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.
If browser were consistent, I’d have nothing to say and I’d tip my cap. He isn’t, that’s all it comes down to. In order to post in this forum you are allowed to say complete fabrications that serve no purpose other than instigation, or apparently instigation itself as it relates to hoe, but if you call it out you’re done
I mean that’s neat. If you think that’s admirable moderation I got nothin for you
And I’m not even saying lozen, hoe, etc should be banned. But if your mindset is they can say anything they want and it’s not an obligation it’s truthful, I should be allowed to call out bad faith in bad faith. Giving trolls a seat at the table by pretending their transparently provable bullshit deserves debate empowers trolls to continue acting in bad faith. Allow everything or allow nothing
quick question,
are we allowed to call people this?
no, I dont want anyone banned. I just want clarification.
Here's the thing. It's not allowed. But whether it results in a warning or a ban is based not just on that single post in isolation, but the individuals history of posting violations, previous warnings, or bans. That's determined by the mod at the time.
So it's a bit disingenuous to say you arent reporting a post but simply seeking clarification. And reporting it provides the mods with a direct link to that post which is helpful. If you think a post violates the rules to the extent that a mod should take a look and make a call, then by all means report it. But you cant really ask a mod to take a look, make a ruling and then not enforce that ruling.
Gs3737 has been temp banned for 3 days for insults after having a 2 day ban for the same thing 3 weeks ago.
Another poster had some posts deleted and was warned by pm.
Lozen gave answers you didnt like. That you thought were untrue. Bobo managed to respond to those without any personal attacks or name calling. You, instead, chose to just call him names. You attacked the person, not the argument. It's not against policy to state opinions that arent backed up by facts. There is no requirement for posters to provide answers that you find satisfactory.
It should be against policy to make a statement phrased as a fact (not as an opinion) when it is objectively untrue. I believe this is something lozen has done in the past.
Mods can't read every post. If you think something is against the rules and offends you, then you report it. That may or may not result in someone being banned; that decision is up to the mods. Seems like you don't report anything because you don't want anyone to get banned, but bans are sometimes the only way enforcement of the rules can be made. So either you do the suggested thing and report a post, or you don't. But if you don't report posts, it's disingenuous to complain about people being allowed to make those posts. They aren't allowed to make some of them, but if no one reports them, here they will stay.
It should be against policy to make a statement phrased as a fact (not as an opinion) when it is objectively untrue. I believe this is something lozen has done in the past.
The problem, esp in a politics forum, is that you end up with lots of people who state things as fact who truly believe they are objectively true. A large part of Americans still believe that it is an objective fact that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. This despite any objective evidence. But they think there is objective evidence.
It is impossible for a mod to adjudicate these types of issues. Other posters must rebut their "alternative facts". Then there is the issue of dueling studies. Mods cant be expected to rule on the strengths or validity of one study over another. If a study has been debunked or a newer study reached a different conclusion, the expertise of the community as a whole needs to point that out.
But the main point is even if a person persists in sticking with an incorrect "fact" it is never an allowable response to shift from attacking the validity of the "facts" to personally attacking the person. That principle is the heart of rule number one. So if you get frustrated that someone refuses to see things your way, disengage before you get to the personal insult stage. If you didnt convince him with logic, calling him a ****ing moron isnt going to work either.
The problem, esp in a politics forum, is that you end up with lots of people who state things as fact who truly believe they are objectively true. A large part of Americans still believe that it is an objective fact that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. This despite any objective evidence. But they think there is objective evidence.
It is impossible for a mod to adjudicate these types of issues. Other posters must rebut their "alter
There are certain bad actors here who abuse this policy to the max, and shamelessly propagandise knowing that they will a). be safe from personal attacks and b). it takes orders of magnitude more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spew it.
There are certain bad actors here who abuse this policy to the max, and shamelessly propagandise knowing that they will a). be safe from personal attacks and b). it takes orders of magnitude more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spew it.
and you can put them in ignore or lol at them, doesn't require much effort to debunk something with like "victor said it so it is debunked"
and you can put them in ignore or lol at them, doesn't require much effort to debunk something with like "victor said it so it is debunked"
I just think a blanket "no personal attacks" rule is dumb and no mod in politics forum history has ever enforced it anywhere nearly as zealously to the letter as browser does. TLDR: historically, we could call an idiot an idiot if he or she was clearly an idiot.
