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.
here you go. lots to pick from.
I don’t think Victor’s postings are any more offensive or deliberately provocative than many posters on the other side of a topic. I often don’t agree with him but he’s at least a good foil to people across a spectrum of politics here. He’s also way more prone to personal attacks than most.
FYP
If he were to post something like that as proof then that’s reasonable if it was spoilered and clearly indicated what the image contained. I find it hard to believe that even the biggest Israel apologists think no babies have been killed, but I haven’t been following the thread so maybe that’s really what he was replying to. I just know Victor has a tendency to want to push people’s buttons. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but I wouldn’t put it past him to unnecessarily sprinkle a thread with images no one asked to see.
I forgot to mention, he also often personally attacks other using by calling them "liberals". For him that's a bigger insult than baby killer.
He tends to speak in generalities, which is what I’m getting at. It’s more about his opinion of liberals generally than pointing to just you. He does less of singling out posters than others do.
He tends to speak in generalities, which is what I’m getting at. It’s more about his opinion of liberals generally than pointing to just you. He does less of singling out posters than others do.
I find that to be much worse. He paints everyone other than him (and a few of his toadies) as if they are a monolith of error and hatred.
If you disagree with him on one thing, he assumes you are a war mongering racist genocide supporter, and says as much, even if you have not made statements supporting any of that.
Maybe you could show us an example of this rule breaking?
All we hear is rule breaking!
Show us and then we could talk about it... but since you guys have been asked to show us many times for days and you never showed us anything. U probably got nothing.
You been asked for days now.
WTF???
Dude, this happened yesterday. And if you're somehow unaware of how Victor posts, I'm not sure why you even involved yourself in this conversation. If you are aware of how Victor posts and want to say that other people are just as bad, that's one thing, but to suggest you need someone to show you posts of his that are over the line, well, LOL.
Dude, this happened yesterday. And if you're somehow unaware of how Victor posts, I'm not sure why you even involved yourself in this conversation. If you are aware of how Victor posts and want to say that other people are just as bad, that's one thing, but to suggest you need someone to show you posts of his that are over the line, well, LOL.
Is rococo gone for ever as a pure poster , regardless being a mod or not ?
While I accept that this is a viewpoint many here share, I profoundly disagree on principle with the above. Wartime photography is the reality of conflict, and spreading the awareness of that reality is a moral undertaking. We can disagree on Victor's motivations, but sharing the images is not unethical. Seeing is believing. The Napalm Girl photo changed the course of the war in Vietnam. Yes it was violent and horrifying to see a 9 year old
one thing is that how can we be sure those are actual non staged photos of babies/kids killed by Israeli actions?
pallywood is well known for staging photo-ops, for taking babies dead for other reasons and so on.
if war photos "can change the course of the war" given they can change popular support, it is incredibly important for them to be verified right?
Luciom went to his room for 24 hours because he bragged about his love for bending rules as an Italian, and then proceeded to bend the personal attacks rule in a not so clever way. He also the same day had advocated for "unlimited violence". After checking his user notes, I decided a short timeout would be beneficial for him and others.
I need to check here because it wasn't really clear: so now writing that I consider what user X writes disgusting and embarrassing is a personal attack? I thought we could criticize the content of posts as much as we liked.
Writing that if you are the victim of violence that morally justifies reacting with unlimited violence is against the rules? while calling Hamas resistance fighters isn't?
Let's just check what you wrote
you are poisoning the internet with leftism, the worst ideology in the history of humanity, this doesn't mean I would be morally justified to block you from doing that. you have a fundamental right to your shitty, disgusting, embarrassing opinion
Not saying I agree with bans but this is a pretty strong personal attack imo.
Let's just check what you wrote
Not saying I agree with bans but this is a pretty strong personal attack imo.
personal? personal would be saying something outside the content of the posts!
i mean if someone starts posting about how he wants to deport all non whites from western countries, you can't write "this ideology is horrendous" and so on? really? and marxism is infinitely worse than deporting all non whites from western countries (which is already pretty bad)
People might say that "horrendous" is different to "shitty, disgusting, embarrassing", which are insults.
There's always a fine line to be drawn with these things, which as I keep saying is one of the fundamental problems with having moderation.
People might say that "horrendous" is different to "shitty, disgusting, embarrassing", which are insults.
There's always a fine line to be drawn with these things, which as I keep saying is one of the fundamental problems with having moderation.
how can they be "insults", when referred to an opinion? literally the totality of the words in the dictionary are allowed to comment an opinion , or so i thought.
If you can call an opinion fascism or nazism, surely you can call it disgusting?
you said much worse things about what i write without ever being reprimanded for that.
I mean i thought the clear line was:
1) your opinion are trash (or whatever other epitet) -> always fully allowed
2) YOU are a trash person because you think this -> personal, not allowed
Was i wrong? because there are hundreds of extremely weighty comments on other people opinions in this forum which were never sanctioned. Can i report anyone who uses too strong words to address what i write?
personal? personal would be saying something outside the content of the posts!
i mean if someone starts posting about how he wants to deport all non whites from western countries, you can't write "this ideology is horrendous" and so on? really? and marxism is infinitely worse than deporting all non whites from western countries (which is already pretty bad)
We should ban people who post white supremacist ideology disguised as a hypothetical question to dance around the rules. Especially when it occurs tens of times per day. It seems like we are encouraging this behaviour by allowing it.
We should ban people who post white supremacist ideology disguised as a hypothetical question to dance around the rules. Especially when it occurs tens of times per day. It seems like we are encouraging this behaviour by allowing it.
but not marxists right? because reasons?
I use white supremacy as an example because it generates particular disgust in people like you, so you can understand what i feel when i read marxist opinions.
The questions stands, do you believe forum rules don't allow you to describe white supremacist opinions as disgusting, embarassing, shitty? because it's either you can never do that about any opinion, or you can always do for any opinion
how can they be "insults", when referred to an opinion? literally the totality of the words in the dictionary are allowed to comment an opinion , or so i thought.
If you can call an opinion fascism or nazism, surely you can call it disgusting?
you said much worse things about what i write without ever being reprimanded for that.
Under different moderation rules.
You have the choice of observing whatever rules are in place or ignoring them and getting banned. Deal with it.
If you call someone's views poisonous, shitty, disgusting and embarrassing then imo you've broken the current rules. You think using a thesaurus to use 100 pejoratives to describe someone's views when one mild one would do wouldn't break the rules? Mods have to draw a line somewhere.
but not marxists right? because reasons?
I use white supremacy as an example because it generates particular disgust in people like you, so you can understand what i feel when i read marxist opinions.
The questions stands, do you believe forum rules don't allow you to describe white supremacist opinions as disgusting, embarassing, shitty? because it's either you can never do that about any opinion, or you can always do for any opinion
There's an objective difference between white supremacy, which aims to inflict misery on a very large number of people, and Marxism which (though it may well be misguided) aims to improve people's lives. You're making the ultimate false equivalence.
