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.
Brian james and schlitz mmm have received 3 day tempbans for insults In the jan 6 thread.
I had a post arguing with Luciom about the definition of racism deleted in the Trans thread. Why wasn't that derail moved elsewhere if people want to talk about it?
Are mods trying to dictate what we can and can't discuss?
I had a post arguing with Luciom about the definition of racism deleted in the Trans thread. Why wasn't that derail moved elsewhere if people want to talk about it?
I dont know if you had seen the post I put up explaining that before you asked but basically the problem with discussions about what is and isnt racism is that one side usually ends up repeating the racist remarks, or expanding on them in an attempt to justify the original comments. There wasnt anything wrong with your post per se. I deleted the entire conversation in order to not have people feel like they have to reply to each post. Everyone wants to get the last word in, and so once it gets going its hard to stop. And you often end up with the "its not racist to say X race is better than Y race if its true" type racist stuff, compounding the problem.
And yes, part of a mods job is to moderate what can and cant be discussed IAW site policies. The supposed superiority of one race over another is one of those things.
What about that Kenyan tribe that's really good at distance running? Would that be allowed?
Could we argue that Mexicans make the best Mexican food or that Armenian babaganoush is better than Turkish babaganoush?
When a ruling is explained, your first response shouldn't be to find the exact edges. They don't exist, and you weren't planning to post these things anyway.
When a ruling is explained, your first response shouldn't be to find the exact edges. They don't exist, and you weren't planning to post these things anyway.
I've been doing this my whole life lol...not stopping now. You psychiatrists might even have a term for it.
(and Armenians do make the best babaganoush-- you never know when a middle eastern food discussion is going to pop up and knowing the ground rules is important)
I dont know if you had seen the post I put up explaining that before you asked but basically the problem with discussions about what is and isnt racism is that one side usually ends up repeating the racist remarks, or expanding on them in an attempt to justify the original comments. There wasnt anything wrong with your post per se. I deleted the entire conversation in order to not have people feel like they have to reply to each post. Ever
Personally I was interested in jalfrezi definitions, how he frames discource on race and whatnot; I feel he was as well with me.
Because (I can only talk on my side) I actually respect him even if we dont share too many values so I keep open the possibility he might be right, or at least coherent enough to deserve proper intellectual respect, on some topics.
Making it impossible to have these conversations makes it impossible to build bridges or at least mutual recognition of our positions, that's something that increases polarization
Personally I was interested in jalfrezi definitions, how he frames discource on race and whatnot; I feel he was as well with me...
Making it impossible to have these conversations makes it impossible to build bridges or at least mutual recognition of our positions, that's something that increases polarization
Yes that's true, and I don't feel it's anyone else's business to stop posters from having an honest discussion about it.
But mods are all the same really, always.
The problem is, how does one have an honest discussion about racist comments with someone who doesnt believe his comments are racist, without the discussion becoming the very debate that is not allowed? In order for him to get you to see his side, he would need to, in effect, expand on the racist remarks and provide more info justifying his position.
I suggest you carry on that particular discussion over PM.
The problem is, how does one have an honest discussion about racist comments with someone who doesnt believe his comments are racist, without the discussion becoming the very debate that is not allowed? In order for him to get you to see his side, he would need to, in effect, expand on the racist remarks and provide more info justifying his position.
I suggest you carry on that particular discussion over PM.
But why is that debate not allowed.
Why is a debate to define what is racism not allowed basically? Why should you assume people agree on the definition, it's one of the most loaded and abused words in English language.
Given in particular in the USA (and many other countries ) racism as defined on this forum IS NOT A CRIME why not simply allow it in full? Personal insults could still be banned from the conversation.
Why is it allowed to insult a political group and not an ethnic group, why does a forum need to have protected groups?
And why is something that isn't even an insult (like an attempted ranking of historical contributions to science of ethnic groups) banned from the conversation lol.
And why are you allowed to claim a set of political ideas is horrible but not a religion?
Race isn't even real is the thing.
As best all you can say is that some clusters of genes are better at some things than other clusters of genes. (like making baba ganoush)
Race isn't even real is the thing.
