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.
That as i said we don't have enough data for small groups. There are a myriad ethnic groups in indonesia alone, some very remote and never-integrated into western style life.
A lot in south america as well, and some still very distinct ones in sub saharian africa.
Then there is continential asia with remote siberian tribes and whatnot.
We don't have solid, recent data on a lot of the long tail of human groups so it would be a wild guess to claim which one of them has the lowest IQ.
And then we don't have ways to control for the environment for many of them.
All the above isn't true for askhenazi which shared our environment and level of food access and whatnot for long
You have no metrics to measure intelligence in aboriginals bc there are no metrics.
Calling them less IQ is illegal and dumb.
Youre not supposed to say that and yet you are saying that. Why?
Are the South Americans dumber than the Irish?
Luciom, most people grow out of the idea that IQ measures anything useful other than an ability to take IQ tests. There are many different types of intelligence and many of them can't be measured well in written tests.
Testing native Australians with metrics weighted around Western ideas of logic and reasoning is just plain stupid itself when their culture was heavily weighed towards spatial awareness.
Luciom, most people grow out of the idea that IQ measures anything useful other than an ability to take IQ tests. There are many different types of intelligence and many of them can't be measured well in written tests.
Testing native Australians with metrics weighted around Western ideas of logic and reasoning is just plain stupid itself when their culture was heavily weighed towards spatial awareness.
this.
None of this is about modding and needs to stop in this thread. Take it elsewhere if you want.
mod question arising in the trans visibility thread:
is it against forum rules to assume that a portion of young people who self identify as trans might actually not be trans?
Only after they detransition can you assume that. Anyone who identifies as trans is trans, and they when they detransition they are no longer trans.
I don't think that's what the forum rules say, i'll wait for a mod to confirm/deny.
I think forum rules ask to affirm that being trans isn't a choice and is a permanent characteristic of the individual.
So either someone is trans all his life, or he never was during the phase he believed to be so, when it ends up not being trans.
But i need mods to weigh in, don't want to be banned again for not understanding what the rules imply.
I don't think that's what the forum rules say, i'll wait for a mod to confirm/deny.
I think forum rules ask to affirm that being trans isn't a choice and is a permanent characteristic of the individual.
So either someone is trans all his life, or he never was during the phase he believed to be so, when it ends up not being trans.
But i need mods to weigh in, don't want to be banned again for not understanding what the rules imply.
Good decision. Luckbox, that's why your responses were deleted. This thread is for questions to mods and answers from mods. Feel free to comment in the boc thread if you want to.
Another note: I haven't been able to be online much the last couple of days, so missed the start of the big discussion on IQ, race, and other stuff. But ganstaman clearly warned everyone to stop the derail as it was getting out of hand volume wise in the mod thread, and asked people to move the discussion elsewhere.
As usual, some posters didnt listen and kept posting so ganstaman deleted a bunch of posts. I have deleted some more nonmod related posts. So again, please move that discussion out of this thread so that you wont get the posts you put time into deleted.
As for the questions about references to IQ and race or ethnic groups, and talking about detransitioning and what one can assume by that, we mods are reviewing the topics and will issue clarifications. But just as mod responses to post reports are not real time due to mod real life things, it's the same for mod to mod discussions. So it may be a couple of days before anything is put out.
My advice is to tread very lightly on the topic of IQ and ethnic groups until then. Though much of the "science" on this which has been used by racists to make the case for their superiority over others has been debunked for many years, it seems to be making a comeback in some extreme circles lately. So hold those thoughts, if you have them, to avoid crossing over the line until clarification is issued.
Thanks.
My advice is to tread very lightly on the topic of IQ and ethnic groups until then. Though much of the "science" on this which has been used by racists to make the case for their superiority over others has been debunked for many years, it seems to be making a comeback in some extreme circles lately. So hold those thoughts, if you have them, to avoid crossing over the line until clarification is issued.
Thanks.
Regardless of the modding, I would add that, in 20 years, I have never seen a productive discussion on this topic. The discussions most often are started by posters who are at least interested in, if not outright persuaded by, arguments from proponents of scientific racism.
Then Luckbox weighs in and says the whole discussion is dumb because race (and to a lesser extent, ethnicity) is an artificial construct. Then a bunch of posters question the validity of IQ tests as a measure of inherent general intelligence.
The person who started the discussion then tries to avoid a ban by focusing on how "smart" certain groups are rather than how "dumb" other groups are. Eventually, people start trying to bait the person who started the discussion into saying something blatantly racist. Sometimes those efforts are successful, and sometimes the person who started the discussion decides the game isn't worth the candle and moves on to some other topic.
