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.
CV, I don't think it is incumbent on someone to provide links to support undisputed facts. Someone else confessed to the crime. The DA announced that there was DNA evidence tying that person to the crime. The DA stated that the office believed that the confessor likely acted alone.
These facts are undisputed. You can't make them go away with some sort of "fake news" routine.
If you want to argue that the DA's office was wrong or went in
i think the main point of contention was that even if they weren't involved in the rape, they were 100% there to mug people - there'd been numerous reports of a mugging spree going on in the park that night so even in the event they didn't rape meilee, they were still out there to commit crimes - not exactly good people let alone "innocent"
the medical evidence also suggests it was more than one attacker as well
the victim believes it was those men to this day and during the case the defense attorneys argued that she was a slut who was asking for it
i think the main point of contention was that even if they weren't involved in the rape, they were 100% there to mug people - there'd been numerous reports of a mugging spree going on in the park that night so even in the event they didn't rape meilee, they were still out there to commit crimes - not exactly good people let alone "innocent"
the medical evidence also suggests it was more than one attacker as well
the victim believes it was tho
Sluts asking to be gang raped exist in porn movies. I have been with a number of girls who have told me they fantasise about multiple men at the same time. None of these fantasies involve rape.
People (especially men) confuse sexual fantasy with reality.
i think the main point of contention was that even if they weren't involved in the rape, they were 100% there to mug people - there'd been numerous reports of a mugging spree going on in the park that night so even in the event they didn't rape meilee, they were still out there to commit crimes - not exactly good people let alone "innocent"
the medical evidence also suggests it was more than one attacker as well
the victim believes it was tho
I never truly went down the rabbit hole on this case. I never watched the Ken Burns documentary or the Netflix miniseries. I never read the Armstrong report. I chose my words carefully for a reason. The facts that I claimed were undisputed are, in fact, undisputed. And because of those facts, I think the burden of proof more properly sits with "the CP5 are definitely guilty" crowd than it does with the defenders of the CP5. But I don't claim to be certain of what happened.
Any time that there is a question about a wrongful conviction or a questionable shooting, there are people who eagerly rush in to argue that the defendant (or shooting victim) was no angel. The "no angels" argument doesn't mean much to me one way or the other. Most people who are wrongfully convicted are "no angels." Most people who give false confessions are "no angels." Very often, that's why the the police zeroed in on them in the first place.
they were still out there to commit crimes - not exactly good people let alone "innocent"
Don't mean to blow your mind here, but people can be guilty of one crime and perfectly innocent of a different crime.
Whether or not the CP5 are "good people" is not remotely at issue, and is obviously a cheap deflection away from the fact that they were falsely convicted of rape.
No one in the world has ever fantasized about being attacked in the way the Meili was attacked. Her injuries were truly horrific.
And also, it's certainly true the slut shaming the victim went through was appalling.
Don't mean to blow your mind here, but people can be guilty of one crime and perfectly innocent of a different crime.
Whether or not the CP5 are "good people" is not remotely at issue, and is obviously a cheap deflection away from the fact that the were falsely convicted of rape.
Despite the fact that they bragged about it to police after they were arrested? Perhaps American law is different, but in Britain an accomplice to rape can be convicted of rape. Putting it all on Reyes does not appear appropriate.
Don't play word games with me mate. You were clearly implying it was an undisputed fact Reyes acted alone and don't even think of denying it as you'll be laughed at.
Rococo has a long history of being very precise with his language in this forum. When he says it's an "undisputed fact" that "The DA stated that the office believed that the confessor likely acted alone.", I expect that's precisely what he means. And that makes far more sense than Rococo implying it's an undisputed fact that Reyes acted alone, as it's quite clear just from this thread alone that it's not undisputed.
If anyone's playing word games here, it's you. But hopefully instead it's just a case of you misinterpreting Rococo's intent.
Rococo has a long history of being very precise with his language in this forum. When he says it's an "undisputed fact" that "The DA stated that the office believed that the confessor likely acted alone.", I expect that's precisely what he means. And that makes far more sense than Rococo implying it's an undisputed fact that Reyes acted alone, as it's quite clear just from this thread alone that it's not undisputed.
If anyone's playing word
I don't play word games.
That said, I'm not overtly familiar with Rococo's posting history so yeah maybe I misinterpreted by conflating what he said with what I inferred from him - rightly or wrongly- as actually meaning. The DA believing Reyes most likely acted alone disregards the medical evidence for multiple attackers and the fact that one pf the CP5 confessed from prison to his friend that he sexually assaulted Trisha Meili and another very strongly implied he also took part in actual rape, to a cop, by laughing "I already got mine" simply when the cop asked him why he wasn't out with his girlfriend- even if a new DA moots a subjective opinion. That's what I had issue with, but again conflated what Roc said with what I thought he meant. I do think however the onus is indeed on trolly to provide evidence they were "blatantly railroaded" as a flawed due process doesn't necessarily equate to that. Also, if trolly is making the assertion that "They did not rape that woman"- who he doesn't even bother to name- he needs to address these points, even if it's an undisputed fact that an unreliable source such as Reyes confessed to acting alone and an undisputed fact that the DA who didn't take part in the investigation at the time, expressed a belief which flew in the face of medical evidence.
Despite the fact that they bragged about it to police after they were arrested? Perhaps American law is different, but in Britain an accomplice to rape can be convicted of rape. Putting it all on Reyes does not appear appropriate.
It's exactly the same in the United States. If you help your friend commit a rape, you are guilty of rape.
I'd say if you find yourself arguing with Rococo, you've probably taken a wrong turn somewhere. Of all the people, of all the places, I don't think I've ever seen that dude be wrong about anything.
Probably how he gets all that money to live on the Upper East Side.
We had a long protracted back and forth in the Epstein thread once-- only time I ever remember us in a disagreement.
"We" being you and Rococo? Well, if he took the "Hillary didn't make it into a federal prison and personally put a noose around Epstein's neck" side, I probs bet on whatever line he makes there..
be nice to rudoco guys, ramen days ahead for him
This did not happen.
Correct, this should have your first clue that your command of the facts is off.
Dude, if I go in blackface, will you acquit me of all the fraud and forgery?
Probably not a great idea to put it out there, but if the tax people find me, I'm fire hosed anyway. I'll go blackface and peremptory strike every juror till we get Trolly.
We had a long protracted back and forth in the Epstein thread once-- only time I ever remember us in a disagreement.
There was no way for either of us to be conclusively wrong or right in that debate. You thought the ear photos were highly significant. I did not. I remain highly confident that jeff Epstein is dead, but I obviously don't have first hand knowledge. There is some chance, however remote, that he shows up to the Knicks playoff game tomorrow. If he does, I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. In fact, if that happened, it probably would shift my entire world view more in your direction.
You are correct that we have never gone crazy insulting each other. That isn't really your style (or mine).
Dude, if I go in blackface, will you acquit me of all the fraud and forgery?
Probably not a great idea to put it out there, but if the tax people find me, I'm fire hosed anyway. I'll go blackface and peremptory strike every juror till we get Trolly.
Hell yeah, I got your back bro. No legal degree, but I'm sure they don't check for that.
By the way, Luckbox - Roc could chip in here and say "you have only a limited number of peremptory strikes". There are multiple reasons he didn't do this. One, and probably the most probable one, is that he either hasn't seen it or can't be ****ed. I can't think of any more.
They railroaded admitted violent criminals? If so, I'll take more of that, please. They should still be in prison now for the things they admitted years ago, instead of being free and living like they won the lottery. That makes me sick.
