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.
Because there is an ignore function so why should you ban content only because you dislike it, when forum users can craft a proxy of a ban list that adheres to their preferences instead? that allows for more variety of opinions (and far less active modding which saves time/money)
Western societies are very permissive in terms of what speech is legal. That doesn't mean that all entities who host user submitted content would want all of it on their platforms.
Pro Nazi speech is legal in most jurisdictions. Why would that mean that 2+2 should give it a platform?
In general, I find your arguments to legality on every topic discussing whether this or that is proper to be rather vacuous. Something being legal doesn't make it correct or desirable.
Videos - Ban washoe from posting any more than one video per day. Everything else is fine.
Because there is an ignore function so why should you ban content only because you dislike it, when forum users can craft a proxy of a ban list that adheres to their preferences instead? that allows for more variety of opinions (and far less active modding which saves time/money)
8Chan the world in order to save time for Browser and others like him. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I could understand actual extremism (like places where they train terrorists and so on) but lol at consider Breitbart one
You wont find racist material on youtube as that gets immediately flagged and removed by youtube.
Breitbart, LOL
Breitbart idk, banning it based on what?
Opposing views? It would be wrong to Do that imo for multiple reasons.
One of them being conplete shutout of opposing views another isolation and making them run off to 4chan to further extremize themselves. You want discussion.
Western societies are very permissive in terms of what speech is legal. That doesn't mean that all entities who host user submitted content would want all of it on their platforms.
Pro Nazi speech is legal in most jurisdictions. Why would that mean that 2+2 should give it a platform?
In general, I find your arguments to legality on every topic discussing whether this or that is proper to be rather vacuous. Something being legal doesn't make i
No its not. Only in america...
Ala david duke.
You wont find racist material on youtube as that gets immediately flagged and removed by youtube.
Breitbart, LOL
Breitbart idk, banning it based on what?
Opposing views? It would be wrong to Do that imo for multiple reasons.
One of them being conplete shutout of opposing views another isolation and making them run off to 4chan to further extremize themselves. You want discussion.
Actually racist material, yes, but what people on this forum have repeatedly called racist can be found on YouTube.
Like a video about contributions of Italians to technology wouldn't be banned from youtube
It's posts like this btw that cause people to give you crap about your modding. What he said was super benign-- so benign that after you deleted and went back and requoted it so that people could see it. It was basically "The Cultural Marixsts hate white people even though they contribute the most to GDP"-- which isn't anything close to what you're implying he's trying to say. People here (myself included) wouldn't even agree that contribut
I disagree. For a short time IT felt like two clansmen were talking there to me.
Maybe youre not familar with that but others are. Anybody talking like that is morally bankrupt and factually wrong.
Hes cited some old studies from the nazies (more or less) which is a century old. It is a lie and he believes it. The one were he made claims about Australiens.
Fair enough. My point still stands that some content which is technically legal is not necessarily desired on every platform. Perhaps I chosen bad example to illustrate this point. Porn is legal, but that doesn't mean browser wants to host it. ****, probably a bad example again.
It's legal here (UK) as far as I know, and I suspect most other Western countries except Germany and maybe Austria.
You cant walk with a clans hood in the UK, you cant wear swastikas, you cant offend other races and so on. Common sense. Only in america you can. David Duke is doing that. comparing apes to africans and other disgusting things. Try that in the UK.
Are you and Luciom familar with him?
Bc he just in line with Lucioms talk. (Sometimes)
So there you go, racism right there.
I disagree. For a short time IT felt like two clansmen were talking there to me.
Maybe youre not familar with that but others are. Anybody talking like that is morally bankrupt and factually wrong.
Hes cited some old studies from the nazies (more or less) which is a century old. It is a lie and he believes it. The one were he made claims about Australiens.
I was referring specifically to the line where he talked about what white people have done the world. I agree that the other stuff where he references genetics and talks about black "underperformance" rings of racism and that when you put it all together and have those 4 bullet points he made in a row together that it looks bad.
But saying that white people have done a lot for civilization is indeed very benign. People can weigh the pros and cons of what white people have done (antibiotics vs genocide, etc) but what he said should be an allowable opinion to express here.
Hes only saying that bc he thinks he is superior. All of these claims have long been debunked but that all he has now.
Yeah, no, thats the start of the argument.
Why not? I understand why the owner of a private space would ban according to anti social behavior (which has nothing to do with opinion).
I would throw people away from a private party if they start insulting or harassing others even if they do so in ways compatible with the 1st amendment
Hes only saying that bc he thinks he is superior. All of these claims have long been debunked but that all he has now.
Yeah, no, thats the start of the argument.
I was saying that to be able to claim that antiwhite racism is particularly dumb and is cultural Marxism (as the whites are defined as the oppressors in that dynamic).
Which btw is why in that dynamic Asians magically become white because they have good income
Why not? I understand why the owner of a private space would ban according to anti social behavior (which has nothing to do with opinion).
I would throw people away from a private party if they start insulting or harassing others even if they do so in ways compatible with the 1st amendment
But if they came to your party and started loudly mouthing off how xyz people were much more a net positive for society than Italians, you'd be cool with that?
I was referring specifically to the line where he talked about what white people have done the world. I agree that the other stuff where he references genetics and talks about black "underperformance" rings of racism and that when you put it all together and have those 4 bullet points he made in a row together that it looks bad.
But saying that white people have done a lot for civilization is indeed very benign. People can weigh the pros and
Im not a nazi expert but think that is a typical nazi talking point.
I don't know why this discussion is happening here. Please take it elsewhere, or nowhere, but debating how good Italians are is definitely not appropriate for the mod thread.
Can you move it to the BOC thread before it gets deleted please?
