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.
I'm pretty sure that if a Muslim here sprayed anti-Christian graffiti over a church he'd face the same charges as a Christian spraying anti-Muslim graffiti over a mosque, so I don't see what your problem is.
stop
I moved 10 posts from this thread to the Israel/Palestine thread, where such discussion belongs.
I am busy but will try to moderate this thread more closely for a while. Insinuating that BGP controls this thread in some way is false and not allowed. Saying that Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine is false and not allowed, short of some new facts or actual intelligent analysis. To JBouton more specifically, making posts which continually hint at some argument but never make the argument is akin to trolling in my view as you aren't
This is the serbian president I think talking about how the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy for a preemptively draining putin of his resources before they attack him. Is that allowed in the ukraine/russia thread?
Also in regard to hinting but never making my argument in this case my argument going along with the evidence is that "the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy for a preemptively draining putin of his resources before they attack him and Serbia's President Vucic agrees"
The only thing you're allowed to say is that Putin woke up one morning and thought "hey why not attack Ukraine today".
The mods are very serious so definitely tread lightly if you want to stray from that.
If that was their plan then stupid Putin fell for the trap, huh?
This is the serbian president I think talking about how the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy for a preemptively draining putin of his resources before they attack him. Is that allowed in the ukraine/russia thread?
Also in regard to hinting but never making my argument in this case my argument going along with the evidence is that "
Would made sense if it was the west that invaded Ukraine and Ukraine was actually Russia …..
The only thing you're allowed to say is that Putin woke up one morning and thought "hey why not attack Ukraine today".
The mods are very serious so definitely tread lightly if you want to stray from that.
Yeah, non-approved opinions are not allowed around here now apparently. First, the covid thread got nuked and now this.
The forum's just about dead anyway. Pretty sad really.
I am busy but will try to moderate this thread more closely for a while. Insinuating that BGP controls this thread in some way is false and not allowed. Saying that Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine is false and not allowed, short of some new facts or actual intelligent analysis. To JBouton more specifically, making posts which continually hint at some argument but never make the argument is akin to trolling in my view as you aren't
I'd also like to submit this as supportive evidence that the idea that its not a US lead proxy war is a false narrative (which again is my argument I would caption it with and plainly state)....
jbouton:
Not a mod here, but I'll give my two cents. It looks like you desire to DISCUSS these things. That's great and encouraged, just read the first bolded sentence. The problem arises when you stop discussing things, and insist that having your narratives debunked is controlling the thread. Ironically you then seek to control the thread by insisting that your logic is right and further insisting that by having honest discussions about your logic which prove it to be false that I am controlling the thread.
You then resort to the following arguments:
Current arguments ITT that this is a proxy war:
Everyone knows it!
Something happened in last 30 years so Putin had to defensively invade Ukraine! (But I won't say what it was so you can refute it)
Of course it is!
You know it is!
You're gatekeeping (by engaging with all arguments put forth and explaining why they are not true)
You won't allow me to state my fake narrative with no evidence to back it up that I'm currently stating!
If you insist on repeating what is largely believed to be a lie without defending your argument then it is YOU who is trying to control the thread instead of letting things stand on their own merit.
Here is another great example of this:
Russia was provoked.
The West staged a coup and they were attacking ethnic Russians.
Ban me if you'd like.
This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Jbouton refused to defend his conspiracy theories, but maybe you'd like to do.
Can you walk me through the sequence of events where Russia was provoked and the justified response was invading Ukraine?
The West never staged a coup, they were not attacking ethnic Russians. Can you provide evidence of this?
They've been trying to start a war with Russia going back to at least the attack in South Ossetia in 2008.
Then surely you can explain how.
Can you walk me through the sequence of events where Russia was provoked and the justified response was invading Ukraine?
The West never staged a coup, they were not attacking ethnic Russians. Can you provide evidence of this?
This post was met with crickets. Clearly this poster is not trying to have a discussion. They are trying to state their opinions as fact without any proof to back them up in an effort to gain control of the narrative and then crying foul when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims.
I would prefer if this conspiracy theory nonsense was moved into a different thread, but that has been declined multiple times now. Short of that it's probably best that it's not allowed in the thread because the posters posting the Kremlin propaganda have repeatedly refused to engage with their own arguments and instead want them stated as fact with no pushback; this detracts from any productive discussion occurring in the thread. In fact it's driven so many posters away that the thread might never have active participation again. It is the equivalent of having someone yelling "POKER IS RIGGED" while discussing strategy.
