Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread

Rickroll. I tried repeatedly to get you to stop trolling in this thread but you refuse. You just had a week ban a month ago for the very same thing. So you've earned yourself another week off.

Somebody please tell me that I have lost my mind and am just misunderstanding our good friend Browser. The first post by Luciom could not be any more clear in its question to you. Not only do you refuse to answer the question directly, but your official stance is basically "you will know when a post is against the rules when I ban you." It is as if you are trolling us with the logic out of Catch-22.

Jesus Christ, dude. What are you doing to our precious forum?

I banned someone who after multiple deletions and warnings to stop continued to troll on the same topic he received a previous ban for.

Holy crap. He wasn't trolling.

As I did for D2, I respectfully ask that you seriously reconsider your decision and rescind Rick's ban. I think an argument can be made that you're being unduly thin skinned here.

I have no idea how anybody can possibly think Rick was trolling there. If anything, Browser just completely proved Rick's point. This has completely gone off the rails.

The time for discussion has passed.

Browser claims to be ex-military, doesn't he? And at commissioned rank too. He's used to being obeyed without question and he considers the slightest defiance of his personal will to be a punishable offence, which he calls 'trolling' because he doesn't know what that word actually means. Can't see this ending well, to be honest.

No wait I hope I was clear, question was about assuming it in writing in this forum as a portion of an argument.

Can I write that I think some people who self identify as trans are not trans?

This wasn’t my claim exactly, nor was your previous one, nor was it repeated, but regardless this isn’t my fight so I’ll leave it at that. If you want to complain about moderation please leave my name out of it.

Ok! Thanks this is what I wanted to read.

It's allowed to claim people could self identify trans while not being trans for whatever reasons, we are allowed to claim pure subjective self evaluation of gender identity is NOT necessarily to be taken for granted as proof of gender identity, and that we might need objective elements to define what a trans person is that go way beyond self identification.

I am not complaining I am asking what the rules are

I am ex-military, and that isnt how things work in the military. This has nothing to do with defiance of any personal will. Anyone who reads the posts directed at me in this thread would obviously see that I do not ban anyone who disagrees with me or makes snarky or insulting comments. Far from it. I have allowed personal attacks and insults slide that I could very easily have banned people for.

But there comes a point where enough is enough, especially when a poster has been warned and banned recently for the same issues. As with all mod actions, the entire context and posting history comes into play, as it did in this case.

And just as general advice, since as Ive said many times we deal in gray areas at times rather than bright lines, so people are sometimes unsure if they are approaching a problem area or not, when a mod let's you know that you are getting very close to the line and should stop or turn back, you should probably do that.

As we say in the military, "self inflicted wounds are the most painful".

Let me be clear on something. There is a difference between being allowed and being considered correct or even factual. But from a moderation perspective it's up to other posters to rebut such claims. For example, one might very much disagree about the relative importance of a persons self identification as trans versus some sort of objective criteria, if such criteria even exists. Since gender incongruity is by definition a disconnect between ones own, self identified gender identity and their biological sex, I dont know what type of objective criteria an outsider could necessarily use to override that. But that's what discussions are for. Im not sure what the reference to mentally ill people identifying as trans when they are not specifically pertains to, and would have to see that in a context. If somehow the suggestion is that a mental illness somehow causes people to declare themselves as transgender, I can see problems with that.

Sorry but isn't the bolded essentially a gussied up way of saying "Hey I'm not that bad as I could be even more arbitrary and hardass if I wanted to be"?

No.

Lol now where I have heard this argument before

Hmm.
😀

...From me, when I just asked it?

Yea, he is a veteran as far as I know. But this is not what happened here, so have to I disagree. Browser made it totally clear what the rules were. They are the same rules established by previous mods too btw, and these rules were not random, they are todays standard rules accepted by society in regards to trans or gays. They are the same rules as pretty much anywhere where people are having rules- schools, governments, whatever. Try saying all trans are mentally ill in any institition and you get the same pushback.

I personally disagree with the total ban of rick as much as I do with lagtights ban. However, stricly speaking, they were asking for it. They were told multiple times not do say something, received multiple warnings and still did it. stubborn and dumb I would call that behaviour. It was totally justifiable to ban lagtight, as it was totally justifiable to ban rick. lagtights ban received the same pushback imo, and rightfully so. people did not jump on the mods though, as they were 2, who understood no humor. with browser they are jumping him now to see how far they can go. In a terrible way I must say. where are the other mods?

as far as I can tell, browser is trying to be really nice but explains himself too much. state rules ones and stick to it. he made the rules clear and people did not respect that.

what lagtight said is not socially acceptable and gets you banned elsewhere too, and yet his opinion is shared by many people, churches and so on, same with rick.

maybe we should discuss this topic, rather than if browser was messing up here, which he was not. (technically speaking and with looking at previous mod decisions, he is just en par. what did he do? nothing imo, I was a witness when it happened. there was almost nothing he could have done differently. so the attacks arent fair at all, at least not how they are done. (very rudely)
could be nicer, right?

The only question that should be raised is: should we ban people whos posting on the internet was fine for many years, until it got to the trans and gay issue. their opinion on this issue shared by many and yet its not acceptable to say out loud. should this be ban worthy? or should we cut them some slack and only ban them for weeks instead of forever?

With the new owners request of not banning anymore posters, I would like to think this is such a case here, where a more lenient appoach is better. rick was a good poster and a good guy imo, same with lagtight.

There have been MANY posts accusing you of banning people that disagree with you, make snarky comments at you, or that may be insulting toward you. I am not the only person that has used the term "thin-skinned" when referring to your propensity to take offense at even the most trivial criticisms or jokes aimed in your direction.

As your conclusion is very obviously incorrect, the only way that you are not just completely making stuff up is for you to believe we are all illiterate and not reading the posts directed at you. Clearly you think you are big-daddy and the rest of us are thumb-sucking toddlers, so it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that you do not believe that we are included in the "anyone who reads the posts directed at me" category.

I mean, I did get a week off (before it was reversed) for a small dick joke, so Donk's story checks out.

Do you think lagtights ban was justified?
If you think yes, it was the exact same f thing rick got banned for.
Then you must think ricks ban was also justified.

what you wanna do with an idiot who gets told not to jaywalk or get shot? and he still does it? you shoot him.

Not listening to the rules and mods gets you banned. what else is new?

Maybe in anglo, non american places because in most other places you can certainly claim the very recent change in psychiatric assessment of gender disphoria was wrong and the totality of world scientific literature before it was correct.

I mean this place can have the rules it wants to, but please don't claim a rule which isn't in place in 90%+++ of public arena is normal or frequent. It isn't.

In most public arenas you are fully allowed to claim being trans is a mental illness, as it was everywhere in world history up to 2013.

To be clear I do agree that being trans is not inherently mental illness