage if you are still repeating this argument then you're either too poorly educated to participate or you're just making noise to try to justify Russia's imperialist invasion/ somehow blame anyone other Russia for their invading.
The entire argument itself is bad faith at this point. It's even more bad faith because he's trying to make an emotional appeal by drawing a parallel between Ukraine and Israel's methods which results in lots of civilian deaths somehow. There are actual civilian deaths occurring in Ukraine at this moment; and we're discussing whether those civilian deaths were to prevent hypothetical Russian civilian deaths? Come on.
Rafiki using dates and facts is in no way bad faith.
As far this goes:
Soemhow I think that would be much better than blaming putin for invading and then not giving up in the face of all that finger pointing
The equivalent would be that an asteroid is heading towards Earth and people are debating how best to help Earth survive but a loud person keeps interrupting by yelling that the Earth is flat so the asteroid will miss. All of the arguments about the Earth not being flat have been given, but they continue to yell it. Eventually things need to move past that person. That is where the mods are supposed to come in.
I'm not saying we're going to solve the world's problems here, but I would like a place to discuss them with intelligent people and instead I have this nonsense because Victor needs a place to be Victor.
It's too far from just not trusting the western outpost - here's an example of the worst that can happen in the world to illustrate why that can't be trusted. The situation is very different. Russia has nukes for one.
Even if it includes the extreme possibility (generally very unwise to decide things are impsossible), the meat is that the usa (west) cannot be trusted so that's the point that needs addressing if there's to be meanaingful disc
I am talking purely about the argument that was put forth on this page. You're moving on to an entirely different one.
There are actual civilian deaths occurring in Ukraine at this moment; and we're discussing whether those civilian deaths were to prevent hypothetical Russian civilian deaths? Come on.
Here's a great way of putting this actually:
it's not hi filutin. It's just normal politcs. I frequently defened chamberlain who is blamed by many for appeasment and WW2, sometimes versailles or economics gets blamed etc etc . Dumbing it down by blaming hitler or arguing if hitler was more to blame is just ridicuous. And nothign to do with being symapthetic to hitler or the nazis
Politics is about what we could and should do better. We blame ourselves for our failings and what we need
chez,
The only person who is conflating politics and the assignment of blame is you. I never suggested that assigning blame provides a dispositive answer to questions like "what should we do" or "how did this situation arise"?
no you want a place to validate Western expansion and hypocrisy. I dont agree with your perspectives and that drives you absolutely mad.
Can't refute, ad hominem
there is literally no arguments that you would accept that are critical of a Western power. and if you had it your way then you would ban all ideas that you dont agree with.
Indeed i have the open wound that thinks we should have stopped putin invading ukraine and having failed that we should back ukraine to win. Soemhow I think that would be much better than blaming putin for invading and then not giving up in the face of all that finger pointing/
Im a sicko
Your open mind is towards victor. You’re trying way too hard to make his argument fit your priors because you like what he has to say about Israel.
chez,
The only person who is conflating politics and the assignment of blame is you. I never suggested that assigning blame provides a dispositive answer to questions like "what should we do" or "how did this situation arise"?
No I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting that that.
I'm suggesting it's what is beign done. And that ts is not merely silly, it's a real politcal problem.
I'm not seeing it. The person you seem to be assigning the argument to seems to disagree that it is his argument.
Anyways though, what you are trying to ignore is an argument against what you are saying. The flawed and debunked NATO encroachment narrative was used as reasoning to not arm Ukraine.
there is literally no arguments that you would accept that are critical of a Western power. and if you had it your way then you would ban all ideas that you dont agree with.
Well this is demonstrably false. Just read either of the threads I participate in in this forum. Wait... you do. It's almost like you assign things to me based on your flawed notion of who I am instead of actually reading my arguments. As rafiki if I support the "Western genocidal outpost".
Both of your posts ITT are no content personal attacks. They should be reported but I know it will result in nothing being done.
Anyways I'm out again. natediggity, sorry you have to put with this. I have no idea what he's posting in that thread but I can figure out the result. It's a shame this is protected.
I'm not seeing it. The person you seem to be assigning the argument to seems to disagree that it is his argument.
Anyways though, what you are trying to ignore is an argument against what you are saying. The flawed and debunked NATO encroachment narrative was used as reasoning to not arm Ukraine.
Well this is demonstrably false. Just read either of the threads I participate in in this forum. Wait... you do. It's almost like you assign things
I mean you come into this thread and talk a bunch of **** about me and then at the mildest pushback you want to whine to the mods. dont fling it if you dont like the blowback.
I'm not seeing it. The person you seem to be assigning the argument to seems to disagree that it is his argument.
That's not what i'm seeing but I've never committed to an interpretation.
Anyways though, what you are trying to ignore is an argument against what you are saying. The flawed and debunked NATO encroachment narrative was used as reasoning to not arm Ukraine.
? There was no good reason not to arm Ukraine. We need to do better.
edit: that probably wasn't clear but the truth of nato encroachment narrative was neccesarily irrelevant. Possibly another example of a focus on attacking people for being wrong rather than addressing what needs to be done.
The equivalent would be that an asteroid is heading towards Earth and people are debating how best to help Earth survive but a loud person keeps interrupting by yelling that the Earth is flat so the asteroid will miss. All of the arguments about the Earth not being flat have been given, but they continue to yell it. Eventually things need to move past that person. That is where the mods are supposed to come in.
I'm not saying we're going to
it really isn't.
The argument reminds me of the blackadder sketch about why WW1 couldn't happen. You've ignored the possibility that archie duke might get hungary and eat an osterich.
rather than just making things up you can read my words. I didnt think Russia would invade bc I thought it was a really bad idea. I didnt support the invasion for obv reasons.
but now that we see what happens when you allow a genocidal Western outpost at your doorstep it makes a lot more sense.
No it doesn't. Ukraine is not a threat to Russia, it's entirely the other way round. And unlike Israel, Ukraine is not a nuclear power, in fact it gave up its nuclear weapons -- which is the answer to Bertrand Russell and unilateral disarmers generally: Ukraine tried it and look how that worked out. And the genocidal factor is entirely the other way round as well. It's Kremlin eunuchs who have argued for the eradication of Ukrainians, their culture and their language. Ukrainians have not said that kind of mad thing about Russians. As for not supporting the invasion, you've done nothing but support it, in rationale, in method and in ideology.
No offense to you as I think you're one of the best posters but it's one hell of a belief that he was talking about ukraine here. Maybe there's a need to check cos how it didn't occur that he might have been referring to israel leaves me a bit staggered.
then it's about trust of the west (mostly the usa) possibly?
This is what happens when you have someone who is terrible at understanding things trying to interpret someone who is terrible at communicating things. Yes, he did mean Ukraine, go back and read what he wrote again.
Ukraine == Ukraine
Do I qualify to vote now?
Ok thanks.
Hopefully there will some decent candidates.
