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.
Several people have said that they never report even violations which personally bother them.
This is correct. A small number of forum participants report a disproportionate number of posts. I would guess that about half of the posts that are reported across all of 2+2 relate to this subforum.
And it is relatively common for someone to get upset about some moderation issue and then begin reporting posts mainly as a means of complaining about moderation.
No. ganstaman's request was perfectly reasonable. As a practical matter, I was curious why it was important to you know whether something was a reasonable request or a rule?
I tend to comply with reasonable requests even if they are not specifically enumerated rules.
No. ganstaman's request was perfectly reasonable. As a practical matter, I was curious why it was important to you know whether something was a reasonable request or a rule?
I tend to comply with reasonable requests even if they are not specifically enumerated rules.
You’re curious why a poster who gets banned for not following the rules is asking about clarification about the rules? In a thread about rules none the less
Are you sure you’re not trolling me?
Tbh if it’s not the rules then I find most requests to be unreasonable. I do not like made up rules.
You’re curious why a poster who gets banned for not following the rules is asking about clarification about the rules? In a thread about rules none the less
Are you sure you’re not trolling me?
If you plan to comply with ganstaman's request, it doesn't really matter. You won't get banned.
For reasons that I have never understood, there are a lot of people here who are keen to know exactly how big a jackass they can be without getting banned.
Mods are a brain drain on the forum.
Seems typically mods are taken from the poster pool and are normally above average posters to receive the appointment and then mostly stop posting. Then they get burned out dealing with all the dumbassery, quit and would rather vomit than start posting in the forum again.
But thank you for stepping up CN to keep the IP thread going. It's an important event and good to be able to continue to read other people's thoughts.
If you suggesting that the Report Post feature should be eliminated, I'm not sure that I agree. In any case, that's an owner decision.
I'm suggesting warnings/timeouts for people who are blatantly abusing the reporting feature. I'm pretty sure if I tried that **** in SE or OOT I'd get the boot pretty quickly.
Who are the top five post reporters for the last 12 months? It would seem fair for the person to know who is wanting them to get banned. And i say that as someone who could be on the top 5.
I have never reported a post in 8+ years of posting on this forum. I didn't realise that was actually something people do.
Actually, I think I reported my own post once to get mod attention to move some posts to a new/different thread.
There are a large number of posters that use the Report Post function.
Have you never been to a pride parade? Yes kids are allowed in pride parades. Obviously.
Kids are at pride parades all the time. My kids go every year. We were on our alderman's float once.
Should children be allowed at St Patrick's Day parades? When are they old enough to decide that they look good in green or that they like Guinness?
Just ignoring the casual anti-trans mockery, WTF does "allowed to be at a parade" even mean? You people have been to parades before, yes?
You'll have to ask Bouton about that - I believe he has managed to unite those on every side of this topic in the belief that his question was ridiculous.
Uke made the group take my question out of context on purpose. I didn't ask if kids are allowed at pride parades. Thats clearly a recharacterization that is intended to make me look bad.
Yes.
Jbouton was not targeted by mods for his proxy war views.
I was soft moded by YOU for my proxy war views and the evidence we all know existed has been deleted. I made a great fuss about not being able to call it a proxy war, and we all remember this.
I recall no deleted posts of his.
Does anyone body else here recall me never having posts deleted?
If he's referring to when the entire thread got nuked (not by this mod team as he previously lied) then he's completely misrepresenting what happened.
I didn't lie. I didn't mispresent. You are saying I lied, and saying I misrepresented.
IAEA is not a "random twitter". I never claimed Russia was blowing up ZNPP the next day... I reported quality information that IAEA was complaining that Russia would not give them access to key parts of the plant. That is a fact. I specifically said that the chances of anything happening here were slim, but the outcome from that slim chance happening would be so catastrophic that it is a major news story at the moment. Ultimately since nothing happened, this is a minor footnote in this war.
You CONSTANTLY claimed this from MULTIPLE random twitter sources, it never happened because it was BLANTANT propaganda with no source. And you kept it going over time.
