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.
If the only way to write here is by over-self-censoring to play it safe it isn't particularly funny or interesting to do so for me, especially when the rules are interpreted in a hyper-radical leftist way, I mean what I got repeatedly banned for here wouldn't have caused a ban in pre-musk Twitter, which was a leftist-moderated place (that's the only really leftist place I wrote in before this).
And the moderation back then felt really oppre
Welcome to The Matriarchy. I could expound, but I'll play it safe and leave it at that.
Lets just say from a meta perspective, there have been speculations what would a matriarchal society (as opposed to a patriarchal one) look like in the wild. And some have speculated that in certain liberal spaces, we are getting something of an answer; with a focus on safety and inclusion over risk taking behaviors and competitive dominance displays.
I am not saying that is what is going on here. But Lucium's articulation of his frustrations reminded me of such speculation.
O/U on number of days till Luciom gets re-banned for a post starting "I'm not allowed to discuss this here, but..."?
What are the rules on this? Can I ask for drone extrajudicial killings of enemies of the west like Obama did, but to more of them and a wider range for example?
Can't advocate for physical harm to people, even if it's Trump. We weren't allowed express regret that the attempt on him was unsuccessful, for example. Them's the rules, kiddo.
Wow, with these adjectives we just keep moving further left as you go. We're really not the ones who are extreme, and if you disagree you certainly don't have to post here. There are clearly right wing people who post here without being banned, though.
Man, you guys are just like those other hyper radical leftists, the Nazis.
Can't advocate for physical harm to people, even if it's Trump. We weren't allowed express regret that the attempt on him was unsuccessful, for example. Them's the rules, kiddo.
Doesn't appear to be the rule at all, as people didn't get banned when cheering hamas members being killed and advocating for more of that. Nor when cheering russians being killed.
So no that is absolutely not a confirmed, enforced rule on this board in all occasions.
Moreover i am pretty sure a person CAN advocate for the death penalty in this forum without being banned, and that's advocating for physical harm to people.
So, "kiddo", try better
Doesn't appear to be the rule at all, as people didn't get banned when cheering hamas members being killed and advocating for more of that. Nor when cheering russians being killed.
So no that is absolutely not a confirmed, enforced rule on this board in all occasions.
Moreover i am pretty sure a person CAN advocate for the death penalty in this forum without being banned, and that's advocating for physical harm to people.
So, "kiddo", try bet
I'm not a mod, but that was my understanding of the rules. There might be exceptions for willing combatants, no idea, I don't go in those threads.
Debating the death penalty seems like it would be an obvious exception.
Wow, with these adjectives we just keep moving further left as you go. We're really not the ones who are extreme, and if you disagree you certainly don't have to post here. There are clearly right wing people who post here without being banned, though.
Some things you guys display are ultra radical , some radical, some just leftist, some centrist (never anything resembling a rightwing attitude ever though).
Not answering where the absolute, objective, transparent boundaries of the rules are, forcing people to "find their spot" by self censoring, is technically maoist .
I'm not a mod, but that was my understanding of the rules. There might be exceptions for willing combatants, no idea, I don't go in those threads.
Debating the death penalty seems like it would be an obvious exception.
So debating about *writing rules that allow legally to use violence* is the exception? that was my take as well which is why i frame my proposal as such
Can i debate legalizing torture in some cases?
Take your medicine without whining and follow the rules instead of pretending you don't know what they are when everyone else does, or go and post on 4chan or 8chan, your natural homes.
Do you agree that we should be allowed to debate any policy proposal of a democracy? taking either side?
I thnk we have to allow debate of any policy proposal that is the current serious politics. That difficult enough given how extreme the mainstream is these days.
You know you're struggling to meet the rules so it might be wise to stop looking for the line and stick to all the obviously ok stuff.
You could couch any extremist viewpoint that would otherwise be disallowed by couching it as a "policy proposal", so no. Nice attempt at an angle shoot, though.
No, i mean actual policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament and/or executives in the first world.
Like Poland allowing to shoot to kill immigrants trying to trespass on the border
I thnk we have to allow debate of any policy proposal that is the current serious politics. That difficult enough given how extreme the mainstream is these days.
You know you're struggling to meet the rules so it might be wise to stop looking for the line and stick to all the obviously ok stuff.
it is not obvious to me at all what the line is. I definitely didn't think i wasn't allowed to claim that some antisemitic rants by irrelevant people weren't an actual threat to jews for example.
What are the rules on this? Can I ask for drone extrajudicial killings of enemies of the west like Obama did, but to more of them and a wider range for example?
yes ofc you can so long as it is directed at "terrorists".
furthermore, you can also just support the drone program in general that by the US's own calculation killed 90% civilians.
now you cant say it was good to kill those civilians and no one is allowed to say that you support killing civilians. but you can def say that you support a drone program that kills 90% civilians.
No, i mean actual policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament and/or executives in the first world.
Like Poland allowing to shoot to kill immigrants trying to trespass on the border
I cant imagine that discussing policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament would be disallowed, but I'm not a mod.
No, i mean actual policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament and/or executives in the first world.
Like Poland allowing to shoot to kill immigrants trying to trespass on the border
In general, yes, this is allowed. However, I could easily see where posts on this topic cross the line, such as if they suggest that it's good to shoot immigrants before they pollute us with their inferior cultures.
We can't go through every single example you can dream up until you find the exact line because that would take forever and there is no exact line. It's fuzzy. If you don't think you can post without coming across as racist, then your views are likely not welcome here.
In general, yes, this is allowed. However, I could easily see where posts on this topic cross the line, such as if they suggest that it's good to shoot immigrants before they pollute us with their inferior cultures.
We can't go through every single example you can dream up until you find the exact line because that would take forever and there is no exact line. It's fuzzy. If you don't think you can post without coming across as racist, then
It's not an example i "dreamt up", that was a recent decision by polish authorities. Parliament passed immunity for shootings "while defending the border"
https://balkaninsight.com/2024/07/29/pol...
I don't think anyone can post about race/culture-related topics (so immigration, geopolitics when discussing different behaviours by different countries, and group outcomes in multiracial societies) without coming across as racist *under the leftist definition of the word* unless he always basically agrees with the left on race/culture on all topics, you guys define disagreement with you on those topics as racism.
So which definition of racism (to be avoided) is enforced here? the normie one, which allows one to feel his own culture is superior to all others without that being inherently racist for example, or the woke/radical leftist one according to which any mention of any purported rankable difference in quality among cultures / ethnicities for any outcome is racism?
Dude, shut the **** up.
Another rule question:
Some people use the moderation thread to ask questions about moderation decisions and forum rules.
Other use it to troll others, or for personal disagreement about stuff with other posters.
Is the latter behaviour allowed under forum rules? it looks like it is but this was something that i "obviously" thought wasn't allowed for example.