I have already been chastised for accusing you of soft moderating and holding the russia ukraine thread to your own narrative which doesn't align with facts I'm presenting.
Originally Posted by Bluegrassplayer
Then surely you can explain how.
Can you walk me through the sequence of events where Russia was provoked and the justified response was invading Ukraine?
The West never staged a coup, they were not attacking ethnic Russians. Can you provide evidence of this?
This post was met with crickets. Clearly this poster is not trying to have a discussion. They are trying to state their opinions as fact without any proof to back them up in an effort to gain control of the narrative and then crying foul when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims.
It wasn't met with crickets. I posted a detailed explanation by Jeffrey Sachs which we were barred from discussing and I'm trying to get the ok to do so. My posts were deleted by this moderation.
Since I have put up other sources that are reputable and worthy of dialogue.
I would prefer if this conspiracy theory nonsense was moved into a different thread, but that has been declined multiple times now. Short of that it's probably best that it's not allowed in the thread because the posters posting the Kremlin propaganda have repeatedly refused to engage with their own arguments and instead want them stated as fact with no pushback; this detracts from any productive discussion occurring in the thread. In fact it's driven so many posters away that the thread might never have active participation again. It is the equivalent of having someone yelling "POKER IS RIGGED" while discussing strategy.
Why can't we post facts and testimonies from respected leaders around the world and discuss them?
BGP won't let me post in the bitcoin thread either and we all know I'm the most knowledgeable person on this site on the subject by far.
What's going on pan-das?
The only thing you're allowed to say is that Putin woke up one morning and thought "hey why not attack Ukraine today".
The mods are very serious so definitely tread lightly if you want to stray from that.
Pretty sure there is broad agreement that Crimea (and then Donbass, because we did nothing serious after Crimea) were caused by the shale revolution
I have already been chastised for accusing you of soft moderating and holding the russia ukraine thread to your own narrative which doesn't align with facts I'm presenting.
Are you accusing me of this or not? Because I offered to discuss it then you pretended that you never said it and stopped talking when I brought up the multiple times that you clearly said this.
It wasn't met with crickets. I posted a detailed explanation by Jeffrey Sachs which we were barred from discussing and I'm trying to get the ok to do so. My posts were deleted by this moderation.
This is false, you have been told it is false, the only conclusion I can come to here is that you realize you have not been singled out and you are being intentionally untruthful to make it seem like you were. Saying "my posts were deleted" is technically true, but it does not capture the situation. My posts were deleted as well. My posts were far more in depth, factual, and based in facts and citations than yours were. This is a far bigger loss in terms of effort. This moderation did NOT delete the posts, making the entire sentence objectively false as well.
You were not barred from discussing Jeffrey Sachs. Here is the outcome of discussing him:
How would you help one who is observing this and failing to come to the conclusions you are coming to arrive at the conclusions that you are arriving at by oberserving these things?
In particular, how could one who is watching countries allow Ukraine to fire an extremely limited distance into Russia with their weapons (although really any distance) come to the conclusion that this is proof that this is a proxy war?
I dunno, but its just getting obvious I think. I usually think more of the long plays. Like getting caught being right over time.
You want your statements to be treated as fact, you don't want to defend them and have to prove they are factual. This is an effort to control the narrative of that thread, which is what you are accusing me of doing by engaging with these arguments, displaying the actual facts, and letting them speak.
Since I have put up other sources that are reputable and worthy of dialogue.
Why can't we post facts and testimonies from respected leaders around the world and discuss them?
I'm all for it, but you've proven that you will refuse to discuss them. Repeatedly. This will devolve into you saying something along the lines of "You know it's true." "Everyone knows this." "I'm the smartest, everyone should just trust me", or something else along those lines. In light of that I think these should be contained in a conspiracy thread because they have already been debunked multiple times, and then people come back and treat them as fact with no new evidence, and no willingness to actually discuss what they are saying. If the mods don't want to do that then this forum is better served by just not allowing these already debunked arguments to bog down the conversation any further. You've had multiple chances and the results are clear.
I'll say what I said the last time this got brought up: pretend you are correct and this is a proxy war, so what?
You were even invited to make your point and I would in good faith accept what you're saying is true. Here is what you said the point was:
So then you've been helping cover the truth as it builds into the real war that the proxy fighting and 'unprovoked' narrative were hiding from the general public.