Two threads concerning my modding here have been recently started in the ATF forum. One by stoppedrainingmen and one by dissentingopinion which I assume is an alternative account created by simplerick. As you know, I have welcomed and encouraged the use of ATF to address these concerns and now encourage anyone who may have been thinking about starting a thread there, or who has opinions they want to share on that topic, to head over there and take advantage of this opportunity to be heard by the higher ups.
Well yeah...... trolling and bad faith are subjective. But that's the point of having mods in the first place; someone, hopefully with decent read comprehension abilities, has to decide when a poster is trolling. That's still being done in the current regime, just very poorly.
Precisely this. Somehow every other subforum on 2p2 manages to avoid getting overrun with far right trolls because the moderators make extremely basic, subjective decisions about which posters are shitting up the forum.
Precisely this. Somehow every other subforum on 2p2 manages to avoid getting overrun with far right trolls because the moderators make extremely basic, subjective decisions about which posters are shitting up the forum.
As stated, this isn't a fair criticism. A politics subforum inevitably will attract more posters with questionable political views than a health and fitness subforum or a poker strat subforum. Also, many subforums bar all discussion of politics or strictly limit discussion of politics to a containment thread.
Precisely this. Somehow every other subforum on 2p2 manages to avoid getting overrun with far right trolls because the moderators make extremely basic, subjective decisions about which posters are shitting up the forum.
Well we also have spurts of the good faith lefties arguing that the dprk is a better ran ideology than western countries so there is something here for all.
I mean look, I got banned for a week for responding to someone who said people are leaving california because of corruption, crime, blah blah blah whatever the **** else far right talking points that aren’t worth repeating (none of which any evidence was provided for of course) with calling the guy ****ing pathetic
ITT not 20 posts ago I’ve been implied to be a ‘libtard’ and a ‘liar’ by someone else becaus
Here is the post in question that led to your second personal attack
I guess that would explain the mass exodus, crime, homelessness, massive deficits and corruption
Now Bobo pointed out that mass exodus is not the correct word as only at best .91% reduction in the population. You might argue that I should have said California is one the states that leads the country in people leaving for a multitude of reasons including crime, homelessness, massive deficits and corruption .
You could have done the same instead of a personal attack. I get it you do not like my political viewpoints and the fact I will not jump on the Biden Cult Wagon
It should be against policy to make a statement phrased as a fact (not as an opinion) when it is objectively untrue. I believe this is something lozen has done in the past.
Please cite an example and lets be clear the politics forum is all about opinions . Based on what you want than no one should be able to post Trump is an insurrectionist as he has never been charged or convicted of that crime .
As stated, this isn't a fair criticism. A politics subforum inevitably will attract more posters with questionable political views than a health and fitness subforum or a poker strat subforum. Also, many subforums bar all discussion of politics or strictly limit discussion of politics to a containment thread.
btw if a poster can ask for completly open borders , then it's hard to see why any other policy proposal on the "far right" should be censored . Unless of course someone aims to have a forum built for leftists alone, which is fairly common online.
The strange thing is that if you argue for open borders in a far right forum, you get mocked and attacked but not censored. If you argue for the deportation of all foreign born in a forum like trollson envisions, you get banned.
Yes, Trolly has not learnt the lessons of the UP experiment at all.
The lesson of the failed UP experiment imo was that creating in-groups and out-groups gave heavily biased moderators cover to ban people to satisfy their own prejudices and their friends, and eventually it becomes obvious and implodes.
The reason Trolly hasn't learnt any lessons from that is clear.
As stated, this isn't a fair criticism. A politics subforum inevitably will attract more posters with questionable political views than a health and fitness subforum or a poker strat subforum. Also, many subforums bar all discussion of politics or strictly limit discussion of politics to a containment thread.
It's true that politics is always going to be contentious. But the reason horrible posters make a beeline for politics is because they can get away with being disruptive clowns.
Also, there's absolutely no reason we can't have a containment thread here, other than the mods seem to enjoy making their job harder than it needs to be.
The lesson of the failed UP experiment imo was that creating in-groups and out-groups gave heavily biased moderators cover to ban people to satisfy their own prejudices and their friends, and eventually it becomes obvious and implodes.
The reason Trolly hasn't learnt any lessons from that is clear.
Is it because he was part of the in-group?
Also, I don't think anyone "created" the groups. It's just the natural course of things.
