Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread

he has the right frame of mind, but his values are all ****ed up

I wasnt being flippant with my answer. Context matters many times, so I cant evaluate every isolated quote example on its own. Which is why I dont comment on every what about this hypothetical as well.

But to get to what I think remains the real underlying issue, as the politics rules thread clearly states we acknowledge that there are those who feel strongly about the transgender/mental illness topic and disagree with it. That's fine. But before the policy was clarified, input from posters and mods from around the site was considered, and pros and cons weighed.

That process is over. So at this point all the attempts at tiptoeing around the policy or comments in the trans thread like "I cant say what I really think" dont contribute to the discussion and wont generate changes to the policy. Better for everyone to just accept the policy and abide by it, otherwise they may cross the line and trigger mod action which can be easily avoided.

I don't believe there should be bans for almost every offense. People can grow up and not get their panties in a wad when they feel someone's been mean to them on the internet. I just found it hard to believe that since you hadn't received any reports that it wasn't happening all the time or that you somehow considered it just idle chatter.

On the subject of post reports I noticed you passive aggressively pm’d me about 2 of the 4 reports I made requesting an explanation then completely ignored my reply about why the other 2 went unexplained

Not that I expected your pm was serious nor that you would seriously consider the reply but still

I didnt passively aggressively anything to you. I copied a post report and asked you for clarification as to which part, specifically you thought violated the rules. You never bothered to answer.

No one should expect a PM answer to every post report. And we dont normally reply about warnings or deletions. As an exception, we may. After I make the effort to send a message requesting clarification in order to make sure I understand your concern, and you dont reply, the odds of you getting further responses drops to near zero.

lol, what did you expect would happen?

Has StoppedRainingMen actually ever posted in this forum, other than to complain about the modding? I cant recall a single post they have made.

Why are we even humoring a troll whose only purpose is to create problems, who doesn't even actively post in this forum? At least Trolly actively trolls the forum. This guy doesn't even do that. He is just stirring trouble.

Edit: I went through his posting history and see he does make the occasional post in the Trump thread.

Probably best to do those tasks in reverse order.

I replied to you neph. I’m happy to offer an explanation to everything I reported if you were willing to engage in good faith on everything I reported

Based on your reply and this post

I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed

Grats washoe, you have a Judge Cannon

Sometimes I’m curious about clicking view post on someone I have on ignore, a thread like this is the only one I give it consideration to

Step 1: close eyes
Step 2: shoot
Step 3: shoot
Step 4: shoot
Step 5: shoot
Step 6: EDIT: ask questions before shooting

Glad you were good enough to justify my choice to give zero consideration to a word you have to offer

STEP 6 EDIT ASK QUESTIONS: Please be advised this is the last post of yours I will ever read so anything you have to say to this is purely for your vanity and hopes for high fives from someone ITT

I have to agree that posting in the Trump thread doesn't count as contributing.

Man, at least you didn't catch a retaliatory ban, call yourself lucky.

As Luckbox pointed out, if you think I think posting 1x/week in the Trump thread gives you the forum cache to create the problems you are, then you are wrong. As far as I am concerned you are just here to create problems, have never shown any interest in being an active member of this forum, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I know as a non poster is SE, if I went into that forum and started bitching about the modding despite never posting in that forum, I would have a much shorter leash than you are being given.

"Cachet", Kel, which is pronounced like "ballet". "Cache" is where squirrels hide their nuts or what you invalidate when it's stale, and it's pronounced as "cash".

I think forum cache would be a good thing to have.

:Thumbsup.gif

Copied from the I/P thread.

OK. Unfortunately, I got tied up all day with tests and will be tied up for the next couple of days. So I won't be able to log on much at all, possibly some while in various waiting rooms.

I read through about the last 400 posts quickly, and here are some general comments.

The idea that Palestinian couples are having more kids so they can be part of some grand strategic plan to overthrow Israel, and do so fully expecting that they will likely face a life of starvation and death, but they are good with that because it supports the cause, is, frankly abhorrent as well as unfounded. Palestinian parents, like those of any group of parents around the world, care deeply about the lives of their children and to waive off the existence of the pain and grief they feel at the death of their children, or to somehow blame them for those deaths simply for having the children in the first place is an obscenity.

