Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread

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.

30 January 2024 at 05:27 AM
Reply...

6491 Replies

i
a

by d2_e4 P

Reminds me of an interaction I had at my local a few years back. A reg I used to chat to and play pool with a bit asked me "It's weird, I see you knocking back glass after glass of wine in here all the time, and I've never seen you drunk". I said "No, dude. You've never seen me sober". He was like "Oh...."

What's your BAC on average when you answer my posts?


by Luciom P

What's your BAC on average when you answer my posts?

Since May, zero.


by Luciom P

Teetotallers are more often ill than people who drink sometimes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/healt...

No, it is a study that says in some countries they are off work more.

The very article you link to also refers to a study that says any amount of alcohol is worse for your health than no alcohol.

You didn't notice either, because you don't read your own claimed evidence, you just use whichever headline you think support your cause.

[QUOTE=Luciom;58687022[...]

[...]It isn't settled but tamedeuce actually claimed it is, and the reason some people still think the opposite is because of big business lol. [...][/QUOTE]

No, I said studies that claimed health benefits from alcoholic drinks are largely being abandoned these days.

If you bothered to read people's posts, you would perhaps notice the difference, but is of course easier to conduct the debates in your own mind against imaginary versions of people.

Regardless of your error, this trend was made very clear when WHO early in 2023 release a statement which stated that no level of alcohol consumption is safe. Many national health agencies also followed suit and changed their public health advice as well.


by Luciom P

Living is carcinogenic

lol i'm stealing this šŸ˜€

by DonkJr P

Well that's just not true. Fat people are funny!

home movies always frustrated me, it'd have wonderful little gems like this but for the most part was just terrible


by tame_deuces P

No, it is a study that says in some countries they are off work more.

The very article you link to also refers to a study that says any amount of alcohol is worse for your health than no alcohol.

You didn't notice either, because you don't read your own claimed evidence, you just use whichever headline you think support your cause.

No, I said studies that claimed health benefits from alcoholic drinks are largely being abandoned these days

Life itself is not safe, and never can be, and we're all going to die as a result, but the well-attested statistical ill-health of some non-drinkers may be in many cases because they became non-drinkers due to health problems, which in some cases may have been due to previous heavy drinking.


by 57 On Red P

Life itself is not safe, and never can be, and we're all going to die as a result, but the well-attested statistical ill-health of some non-drinkers may be in many cases because they became non-drinkers due to health problems, which in some cases may have been due to previous heavy drinking.



life is a sexually transmitted disease


Death is more powerful than life???


by 57 On Red P

Life itself is not safe, and never can be, and we're all going to die as a result, but the well-attested statistical ill-health of some non-drinkers may be in many cases because they became non-drinkers due to health problems, which in some cases may have been due to previous heavy drinking.

Perhaps, I suspect they didn't study very detailed medical backgrounds in a study of this type. The most probable link is in given in the article, which is simply that the abstainers come from poorer backgrounds, whereas the "one glass of wine a day"-thing was more prevalent in wealthier people. Socio-economic status is strongly linked to health.

Though it isn't said in the article, based on my own experience in life, those with poorer backgrounds might also on average have tougher jobs or jobs where home office isn't a thing, causing mild sickness to be more of an issue.

And let's be honest, in **** jobs there is more absenteeism.


please don't ban checkraise


by rickroll P

home movies always frustrated me, it'd have wonderful little gems like this but for the most part was just terrible

I hate you.


by DonkJr P

I hate you.

i'd rather be waterboarded than watch this

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...


by Luciom P

please don't ban checkraise

Iā€™m back baby.

Apologies to the mods for giving them extra work, will be on my best behavior from now on



Friends. We are having a problem here in this forum that needs to be addressed.

The personal attacks in the elections threads and the trans thread need to stop. It is totally acceptable to attack and/or characterize an *argument*; it is NOT acceptable to attack and/or characterize the poster making the argument.

These are the Rules for this forum

The Don’t Do This Section

We have a bunch of rules and guidelines, site-wide as well as forum specific, that are oriented towards DON’T DO THIS or DON’T SAY THAT. They are listed in detail in the website rules as well as below in this post. Don’t view those rules as goals to see how far you can go in disrupting our forum before you get bounced; rather view them as things to be avoided as they are counterproductive to achieving our goals of an enjoyable venue to talk politics.

