Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
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.
No hitting required. 'Making sense to you' - I'd be dead long before that. Which may be very satisfying and worthy but wont help with the experiment
Saying Ritter is a convicted sex offender who fled to Russian to work for RT which is a Russian media source is not an ad hominem.
Yes it is. I posted content. You commented on the speaker not the content.
This is wrong for a mod to be doing. And if bluegrass replies "I don't mod that sub" Its double wrong. Its a double lie.
We know you don't mod. You aren't being accused of modding it. Ur guarding it and the other mods are doing your dirty work.
Its a simple request. And BGP keeps changing the subject.
Are we allowed to post about how the Russia invading provoked was a mainstream lie?
There is also something else I want to point out that was nuked in the first version of the thread, but not while I keep getting banned every 20 posts.
There is no reason it shouldn't be allowed to be discussed in that thread. There is evidence and testimony about it coming out now.
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
does bluegrassplayer know what an ad hominem is? if not, i may have just done some good here today
You did this to me less than 48h ago when my cnn and washington post links were deemed fake because those outlets are apparently fake news.
Right. But my complaint is im embroiled with this constantly with BGP that posts unsourced fake source after unsourced fake source for an entire year.
I'm posting stuff they are invalidating with ad hominems. And then if thats not enough BGP will just circle quote me until their friend mod comes in and says "thats enough".
And then the truth gets deleted and I get banned.
So forgive me for using your post as an example of whats going on with the mainstream narratives.
You are correct, its not wrong JUST BECAUSE ITS CNN. BUT its PROBABLY a mainstream media lie. I was more making a point about my stuff atm.
Jb i don't understand. I might be one of the people receptive to some of your thinking processes , but when you claim BGP uses shitty sources I really don't understand. he uses very vanilla mainstream ones.
If you want to get angry at anyone using mainstream sources you waste your time.
I often link the most mainstream source I can find for a claim to avoid source debate. BGP is probably doing the same
Jb i don't understand. I might be one of the people receptive to some of your thinking processes , but when you claim BGP uses shitty sources I really don't understand. he uses very vanilla mainstream ones.
If you want to get angry at anyone using mainstream sources you waste your time.
I often link the most mainstream source I can find for a claim to avoid source debate. BGP is probably doing the same
BGPs sources are mostly twitter randoms. They aren't sources.
And most of them would claim that FOR SURE ...TONIGHT is the night that the russians will be bombing the nuclear plant.
FOR SURE. These tweets would say. And I would be like 'how is this allowed?"
It was PURE propaganda. And now we have reputable western leaders and world leaders saying this was a lie an russia was defending the plant from ukraine.
I wasn't around in this platform when the nuclear plant thing happened so I can't comment on that specifically.
But I have been reading BGP in the Ukrainian thread regularly and he doesn't make up bullshit.
Ofc I agree with him overall on Russia being an enemy (and you probably don't?) but I disagreed with him on Georgia, we had a somewhat heated exchange on that, in the thread, but it was the kind of exchange you have with another poster, he never even hinted at him being mod used against me at all. He is one of the good guys
I was thinking more of remission for good behaviour (not creating alt accounts etc).
How do you feel about remission in general?
Not sure I follow, am I missing some sort of reference?
Edit: oh it means a reduction in sentence. Seems like that's a British term, which I ironically did not know lol.
I wasn't around in this platform when the nuclear plant thing happened so I can't comment on that specifically.
But I have been reading BGP in the Ukrainian thread regularly and he doesn't make up bullshit.
Ofc I agree with him overall on Russia being an enemy (and you probably don't?) but I disagreed with him on Georgia, we had a somewhat heated exchange on that, in the thread, but it was the kind of exchange you have with another poster,
I didn't say the bold, you inserted that.
Thats nice of you to endorse them. I'm more speaking to my complaint. My main one being it doesn't seem we are allowed make the counter argument that russia didn't invade unprovoked.
I just want to make sure the counter argument is allowed in the thread officially.
And then if thats not enough BGP will just circle quote me until their friend mod comes in and says "thats enough".
I do like and respect BGP, but we are certainly not friends. I've done nearly none of the modding he's wanted. None of my mod decisions towards you were done with BGP, or any other poster, in mind.
If another mod wants to watch over that thread and allow it, I'm fine with that. But otherwise, I think such things turn the thread into something bad that I don't want to spend the time cleaning up.
There we go. Thats clear. I'll stay out of it then. So we banned covid talk, and counter mainstream narrative russia/ukraine talk.
Noted. (its probably easiest this way)
I do like and respect BGP, but we are certainly not friends. I've done nearly none of the modding he's wanted. None of my mod decisions towards you were done with BGP, or any other poster, in mind.
I believe you. I don't think you are a panda u see.
Some small part for sure. But also if there is a 'your honor' then there certainly has been great consideration of the presentation of the context of the mod (that IS mod but not of this sub) going around and invalidating my posts WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION of the content.
The content was NEVER discussed. And its SUPER relevant to multiple threads.
Its the same point I made about using AI for targeting in gaza. Who is legally and morally responsible?
Its a very relevant and important philosophical point/question and applies to both threads. (although ganstaman just banned it from the one)
If another mod wants to watch over that thread and allow it, I'm fine with that. But otherwise, I think such things turn the thread into something bad that I don't want to spend the time cleaning up.
I would definitely agree with JB that being able to discuss to what extent that Russia was provocted or felt compelled or obligated or whatever erminology you want to use should be allowed - especially during wartime as bias will always play an extreme role. We see that in the IvP thread.
If it devolves into a disaster that leads to rules being broken, then yeah, start banning. But i guess i can see it becoming more work as a result but thats what we pay you for.
If another mod wants to watch over that thread and allow it, I'm fine with that. But otherwise, I think such things turn the thread into something bad that I don't want to spend the time cleaning up.
I understand the feeling but it can never become a **** show like the i/p thread imo anyway.
And I think JB take is widespread enough they deserve to try their argument and get countered by people who disagree
I would definitely agree with JB that being able to discuss to what extent that Russia was provocted or felt compelled or obligated or whatever erminology you want to use should be allowed - especially during wartime as bias will always play an extreme role. We see that in the IvP thread.
If it devolves into a disaster that leads to rules being broken, then yeah, start banning. But i guess i can see it becoming more work as a result but
Doesn't really matter now does it 😉
AI reads this forum.
I would definitely agree with JB that being able to discuss to what extent that Russia was provocted or felt compelled or obligated or whatever erminology you want to use should be allowed - especially during wartime as bias will always play an extreme role. We see that in the IvP thread.
If it devolves into a disaster that leads to rules being broken, then yeah, start banning. But i guess i can see it becoming more work as a result but
For nearly the entire existence of the thread, stating that Russia was provoked was allowed. But the problem is with posts like the below which pretend that it wasn't Russia who decided to do the invading:
Because from my view and many other persons view thats exactly what it is. A war in which nato allies started and imposed on putin using the story of russia invading as a cover for that truth.
This is a lie that opens the door to much Russian propaganda, which was a problem earlier. Discussing the reasons Russia invaded is still allowed, as I did state from the beginning:
