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 corpus vile P

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)

Of course i am aware of that.
Circ. evidence that cant be argued with is fine. Im all for it. Here, there is NONE
OF THAT. if there is pls show us.
Not comparable to other bulletproof cases.


by washoe P

Of course i am aware of that.
Circ. evidence that cant be argued with is fine. Im all for it. Here, there is NONE
OF THAT. if there is Show us.

Do you have the NHS in Irland?
If you have good luck. Its a madhouse.
What if not lucy letby did it but the NHS?

Except the evidence which got her arrested, charged tried and convicted You don't understand what evidence is.
Furthermore if you're aware that circumstantial evidence is perfectly acceptable to a court, then you've no business objecting on such grounds. You're bar raising.


washoe do you realize that under your own definitions, we could not prosecute hitler for the holocaust because the only evidence we had of his involvement is in writing


by washoe P

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?

Evidence doesn't have to be dispositive or conclusive in order to be admissible. Do you understand that?


by corpus vile P

Except the evidence which got her arrested, charged tried and convicted You don't understand what evidence is.
Furthermore if you're aware that circumstantial evidence is perfectly acceptable to a court, then you've no business objecting on such grounds. You're bar raising.

No, you dont understand what real evidence is.


by rickroll P

washoe do you realize that under your own definitions, we could not prosecute hitler for the holocaust because the only evidence we had of his involvement is in writing

well if you go into the Israel thread, the Zionists make a case that Hitler did not do genocide.


by Rococo P

Evidence doesn't have to be dispositive or conclusive in order to be admissible. Do you understand that?

Yes.


Thios is the latest on the Letby case. I dont know what others seem to know as they aren't telling us.

Three of England’s most senior judges are considering whether to allow Lucy Letby to appeal against her convictions for the murder and attempted murder of babies.

The former nurse has asked the court of appeal for permission to mount a full legal challenge over her convictions for murdering seven infants and attempting to murder another six.

Letby, 34, was found guilty of those charges after a 10-month trial at Manchester crown court that ended in August, and is serving 14 whole-life prison terms.

Three appeal court judges, Lady Justice Sharp, Lord Justice Holroyde and Lady Justice Lambert, have been hearing Letby’s application for permission to appeal over three days this week.

Letby’s barrister, Benjamin Myers KC, has put forward four grounds of appeal, arguing that the judge at her trial wrongly refused applications that her legal team made during the case.

The media is not permitted to publish the details of these arguments at this stage because Letby faces a retrial in June on one count of attempted murder.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024...


by Victor P

well if you go into the Israel thread, the Zionists make a case that Hitler did not do genocide.

I can't tell if you're a troll or have serious reading comprehension sometimes


by chezlaw P

Thios is the latest on the Letby case. I dont know what others seem to know as they aren't telling us.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024...

Great. Not even her collegues think shes guilty. The Media has to stay out of it imo. Thats what they want.


by Victor P

Who's the guy who thinks the Central Park 5 did it? I can't remember.

Thanks. That was CV and I.


I have no clue what case Washoe has been talking about here lately but it's hilarious to read


by Trolly McTrollson P

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.

Does anyone else believe this is true? I don't read every thread in politics, but I don't remember this ever getting a pass.


by metsandfinsfan P

I can't tell if you're a troll or have serious reading comprehension sometimes

It's both.


by washoe P

Nope. It was predetermined someone is guilty of these crimes.
I hope none of you guys ever gets wrongfully convicted...
But it might happen....


Dude, I have no idea if it was a rock solid conviction, or a complete travesty of justice. But you know what I'll never do? Definitively assert a verdict of a trial I didn't witness was wrong and that "In this jury everyone was an idiot." based on nothing more than some Yootoooobs I watched, because that would be a ****ing clownshoes thing to do.

Washoe gunna washoe.


by chillrob P

Does anyone else believe this is true? I don't read every thread in politics, but I don't remember this ever getting a pass.

what about that?

by Schlitz mmmm P

bahbah, stop posting. You're a ****in' mongoloid.


by Schlitz mmmm P

DC isn't a state, mongo, so the opinion held by some governor during the George Floyd protests - a time Trump actually was considering the idea - doesn't satisfy


by Schlitz mmmm P

Not in a million years, mongo

But carry on, disease brain

Trump's legal 'team' are about as dumb as those taking naps


by Schlitz mmmm P

I honestly don't give 2 shiits about that minutia, we're at the threshold of hell, mongo

on serving 2 masters, let's serve up Trump lol

Some say yes to God, but do not do his will.


by Schlitz mmmm P

As if, mongo


Ahh... I never understand his posts so I usually skip over them. Probably the mods do the same.


by chillrob P

Ahh... I never understand his posts so I usually skip over them. Probably the mods do the same.

I suspect if you blaze up a fat blunt they will start making perfect sense.


shocking that you guys dont understand easily readable posts.


by metsandfinsfan P

I can't tell if you're a troll or have serious reading comprehension sometimes

He just sometimes has trouble doing a reading comprehension.


by washoe P

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.

You don’t need proof to find someone guilty in a court of law. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt.

On an internet forum (and in a civil court) the standard is balance of probability.


by Luciom P

I have no clue what case Washoe has been talking about here lately but it's hilarious to read

Cliff notes specially for you, the communists did it.


Those posts are a bit unintelligible and I pledge to do better, but why does washoe have a dossier on me? Get a life, mongo


This whole politics forum is a dossier on you.


I own it.


Reply...