Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread

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?

did you report it?

no, I dont want anyone banned. I just want clarification.

by Victor P

quick question,

are we allowed to call people this?

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.

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.

Excuse me? I gave my opinion about circumcision, as a circumcised male who has had to live his life with part of his penis missing.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

Here is the post in question that led to your second personal attack

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

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 .

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.

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.

Is it because he was part of the in-group?

He tried hard to be.