This serves no purpose. It's a complete waste of time. It is not an attempt at having a good discussion. You have decided I'm your enemy because I respond with facts to you arguments and because I've had to limit where you can post (although giving you ample other places to post) since you have used similarly unproductive ways of communicating in a part of the forum that I mod.
I'd also like to submit this as supportive evidence that the idea that its not a US lead proxy war is a false narrative (which again is my argument I would caption it with and plainly state)....
those ukrayne ressources been there for a very long time and the possibility of china joining russia for ressources exchanges as well.
it just didnt appeared yesterday.
furthermore, putin been "invading" a lot of times in ukrayne and yet it was the west fault ?
if what u say was true, which is a nice plot for a movie , it seem highly unlikely because im pretty sure as soon putin is replace, dies or russia decides to stop invading and return into its land, the war would stop.
And that would mean all the incentives of war you suspect would still be there but magically no war would happen...
those ukrayne ressources been there for a very long time and the possibility of china joining russia for ressources exchanges as well.
it just didnt appeared yesterday.
furthermore, putin been "invading" a lot of times in ukrayne and yet it was the west fault ?
if what u say was true, which is a nice plot for a movie , it seem highly unlikely because im pretty sure as soon putin is replace, dies or russia decides to stop invading and return in
Why in the world would we not be "allowed" to discuss this?
You were even invited to make your point and I would in good faith accept what you're saying is true. Here is what you said the point was:
This serves no purpose. It's a complete waste of time. It is not an attempt at having a good discussion. You have decided I'm your enemy because I respond with facts to you arguments and because I've had to limit where you can post (although giving you ample other places to post) since you have used simil
My point has been stated many times which is part of normal discourse. I believe its a proxy for the US and I believe many other people do. I have examples of reputable politicans and world leaders explaining this.
Jeffery sachs said this:
...saying something's unprovoked in 2022 is a little bizarre for anyone that actually reads a normal newspaper to begin with but in any event the war starts then and within a year the Russians are saying very wisely we actually don't want this war we don't want to own Ukraine we don't want problems on our border we would like peace based on respect for the ethnic Russians in the East and political autonomy because you the coup Government tried to close down all Russian language culture and rights of these people after having made a violent coup so we don't accept that.
That got me a warning. Why a warning. Whats the problem.
You have decided I'm your enemy because I respond with facts to you arguments and because I've had to limit where you can post (although giving you ample other places to post) since you have used similarly unproductive ways of communicating in a part of the forum that I mod.
You won't let me post bitcoin related content in the bitcoin thread, and I'm by far the most knowledgeable person here on the subject by far.
It's weird.
As I've said, this was the end result of trying to discuss the Sachs video with you:
I dunno, but its just getting obvious I think. I usually think more of the long plays. Like getting caught being right over time.
As I've said, when asked why it is important that you attach this "proxy" label to the Ukraine war, this is how you responded:
So then you've been helping cover the truth as it builds into the real war that the proxy fighting and 'unprovoked' narrative were hiding from the general public.
As I've said, this is a recurring theme with you. You do not want to discuss these issues. You want to state them as fact and have them accepted as fact. When they are discussed you cry that you are being silenced by a mod and not by facts. You then disappear and come back and restate your same debunked arguments. This has happened over and over again. It is not conducive to a productive discussion. When easy ways to have a productive discussion have been suggested to you, you have consistently refused.
Admitting that the entire point of your even bringing this up is to attack a poster is not good either.
(It is extremely ironic that I am addressing all of your arguments with posts and examples, and then you continue to keep stating your original arguments despite them not being grounded in fact as the posts and examples show.)
Bringing up your false interpretation of what is happening regarding the bitcoin thread does not help your cause. I suggest discussing it in the appropriate place.
Saying that Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine is false and not allowed, short of some new facts or actual intelligent analysis.
This is the serbian president I think talking about how the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy [...]
my argument going along with the evidence is that "the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy for a preemptively draining putin of his resources before they attack him and Serbia's President Vucic agrees"
I'd also like to submit this as supportive evidence that the idea that its not a US lead proxy war is a false narrative
What I wrote was that it's wrong to just state that Russia was provoked. This doesn't disallow:
1) discussion about whether the war is a proxy war, which your posts here seem to be about. Those are 2 different topics.
2) posting of new information to show how Russia may have been provoked. All the old arguments have been gone over in circles and lead nowhere. Simply stating that Russia was provoked just antagonizes the thread and goes nowhere. But new information or analysis can certainly lead to real discussion.