(a) No-content posting. No-content posting is not permitted. Please make sure that your posts contribute positively. Examples of a no content post are “Duh!”; “LOLOLOL” or many of the other memes you may find in other forums on the site (inb4….; about 350). If you are posting a video, twitter or article headline, don’t just post it alone. Provide a comment summarizing the video or giving your take on the topic.

(b) Posts that attack another poster rather than address the issue of the thread. This includes rude, insulting, or snarky comments that add nothing to the discussion but rather seek to ridicule, demean or embarrass another poster. Accusing a poster of lying, gaslighting, trolling or other terms indicating a deliberate bad faith action will be avoided. We will assume posters are posting in good faith unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you believe this is the case, report the post to the moderators; do not accuse the poster in the thread. Likewise, if you feel you have been unjustly accused of such an action, report the post; after an initial denial of the accusation, do not respond further in the thread.

(c) Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups (such as members of the LGBTQ community or African Americans) with derogatory comments are not allowed.

Specific guidelines for Transgender Topics.

The following guidelines will be enforced on all threads and posts related to transgender topics. It is recognized that some people may have very strong beliefs concerning transgender persons that are diametrically opposed to these guidelines. Nonetheless, the following guidelines are in effect and posters who violate these guidelines will be subject to the same disciplinary procedures as other violators of forum rules and guidelines.

It is the policy of this forum that we support the major Medical Organizations positions that unequivocally state that transgender people are NOT mentally ill, and do not suffer from a mental disorder. The leading reference works for mental disorders, the DSM-5 of the American Psychiatric Association made that clear over 10 years ago, and maintained that position in the recent DSM-5-TR revision. The World Health Organization also moved gender incongruence out of the mental illness category in ICD-11. As more and more research is done, the idea that transgender persons have a mental disorder fades more and more into the past. Therefore, that is not a matter that will be put up for debate in the forum. It will be treated as a given that transgender people do not have any form of mental health disorder or illness.

It is our desire in this forum to provide a welcoming environment for all people to discuss various topics free from personal attacks. There few attacks more personal and harmful and disrespectful than to state that a person has a mental illness when they do not. Therefore any posts or discussions stating such will be deleted, and appropriate action, including banning from the site, will be taken against posters who fail to adhere to these guidelines.

Other prohibited posts include the use of slur terms such as tranny or transformers, among others to refer to either individual posters or transgender persons as a group. Deliberately misgendering transgender people who publicly present themselves as one gender is considered rude and hurtful by many in the transgender community and is strongly discouraged. However, absence certain context, just the act of using the opposite pronoun in the course of a discussion will not in itself result in deletion or other mod actions. However, statements like "fixed your post " while changing she to he, or bolding a pronoun to emphasize that rather than simply making an on topic post will be considered trolling and removed.

The overriding principle in play here is that transgender people exist, are not mentally ill, and have the right to present themselves publicly as they see fit. And as a matter of simple respect that we accord to anyone, there is no place for the deliberate use of other terms to disrespect their gender identity.

There will be some to whom these guidelines will be unacceptable and in conflict with their personal beliefs. And that's fine. There are many other places on the internet where like-minded people gather to share those beliefs with one another. If you can't post on transgender topics without including those beliefs, by all means leave here and go there.

There will be no transgender catch all thread to discuss transgender issues just as we have no catch all threads to discuss other LGBTQ groups. There will be no threads or posts about whether transgender people exist, have mental illness, or deserve to be treated with the same respect as others. Rather, if there are specific issues that affect politics or society, such as participation of transgender people in sports, or issues concerning proposed laws about bathroom use or education curriculum, those are appropriate. But only as the discussion pertains to the thread topic and doesn't devolve back into direct and indirect references to mental illness or if transgenderism is real, or gets filled with anti-transgender slurs.

Though these guidelines are straightforward, if you have any questions about whether a post of yours is within the guidelines I encourage you to check with a mod before posting it.