The only reason it is being brought up now is because jbouton has a vendetta against me, as he's mentioned several times now and is evident by him constantly bringing up my name and then inventing completely false stories about what I said or did. This is trolling.
Give us ONE reason i have a vandetta against you that doesn't include your soft moderating of me.
If you are posting Scott Ritter and RT, and also calling some of the foremost experts on the war "random twitter guys" then you do not have the requisite knowledge to determine what is or what is not a good source.
You are asserting things. Earlier you said he is a child molester. What does that have to do with reason and the content of what was posted? You just want people to think its not worthy content.
As to the argument at hand: we have a useful idiot, conspiracy theorist (Sachs) on one side. Then we have just about every major expert on the issue on the other side. Since there's no further evidence being put forth, I'm going to go with every major expert who is posting verifiable data and evidence which I can analyze instead of some random thoughts from a conspiracy theorist useful idiot.
Sachs is well respected and gave a lengthy explanation with the argument that the simplified versions is wrong. That makes a lot of sense. I don't' think your sentiments on his character are relevant and I think they are inappropriate especially given your position and your abuse of it.
I'm not even sure I know what soft moderation means, but BGP is not a mod in this forum and has no ability to moderate you here in any way. None of his posts in Politics have any degree of mod weight behind them.
The mods here have been modding for him in that thread, and its undeniable true, and just because the thread doesn't exist, doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.
They've been controlling and enforcing a false narrative, and modding on BGP's intentions, using false sources while real sources have been getting discredited with authority and ad hominem and ultimately removed.
And you have been participating with the soft modding and you don't realize it because you have been modding me without learning the context of what you are taking action on.
Uke made the group take my question out of context on purpose. I didn't ask if kids are allowed at pride parades. Thats clearly a recharacterization that is intended to make me look bad.
And you're thinking that your question of "Do transgender infants belong at pride parades?" makes you look better?
But thanks for brining another example of how your unwillingness to speak plainly causes confusion, and how when this happens, you instantly blame others, like in this odd exchange:
Infants can neither express gender identity nor have understanding of their own gender, so this smells like a troll post.
I don't know why you over mod me.
Its a perfectly relevant example from today's time, about parents who raise their kids as non-binary etc.
Can I post too?
Ganstaman is 100% correct here, so I can see why he would wonder if you're just trolling. But rather than clarify in any meaningfully way, you accuse him of "over mod[ing]" you.
What is it you were hoping to achieve with this post? Are you suggesting that something needs to be done about uke posting "Have you never been to a pride parade? Yes kids are allowed in pride parades. Obviously."?
Agree
So the mods have been going soft on you and your still throwing a tantrum. Im shocked.
And you're thinking that your question of "Do transgender infants belong at pride parades?" makes you look better?
Do you feel like you said this in context or out of the context of the question?
[QUOTE=Bobo Fett]But thanks for brining another example of how your unwillingness to speak plainly causes confusion, and how when this happens, you instantly blame others, like in this odd exchange:
Originally Posted by jbouton
Do transgender infants belong at pride parades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman
Infants can neither express gender identity nor have understanding of their own gender, so this smells like a troll post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbouton
I don't know why you over mod me.
Its a perfectly relevant example from today's time, about parents who raise their kids as non-binary etc.
Can I post too?
[/QUOTE]
I have a history for being snapped banned after a mod says something like 'this smells like a troll post'. I also have history with ganstaman where they mod me unfairly. So my assumption here is GM was zeroing in on me again. I still feel thats true.
Ganstaman is 100% correct here, so I can see why he would wonder if you're just trolling. But rather than clarify in any meaningfully way, you accuse him of "over mod[ing]" you.
What is it you were hoping to achieve with this post? Are you suggesting that something needs to be done about uke posting "Have you never been to a pride parade? Yes kids are allowed in pride parades. Obviously."?
I'm suggesting that Uke guards the thread. And any time someone starts a balanced discussion Uke unbalances it purposefully against the spirit of proper dialogue.
