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.
No fast food. No soda, including diet soda. They have to drink aspartame free sparkling water if they need something carbonated.
Or maybe we can still let them get fast food but they have to order off a special menu.
You want to track fat people around and forbid them, forcefully from eating fast food and drinking soda?
Id much rather align myself with chez in rewriting mein kampf to charlottes web than that.
Right. You're focusing on custody, but my question was "how many of those things?" We don't take people's licenses to practice law away for being addicted to smoking, for example. As for an employer, they can discriminate based on anything that is not a protected class. They can fire you because you smoke, or because you're fat, or because they don't like the colour of your hair, but not because you're gay, or female, or black.
I mean, I don't see why not. Is there some sort of list of factors judges are prohibited from taking into consideration in a child custody case or something?
Can the judge claim the child is unsafe in the black-only neighborhood one of the parents lives in with 10x the crime rate of the neighborhood the other parent lives in, and use that as the basis for custody?
Right. You're focusing on custody, but my question was "how many of those things?" We don't take people's licenses to practice law away for being addicted to smoking, for example.
No for licenses afaik they do act on psychotropic substances only for now (again details might vary depending on the country).
But you can lose your license as a physician (or nurse) in the USA if you are positive to THC even if not "under the effect" on the job and even if cannabis is legal in your state.
These are the protected classes in the UK, I imagine the US is similar.
No for licenses afaik they do act on psychotropic substances only for now (again details might vary depending on the country).
But you can lose your license as a physician (or nurse) in the USA if you are positive to THC even if not "under the effect" on the job and even if cannabis is legal in your state.
Smoking cigarettes ldo.
You want to track fat people around and forbid them, forcefully from eating fast food and drinking soda?
Id much rather align myself with chez in rewriting mein kampf to charlottes web than that.
No tracking. That would be Orwellian. Everyone is required to weigh in if the fast food clerk thinks their BMI might be more than 20-- sort of the same way people get ID'd for alcohol.
No tracking. That would be Orwellian. Everyone is required to weigh in if the fast food clerk thinks their BMI might be more than 20-- sort of the same way people get ID'd for alcohol.
Can't the clerk just scan the chip that got implanted when they had their Covid vaccine, so as not to hold up the rest of the line?
You understand this is much more important than it looks like, because of the underlying implications?
So I am not making up a purely hypothetical discourse on group treatment, this is something going on right now.
But for now, at least for obesity, we can still discuss everything from genetical propensities, to full personal responsibility, and everything in between.
Now try to move on 50 years from now in a scenario where the "social obesity warriors" won every cultural battle, and discourse on personal responsibility for weight is treated like you guys treat me if I dare assume the possibility that ethnical group intelligence is even marginally genetically determined.
Now you understand my point better? About what's censored in this forum and why?
If it was for moral reasons they would subsidize vaping as it is clearly infinitely better for health than actual smoking.
Instead they tax it anyway (in excess of VAT, with special extra taxes) because otherwise revenue drops too much.
That's how you know they are lying to you about the moral reason for vice taxes.
(I realize vaping isn't extra-taxed in the UK but it is in most of Continental Europe and the USA).
Sorry cross purposes. I'm talkign about the arguments. Nothing much to do with politcians
Happy Easter and a yearly reminder that Yul Brynner is the greatest of all time.
Can the judge claim the child is unsafe in the black-only neighborhood one of the parents lives in with 10x the crime rate of the neighborhood the other parent lives in, and use that as the basis for custody?
Of course. Evaluation of proposed neighborhoods in terms of the child's safety is a routine part of the process. Crime rates, presence of registered sex offenders, proximity to locations considered potential problems like prisons and half way houses can all be considered. But your unnecessary qualifier of "black only" cannot.
*Moderation question*
Will there be a replacement for Browser or is this….it
Whether free will exists or not is an interesting philosophical question. But regardless, society basically requires that we act as if it does exist for most people. Societies cant really function otherwise.
Sure they can. And with very little different than they do now.
Really the only difference I can think of would be the idea of punishment for crimes. But I don't believe punishment serves any purpose anyway. I believe in having a stronger, more severe criminal justice system than there is now, for violent crimes, but for protection from violent people, not in order to punish them.
