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.
You say this was the most significant evidence, then say it wasn't enough to convict without other evidence.
But there was other evidence - the shifts she worked and volunteered for that correlated highly with baby deaths. Sure it's not concrete proof but it is evidence of the type you'd expect to see if she was gaily and not to see if she was innocent.
Also, circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict, despite what people like to say.
Yeah well it's your word against a youtube video with a montage and an AI generated voiceover. No way to tell who's right here, really. Which creates all sorts of doubt. Like reasonable doubt. Innocent!
Damn, I was just beginning to get a Judge Jeffries at the thought of delivering the death penalty.
You say this was the most significant evidence, then say it wasn't enough to convict without other evidence.
But there was other evidence - the shifts she worked and volunteered for that correlated highly with baby deaths. Sure it's not concrete proof but it is evidence of the type you'd expect to see if she was gaily and not to see if she was innocent.
Also, circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict, despite what people like to say.
There was a case just like that and the nurse was in jail for over 10 years and was innocent.
Yes enough circumstantial evidence can lead to a guilty verdict and it should if it's bulletproof. This here wasn't bulletproof at all. More like the opposite.
The biggest evidence were these notes, which mean nothing really.
I don't get why you guys in the UK have a jury system.
In this jury everyone was an idiot. The babies kept dying btw, imo, that's what happens in this section of the hospital, its new born babies in incubators.
Inconceivable
Everyone relax. They're just words from the despairing.
My very obvious point here is that mild swears draw the ire of mods while derogatory ethnic slurs and other hateful **** constantly gets a pass.
Again, the question you keep ducking is: what kind of a forum do you want? I think you would agree that making everyone happy is a fool's errand (yes? no?), so which people is the community going to cater to and why?
I already have said that it is impossible to make everyone happy.
Uke is exactly correct. I want the sort of forum where I am not the moderator.
As a poster, I don't care too much how heavy the moderation is. I somehow am able to survive just fine no matter who the moderator is. I would prefer that the forum be populated by adults with empathy, logical reasoning, and a sense of humor. I'm sure it is obvious enough from my posting which posters I believe fall into this category and which posters I do not.
If the forum becomes something that I can't tolerate, or choose not to tolerate, I simply will walk away.
I personally don't give a **** about swearing. If the owners removed the profanity filter, I wouldn't care at all.
There was a case just like that and the nurse was in jail for over 10 years and was innocent.
Yes enough circumstantial evidence can lead to a guilty verdict and it should if it's bulletproof. This here wasn't bulletproof at all. More like the opposite.
The biggest evidence were these notes, which mean nothing really.
I don't get why you guys in the UK have a jury system.
In this jury everyone was an idiot. The babies kept dying btw, imo, th
I guess you're right and in addition to the coincidence of Letby's shifts with baby deaths there's also the coincidence of her suspension from work and the return to normality of baby death numbers.
And then there's
Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told
Consultant had started to link Letby to unexplained deaths and rushed to help infant, jury hears
I got it from hearing lawyers talk about this case.
This is probably the only case where the most significant evidence, or rather the only non circumstantial evidence was the persons own notes. And like I said these notes mean nothing really or can mean something else.
Its def not enough of evidence to convict someone of murder.
Not on these notes alone.
But that's all they got. Everything else is circumstantial.
You were listening to lawyers who said that "writings" as a general rule are not evidence? You need to find some better lawyers
Someone really needs to infract you all for tarding up the discussion about how we don't need moderation in this forum.
We're too fractious to be infracted.
Nice
I guess you're right and in addition to the coincidence of Letby's shifts with baby deaths there's also the coincidence of her suspension from work and the return to normality of baby death numbers.
You were listening to lawyers who said that "writings" as a general rule are not evidence? You need to find some better lawyers
The jury has heard defense witnesses, and prosecution witnesses. They've heard those witnesses cross-examined by the other side. They've seen evidence provided by both sides. They've likely been given instructions by a judge as to what their role is, and what they can and can not consider. But never mind all that, washoe has heard someone with their own point of view and agenda summarize it all for him and package it up into a nice tidy video. And he might have gone more in-depth and listened to some other people who back up what he already believes - he has all the proof he needs!
It's just so washoe to take that and not just have doubts, not just question the verdict, not just suspect the verdict is wrong. Nope, he is so certain that the verdict was wrong, that he knows that "In this jury everyone was an idiot."
washoe gunna washoe.
Nope. It was predetermined someone is guilty of these crimes.
I hope none of you guys ever gets wrongfully convicted...
But it might happen....
You were listening to lawyers who said that "writings" as a general rule are not evidence? You need to find some better lawyers
No, they said in a case like this you cannot convict someone because of these notes. It never happened before.
What do you say. You saw the notes.
Should they dismiss the notes?
Or should they have jurors make whatever they want of it?
If you cant make anything out of it, how is a Juror supposed to make a judgment?
I guess you're right and in addition to the coincidence of Letby's shifts with baby deaths there's also the coincidence of her suspension from work and the return to normality of baby death numbers.
There are no numbers..
Show us the numbers if you have them.
The NHS has problems with understaffing and much more.
Even if u had numbers, which you dont, they dont make her guilty.
U need proof.
Well, I’m willing to mod the I/P thread if that is a problem area bc I’m reading it frequently, but I don’t want to do anything else basically. I will forego the Creuset this one time and deal with things entirely in snacks.
Spoiler
It’s me. I’m the snack.
I got it from hearing lawyers talk about this case.
This is probably the only case where the most significant evidence, or rather the only non circumstantial evidence was the persons own notes. And like I said these notes mean nothing really or can mean something else.
Its def not enough of evidence to convict someone of murder.
Not on these notes alone.
But that's all they got. Everything else is circumstantial.
Washoe, are you aware that many convicted defendants, possibly the majority are convicted on circumstantial evidence? Even serial killers such as Rose west? (Who you'll probably be stanning for next)
Who's the guy who thinks the Central Park 5 did it? I can't remember.