It's very repetitive.
Then Luckbox weighs in and says the whole discussion is dumb because race (and to a lesser extent, ethnicity) is an artificial construct.
That and it's a futile discussion because whatever difference that might actually exist between populations are going to be minor and what applies to groups of people doesn't necessarily apply to individuals within that group.
mod question arising in the trans visibility thread:
is it against forum rules to assume that a portion of young people who self identify as trans might actually not be trans?
Mods, do you have an answer to this question? The only rule I know of is that we are not allowed to say that any trans person ever is mentally ill, though clearly that has been broadened a bit in the recent past.
Mods, do you have an answer to this question? The only rule I know of is that we are not allowed to say that any trans person ever is mentally ill, though clearly that has been broadened a bit in the recent past.
A hypothetical like that cant be answered. Of course, one is free to assume anything they want. What is said in a particular post will determine whether or not a statement violates forum rules.
Btw, you have misstated the forum policy on transgender people and mental health comments. But I think you know that and did it for dramatic effect. Please refrain from doing that in the future.
A hypothetical like that cant be answered. Of course, one is free to assume anything they want. What is said in a particular post will determine whether or not a statement violates forum rules.
Btw, you have misstated the forum policy on transgender people and mental health comments. But I think you know that and did it for dramatic effect. Please refrain from doing that in the future.
(1) So the way to find out it is against the rules is when you get banned for it. Got it.
(2) Gotta love the threat for (supposedly) misstating for dramatic effect.
(1) So the way to find out it is against the rules is when you get banned for it. Got it.
(2) Gotta love the threat for (supposedly) misstating for dramatic effect.
What kind of answer would you expect to the question about making an assumption? It doesnt even give an example of a possible statement or potential post to be evaluated.
I didnt make any threat in your number two comment. I just find it hard to believe you actually misinterpreted the rule that badly, and so asked you to refrain from making such obviously incorrect statements on purpose. You stated the rule (incorrectly) as this:
The only rule I know of is that we are not allowed to say that any trans person ever is mentally ill,...
Obviously some transgender people can and do suffer from the mental disorder of gender dysphoria. And that topic has been discussed. So to claim that the rule is that it is prohibited from saying that any trans person ever is mentally ill is just wrong.
Browser, you seemingly don't even know what the word "hypothetical" means. A hypothetical is a story or scenario that is used as an analogy to see if similar behavior would be bannable. "What if I were to say Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs was not a real trans person" would be a hypothetical. You were asked in the most direct and unambiguous manner I can even imagine. What kind of answer do I expect? I expect a response along the lines of "that is against the rules" or " that is not against the rules." You can't even give us that much.
And yes, when somebody that not only has the power to ban users, but has been using that power quite liberally, tells you to "refrain from doing that in the future", it is a threat.
No, we are deleting comments from people not involved in the discussion who continue to insert themselves itt rather than in the boc thread. Your opinion on this doesnt matter in terms of giving an answer to the question as you are not a mod and cant clarify a policy.
Mods, do you have an answer to this question? The only rule I know of is that we are not allowed to say that any trans person ever is mentally ill, though clearly that has been broadened a bit in the recent past.
In fairness the mod position was that you can't say all transgender people are mentally ill by virtue of being transgender.
No, we are deleting comments from people not involved in the discussion who continue to insert themselves itt rather than in the boc thread. Your opinion on this doesnt matter in terms of giving an answer to the question as you are not a mod and cant clarify a policy.
it's a good sign you've lost complete touch with the entire point of online message boards when you repeatedly delete any message you find slightly irksome
seriously, you should retire, you're a nice guy and an otherwise excellent poster, but you weren't built for this kind of responsibility
Browser, you seemingly don't even know what the word "hypothetical" means. A hypothetical is a story or scenario that is used as an analogy to see if similar behavior would be bannable. "What if I were to say Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs was not a real trans person" would be a hypothetical. You were asked in the most direct and unambiguous manner I can even imagine. What kind of answer do I expect?
Of course, one is free to assume anything they want. What is said in a particular post will determine whether or not a statement violates forum rules.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. But what you post based on that assumption will determine whether a statement violates policy or not.
For example, a statement like:
"If one assumes that a portion of children who may self identify as trans may not actually be trans, then it is best to not allow certain medical interventions on any children to play it safe".
That's an opinion based on that assumption. People can chose to challenge the assumption itself, suggest that's why careful analysis by medical professionals is needed to determine if the child is transgender or not, or challenge the opinion on medical care based on that assumption. So that statement is fine.
