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.
Rococo and I, along with King Spew (?), theoretically mod here but have all been busy this past week. I've not read threads in a while so plan to just check out post reports for a bit until I can get back into the full swing of things. I don't know if there's a search for a more full replacement.
What we really need around here are some fresh hot takes on how Dubya conspired with the CIA and the aliens to bring down the twin towers.
I'm not entirely sure he knew about it. The face-value indications are that it was Cheney running the show and that Bush was just a puppet. The real conspiracy here would be that GWB's act was just a farce and that he did have a clue.
What we really need around here are some fresh hot takes on how Dubya conspired with the CIA and the aliens to bring down the twin towers.
or another pointlesswords thread about how he was in the shower, thinking about how cocaine was less harmful than alcohol and why legal age for drinking should be 36.
I'd imagine that since no one really stumbles across this forum for the first time to post nonsense in politics, the majority of problems are going to come from previously banned posters popping up to make a mess. I would assume that our 3 part time mods would be able to handle that particular task in a delayed order at worst.
Converting other regs to supervise the rest of the 40-50 year olds with their decades old accounts doesn't seem like it would do much.
I wonder what the mean age of all active 2+2 posters is. Must be about 35 by now.
If you include the weirdos that post in NVG, it has to be higher than 35, right?
Yeah I guess so, time flies. I imagine during the poker boom days average was probably early 20s. I was thinking it's mostly the same people with but crazy to think it's been over 20 years since Moneymaker won.
Damn you guys ever see this movie Butcher Baker Nightmare Maker? It's pretty wild.
Yeah I guess so, time flies. I imagine during the poker boom days average was probably early 20s. I was thinking it's mostly the same people with but crazy to think it's been over 20 years since Moneymaker won.
I misread your post and thought you meant that there were around 35 regular posters on this site. While it is certainly much lower than it was even five years ago, I have to believe that there are at least 100 people that still login to this site every day.
Regarding the age of the average poster: I was 20 when I made my account here and am 39 now. Poker was significantly less popular by 2010 and is more or less dead these days in the United States. Additionally, while our generation grew up with online forums, those are also practically extinct these days, so kids in general would not be on the lookout for this forum even if they wanted to discuss poker; I think they would just go on Reddit to do so.
I expect that the average age of a reg on this site is in the late 30s to early 40s, and that is only because so many of the older posters have left (El Diablo, Henry17, Granny mae, Bison, Dids, etc.).
We aren't discussing WHY they are, just assessing that any rational person has a moral duty to admit south Korean residents are exceptionally better specimen of our species than Ghana residents (or were, in the last 6 decades).
Luciom,
No one is interested in your attempts to rank nationalities or ethnicities according to which people you think are "better specimen of our species."
This is a road to nowhere. Any further posts along these lines will be deleted and very likely will result in a ban.
Luciom,
No one is interested in your attempts to rank nationalities or ethnicities according to which people you think are "better specimen of our species."
This is a road to nowhere. Any further posts along these lines will be deleted and very likely will result in a ban.
Yet countries do this regularly when deciding who to give international aid to, who to ally with and so on.
If we aren't allowed to prefer one country to another we aren't allowed to justify aiding Ukraine against Russia for example, are these the forum rules?
Rococo are we in general allowed to say that some human beings are worse than others morally (deserving of less protection, deserving of fewer societal resources, a smaller loss if they die and so on and on) or we have to always talk as if we believed every single human being had exactly the same moral worth according to forum rules, even if basically no one in humanity believes in it (looking at revealed preferences)?
If we are allowed to rank individuals morally as per above, why doesn't that generalize to groups?
Or, we are allowed to rank individuals and groups morally, but only using axis that the value system of the left agrees to use to value individuals?
What are the forum rules, because I can't find any answering these questions and it's puzzling to be threatened of a ban just because I ask what the rules are giving examples (even that you quoted was just an example, I wrote disclaimers about that like 6 times)
Let's go with individuals ONLY for now and see where that takes us over the next 60 days.
ok so, for 60 days it's not allowed to (example) say Uganda society is bad even if they have the death penalty for homosexuality, or saying the group of human beings composed of "convincted child rapist in jail" is in any way different in inherent moral worth to any other human group?
just to understand the rules.
ok so, for 60 days it's not allowed to (example) say Uganda society is bad even if they have the death penalty for homosexuality, or saying the group of human beings composed of "convincted child rapist in jail" is in any way different in inherent moral worth to any other human group?
just to understand the rules.
Lucio, why don't we talk about movies instead of eugenics?
