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.
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.
There is a conspiracy containment thread. An ******* containment thread is a little harder to enforce.
Trolly craves locking his enemies up in containment threads. Always has.
Ya, no one actually seems to be contained by the conspiracy containment thread afaict.
Just make a big containment thread for people who want to talk about eugenics or spout conspiracy nonsense or call transgender people mentally ill, throw those posters in it, and walk away.
Mod question: can I put sexually explicit pictures from books recently banned by republicans from some public high schools in this forum? Because it looks like some people don't know the extent of what is being banned and so unless they see what we are actually talking about, they can't understand the pro ban position
Mod question: can I put sexually explicit pictures from books recently banned by republicans from some public high schools in this forum? Because it looks like some people don't know the extent of what is being banned and so unless they see what we are actually talking about, they can't understand the pro ban position
In before we find out that Naughty Cheerleaders Volume 27 is a "book recently banned from public high schools." In which case I'm all for it; my only reservation is if I will still be able to follow along with the plot, not having read volumes 1-25?
Mod question: can I put sexually explicit pictures from books recently banned by republicans from some public high schools in this forum? Because it looks like some people don't know the extent of what is being banned and so unless they see what we are actually talking about, they can't understand the pro ban position
I think it's more like you're assuming people don't know because they aren't as outraged as you. But if you're really concerned, the simple solution would be to post a link, like to something I'll post in that thread now - a newspaper that has posted some *shocking* 🙄 images from Gender Queer.
Mod question: can I put sexually explicit pictures from books recently banned by republicans from some public high schools in this forum? Because it looks like some people don't know the extent of what is being banned and so unless they see what we are actually talking about, they can't understand the pro ban position
I'm not a mod but I definitely encourage you to describe these images in as much lurid detail as possible.
Ya, no one actually seems to be contained by the conspiracy containment thread afaict.
Just make a big containment thread for people who want to talk about eugenics or spout conspiracy nonsense or call transgender people mentally ill, throw those posters in it, and walk away.
I've got a better idea. Why not put you in a containment thread so we don't have to listen to you whining all the time and everyone else can talk about w/e they like (within forum rules).
Mod question: can I put sexually explicit pictures from books recently banned by republicans from some public high schools in this forum? Because it looks like some people don't know the extent of what is being banned and so unless they see what we are actually talking about, they can't understand the pro ban position
Are you unable to describe the pictures using words?
Lol
I think Bobos suggestion of a link rather than an image would work best. Just put a warning in the post. And please make sure the link doesn't go to one of those sites where you get a million nsfw pop ups that are difficult to remove. I hate that when that happens.
I think Bobos suggestion of a link rather than an image would work best. Just put a warning in the post. And please make sure the link doesn't go to one of those sites where you get a million nsfw pop ups that are difficult to remove. I hate that when that happens.
Bobo himself linked that already so we are fine thx
Where's the link to the porn?
I don't want to pollute this mod thread with stuff that belongs elsewhere, but I am unsure where else to respond to this. I remember being a sixth grader and reading those YA Christopher Pike books which had pretty graphic descriptions of teenagers having sex, in addition to murders and other fun stuff that every 12 year old kid loves. I don't recall it being some huge controversy back then that there were books that described sixteen year olds having all sorts of sex.
When you were claiming that these challenged books were "porn", I was under the impression that we were talking about images in the books. I looked up a couple of these, and we are talking about descriptions that are in many (if not most) books made for teenagers. Is this really what you are up in arms about? Is it because some of these books describe gay acts rather than heterosexual acts?
I don't want to pollute this mod thread with stuff that belongs elsewhere, but I am unsure where else to respond to this. I remember being a sixth grader and reading those YA Christopher Pike books which had pretty graphic descriptions of teenagers having sex, in addition to murders and other fun stuff that every 12 year old kid loves. I don't recall it being some huge controversy back then that there were books that described sixteen year
Images, not textual descriptions.
Just check the first book of the list around.
Google "gender queer worst images"
You said there were sexually explicit images. Why do you lie so often?
This is the post that actually has the link to some of the images
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
linking the post rather than the external link so that it can be seen in the context of the conversation and replies can be made to that post rather than in here.
Besides that first graphic novel, do any of the others have images?
The first book is probably not appropriate for children in elementary school, but I don't think it would be a big deal for teenagers to be exposed to that, but wtf do I know.
Besides that first graphic novel, do any of the others have images?
The first book is probably not appropriate for children in elementary school, but I don't think it would be a big deal for teenagers to be exposed to that, but wtf do I know.
Ive got a question to pose about this subject, but will put it in the boc thread.
For those who wish to continue the search for porn over there rather than here.
Thanks