(d) Extremist views well outside of the mainstream will not be allowed: offensive conspiracy theories, posts that glorify violence, call to arms etc. Do not post-election conspiracy theories without sources. Such posts go in the riggie containment thread. Due to the nature of the current health crisis, we will not allow conspiracy theories surrounding Covid-19 to be propagated, nor will we allow Covid-19 denial or posting that attempts to undermine the severity of the crisis.

*** Posts of the type that suggest certain people involved in recent unrest in the US deserved to be hurt or killed. Insofar as there is any point to talking about "sides" in this regard, these statements have not been limited to one side of the classic political axis. Such posts will not be accepted and this is not up for debate. Frankly, if anyone's political inclination has led them to a point where they think fellow citizens should be hurt / killed in vigilante actions, as targets of political violence or a result of unfortunate confrontations, then the person thinking that should take a deep breath, take a step back and do some serious introspection. Because whatever ideological path that person is on has taken them to a bad place. ***

(e) Critiquing other posters’ posting style. Inserting comments like “yeah, he never provides citations to back him up” into the middle of an ongoing discussion adds nothing and shifts focus from the topic to the poster personally.

(f) Rehashing old arguments in a new thread. Keep comments focused on today’s topic. Bringing up old arguments or positions that don’t affect the discussion today add nothing and shift the focus to the poster rather than the argument. If a poster says today he supports Trump, it doesn’t really matter if he said he didn’t two years ago. Let it go. Bringing up past posts from other threads or forums that don’t apply to the current topic is not allowed. E.g. “you said in NVG 6 months ago…”

With the election coming up soon, it must be emphasized that abusive posting will be moderated with infractions and bans. Thoughtful and moderate posting is always acceptable, regardless of which side of the political spectrum with which you associate.

PLEASE everyone, this forum only works with cooperative discussions and respectful debates. Edit yourselves where necessary. Thank you


free Phresh


by Victor P

free Phresh

lol oh snap let me guess your favorite podcast is RedScare?


bro wut


My suggestion is that when you decide to ban someone for multiple offenses, then make it permanent. Definitely stop this new policy of letting people back in who have been permabanned under different accounts. Like Meisner, who is one of the people mucking up the Trans thread again, just shouldnā€™t be give another shot. And people like Luciom who just canā€™t help themselves from the hate speech etc just shouldnā€™t be here imo.


by Crossnerd P

Friends. We are having a problem here in this forum that needs to be addressed.

The personal attacks in the elections threads and the trans thread need to stop. It is totally acceptable to attack and/or characterize an *argument*; it is NOT acceptable to attack and/or characterize the poster making the argument.

These are the Rules for this forum

With the election coming up soon, it must be emphasized that abusive posting will be moderated


Hard disagree. IMO permas should be reserved for particularly egregious offences or offenders. Maybe we just have different views on what is "particularly egregious".


Yeah I think the problem is that if we permaban conservatives for being uncivil there would be no conservatives left lmao


yeah whenever i peruse old threads it always makes me really sad to see just how many old threads are full of banned accounts

people do one thing once and boom, an account that posted for years with 5k posts gets banned

i think those bans are major reason why this place is so dead

i'm sure if we looked at the numbers we'd see it's less than 200 people accounting for 90% of the traffic and probably 50 people accounting for over half


by rickroll P

yeah whenever i peruse old threads it always makes me really sad to see just how many old threads are full of banned accounts

people do one thing once and boom, an account that posted for years with 5k posts gets banned

i think those bans are major reason why this place is so dead

i'm sure if we looked at the numbers we'd see it's less than 200 people accounting for 90% of the traffic and probably 50 people accounting for over half

200? Are you crazy? Try 20.


if we go by posting then yes but there's a lot of lurkers


by checkraisdraw P

Yeah I think the problem is that if we permaban conservatives for being uncivil there would be no conservatives left lmao

Especially if you define "uncivil" as "being rightwing" on any issue yes, which is what the left and the rules of this forum do.

Meanwhile unlimited insults to any rightwing politician (fair) and all their voters are always allowed and celebrated


by Luciom P

Especially if you define "uncivil" as "being rightwing" on any issue yes, which is what the left and the rules of this forum do.

Meanwhile unlimited insults to any rightwing politician (fair) and all their voters are always allowed and celebrated

3 of the 7 people listed were banned specifically for insulting *you*, so please, give the above shtick a rest. Thanks.


Reply...