So that line of discussion needs to stop now. I can hardly think of a worse slur to put on a group of people than that.

There were far too many personal attacks in the last few hundred posts, including both egregious ones and childish ones. I am often reminded by posters that this is an forum of mostly middle aged adults, not children, and should approach modding it as such. Yet I see the very adult-like, witty responses to insults such as suck my dick.

Now, there are a lot of aspects about this current conflict that make it an unusual situation in terms of discussing what is and isnt appropriate irt the conduct of the war, the status of civilians, collateral damage limits, provision of aid, etc. most law of warfare treaties and agreements are based upon wars between nation states. There are rules about what constitutes an occupying force, what resistance forces can do vis a vis innocent civilians, and other things. But here we have a terrorist group that is also the defacto government authority even while the area is simultaneously considered as being occupied by Israel.

The entire subject of total war versus limited war is a complex one esp as it concerns innocent civilians, or if there is even such a thing in wartime. In the past, hundreds of thousands of "innocent civilians" were killed under the cover of collateral damage, tragic but necessary in order to destroy military targets. And under this broad subject is the debate as to what, if any responsibility or culpability does a civilian population bear for the wartime actions if its elected government.

Depending on what ones position is on these topics, one could take the position that civilains are innocent bystanders trapped in a war zone, to be protected to the maximum, even if that means having to devise less than optimal approaches to destroying the enemy forces and securing a military victory. Or, one could take the position that any civilian caught in a war zone is subject to becoming collateral damage as long as the enemy remains in the vicinity of them, as destroying the enemy is the only way to ultimately end the fighting and in that process also end the killing of civilians.

There can be some extreme positions people hold based on which way they choose to view these things. So ai am reluctant to constrain discussions about whether or not killing civilians is justified, whether aid should be provided by a combatant force, etc. i have my own personal opinion, but dont want to use that as the modding criteria. So, some posters may well post positions that others find offensive. Rebut those positions. There is lots of room for discussing the limits of modern warfare irt responsibilities to the civilian populations.

Now, due to my personal circumstances over the next few days, I have decided to grant an amnesty of sorts for several posts that I would normally ban people for. I am not going to go back through and identify individual posts and take action now. But many posters should take this as a final warning about stopping the personal attacks (even if you are attacked first) as well as stopping the line of discussion about Palestinians reproducing for strategic purposes or in any way bearing responsibility for their kids starving to death.

Some may feel it is unfair to let some of these offenses escape a ban. And in a way that's correct. But my circumstances are in terms of time available such that I think if everyone will just step back and cool down the rhetoric a bit, we can move forward with the same net effect.

If you are unhappy with this feel free to comment in the mod thread. But frankly dont expect me to debate the issue with you. I dont have the time for that now, and it wont change the decision anyway.

Please continue to use the report function if you see something you really feel needs a mods action.

Thanks.

Man, Kel is going around infecting mods with his hand waiving disease. Lock it down and administer a mandatory spelling test to all mods. And quarantine Kel.

Mets has been banned for two weeks for disregarding warning about Palestinian birth rates postings and blaming Palestinians for their condition by having kids.

If you dont agree with what a mod says not to post about, that's fine. You can always comment on the policy. But if you continue to post about that topic anyway, despite the warning, you're going to get banned.

Was this something determined with other mods, like the trans policy.

Really ridiculous to ban discussion of something a previous Palestinian leader said again and again.

Oh also, it's still allowed for posters to say other posters are fine with babies being killed, but it's not ok to say Palestinians don't mind their babies being killed.

And it's still ok for others to post things clearly violating sitewide rules (yesterday) because a mod is too busy to do anything for the next two weeks, but somehow he finds time to give someone else a 2 week ban for this.

seems that way. but what do I know, I just read browsers post and understand English.

Browser needed his hit of banning someone to stave off the withdrawal symptoms. It had been a few days.

It has to be a deliberate bit at this point.

There hasn't been too much drama this week. He desperately had to do something to change that!