As best all you can say is that some clusters of genes are better at some things than other clusters of genes.
I used their definitions *I don't not agree with* ("whites", indicating i don't agree to use that as an ethnic reference group), it was still considered banned speech.
Personally I was interested in jalfrezi definitions, how he frames discource on race and whatnot; I feel he was as well with me.
Because (I can only talk on my side) I actually respect him even if we dont share too many values so I keep open the possibility he might be right, or at least coherent enough to deserve proper intellectual respect, on some topics.
Making it impossible to have these conversations makes it impossible to build bridges
Yes that's true, and I don't feel it's anyone else's business to stop posters from having an honest discussion about it.
But mods are all the same really, always.
But why is that debate not allowed.
Why is a debate to define what is racism not allowed basically? Why should you assume people agree on the definition, it's one of the most loaded and abused words in English language.
Given in particular in the USA (and many other countries ) racism as defined on this forum IS NOT A CRIME why not simply allow it in full? Personal insults could still be banned from the conversation.
Why is it allowed to insul
There are websites that not only allow, but encourage discussions as to why whites are superior to other races. They are filled with pseudo science bs trying to justify their hateful positions. Others use bible quotes. Others just plain disinformation.
Not every website forum wants to be associated with that stuff. This is one of those. You are free to go express your opinion that if it werent for western (aka white) technology that everyone else would be living no better off than animals over there. But not here.
There are websites that not only allow, but encourage discussions as to why whites are superior to other races. They are filled with pseudo science bs trying to justify their hateful positions. Others use bible quotes. Others just plain disinformation.
Not every website forum wants to be associated with that stuff. This is one of those. You are free to go express your opinion that if it werent for western (aka white) technology that everyon
Doesn't all the best technology come from Japan anyways?
If I want good smelling soap or some nice shoes I make sure they're from France or Italy but if I want a nice computer or camera it should be Japanese. (admittedly I do have a German car but the Japanese make some nice ones as well).
But why is that debate not allowed.
Why is a debate to define what is racism not allowed basically? Why should you assume people agree on the definition, it's one of the most loaded and abused words in English language.
The debate is not disallowed. Making white supremacist posts is disallowed. If you can't separate the 2, or if you feel you can't understand how the mods are separating the 2, then I'd suggest just not posting on the subject.
There are websites that not only allow, but encourage discussions as to why whites are superior to other races. They are filled with pseudo science bs trying to justify their hateful positions. Others use bible quotes. Others just plain disinformation.
Not every website forum wants to be associated with that stuff. This is one of those. You are free to go express your opinion that if it werent for western (aka white) technology that everyon
I mean regardless of what you want to think his underlying motivations might be, arguing that white people contribute the most to GDPs isn't the really the hottest of takes.
As a non-white person who does as little as possible to contribute to GDPs I'm not too offended.
The debate is not disallowed. Making white supremacist posts is disallowed. If you can't separate the 2, or if you feel you can't understand how the mods are separating the 2, then I'd suggest just not posting on the subject.
If claiming that whites (as defined currently in the USA, which is a silly definition) ancestors did basically everything worthwhile in human history is white supremacy, then western history books are white supremacists (which btw is something a tiny minority of radical leftists actually claim).
The ancestors of Europeans and Jews developed 90-95% of what we now call science and technology.
Claiming that obvious historical truth is true isn't white supremacy.
I don't see why you consider it to be white supremacy.
I don't see why anyone would.
But you did so please can you explain that to me?
If claiming that whites (as defined currently in the USA, which is a silly definition) ancestors did basically everything worthwhile in human history is white supremacy, then western history books are white supremacists (which btw is something a tiny minority of radical leftists actually claim).
The ancestors of Europeans and Jews developed 90-95% of what we now call science and technology.
Claiming that obvious historical truth is true isn't
Whites wrote those books though.
I mean regardless of what you want to think his underlying motivations might be, arguing that white people contribute the most to GDPs isn't the really the hottest of takes.
As a non-white person who does as little as possible to contribute to GDPs I'm not too offended.
Not even to present GDP (Asians in the USA do more proportionally), I was talking PAST contributions to technological advancement lol, the most vanilla of basic truths
