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.
You did this to me less than 48h ago when my cnn and washington post links were deemed fake because those outlets are apparently fake news.
His problem seems to be specifically that a green-name poster is doing that. I can understand that he assumes more people will take the comments of a green name more seriously, but I don't think it would be fair to disallow someone who is a mod in a different forum from participating in this one.
Saying Ritter is a convicted sex offender who fled to Russian to work for RT which is a Russian media source is not an ad hominem. This is strong evidence that their position is whatever they are told, and not necessarily a position they arrived at themselves. It also says they would be stating things even if they know it to be false.
If your argument doesn't hold water because all of the sources can easily be discredited, then you need a better argument; suggesting I should not point out Russian media propaganda is just insane. You have been casting doubt on my sources for a long time now, and continue to do so. You just called one of the best sources on Ukraine a "random Twitter" a few days ago. You don't want this rule, you want people to listen to you when you post incorrect information about my sources and for people to ignore me when I point out that you continue to post Russian propaganda. No. My point has merit, yours doesn't. You should focus on changing that instead of trying to accuse me of doing the things you constantly do.
The best part of this is that he's in here crying and begging for rights which he already has.
His problem seems to be specifically that a green-name poster is doing that. I can understand that he assumes more people will take the comments of a green name more seriously, but I don't think it would be fair to disallow someone who is a mod in a different forum from participating in this one.
I think he's upset and being "soft modded". I guess he's been a bad boy and needs a proper hard modding.
Saying Ritter is a convicted sex offender who fled to Russian to work for RT which is a Russian media source is not an ad hominem. This is strong evidence that their position is whatever they are told, and not necessarily a position they arrived at themselves. It also says they would be stating things even if they know it to be false.
If your argument doesn't hold water because all of the sources can easily be discredited, then you need a b
Every time we get a new mod here they feel sorry for him and try to accommodate his rambling complaints for a while, until they ultimately decide it's a Sisyphean task and become part of the grand 2p2 conspiracy against him.
I'm still trying to figure out what "soft modded" means. That I've posted a far more convincing argument which has nothing to do with my mod status?
PW: can you explain how 'the Keynesians' fit into the events which happened in the past 30 years leading to Russia HAVING to preemptively invade Ukraine (not a mistake btw) in order to save themselves (good job!) from the existential threat posed by USA?
His problem seems to be specifically that a green-name poster is doing that. I can understand that he assumes more people will take the comments of a green name more seriously, but I don't think it would be fair to disallow someone who is a mod in a different forum from participating in this one.
Thanks, missed this when I posted. He's cried foul over others proving him wrong before and named various other excuses, none of which had to do with the fact that he couldn't voice his argument in a convincing manner. I think the green name stuff is nonsense, if my name wasn't green he'd be complaining for another reason. Either way I have no plans to change the green name myself, he needs to learn to deal with it. I highly doubt it's helped my opinions come across as significantly stronger.
Besides he's constantly saying "everyone knows I'm the smartest!" and similar stuff. He loves the concept of a 'green name' which alerts people that they are super smart and always right, he just wants to be the one with the 'green name'. Well it doesn't exist, this green name says I volunteer to mod on a poker forum which has nothing to do with my arguments.
Excuse me, but he certainly is voicing his argument in a convincing manner. Didn't you read how the AI reports his communication is perfect?
PW: can you explain how 'the Keynesians' fit into the events which happened in the past 30 years leading to Russia HAVING to preemptively invade Ukraine (not a mistake btw) in order to save themselves from the existential threat posted by USA?
All those 419 scams they've been running left the Russians broke, ldo. Wait, that was the Niagarans.
Thanks, missed this when I posted. He's cried foul over others proving him wrong before and named various other excuses, none of which had to do with the fact that he couldn't voice his argument in a convincing manner. I think the green name stuff is nonsense, if my name wasn't green he'd be complaining for another reason. Either way I have no plans to change the green name myself, he needs to learn to deal with it. I highly doubt it's help
The man is one of the most trusted and respected sources in the industry, if he says so himself. Oddly, we didn't get a cite or a source on those claims (not even from any convicted pedos), only the ominous cloud of obvious security leaks if he is not allowed to post in the bitcoin thread hanging over us for eternity.
Anyway, amusing anacdote aside, I wasn't trying to make it about me. Anyone reasonable who lives in flats knows the solution is to tolerate each others being soemwwhat annoying a bit of the time. Too much of it or too unreasonable an activity and it's a big problem. Demanding we all dont do it all is not a good answer.
Of course and I’ve lived in flats all of my adult life, but you made it sound a lot worse than that.
It's generally not appropriate to purposefully antagonize another poster, even if you fluff it up, but JBouton was asked to take a break from here and graciously agreed. Just as I said it was improper to talk bad about Victor while he was banned, please lay off JBouton for now, at least until he's back.
It's generally not appropriate to purposefully antagonize another poster, even if you fluff it up, but JBouton was asked to take a break from here and graciously agreed. Just as I said it was improper to talk bad about Victor while he was banned, please lay off JBouton for now, at least until he's back.
Wait, am I doing the antagoising? I was told I should make more of an effort to understand him, so I'm just trying to figure out wtf he is talking about with the security stuff. If he was capable of answering a simple question with a simple response, there would be no need for me to repeat it 100 times, thereby appearing antagonistic.
Wait, am I doing the antagoising? I was told I should make more of an effort to understand him, so I'm just trying to figure out wtf he is talking about with the security stuff. If he was capable of answering a simple question with a simple response, there would be no need for me to repeat it 100 times, thereby appearing antagonistic.
Yeah d2, you seem to be antagonistic toward jb. Mostly for your own amusement. Not fair since the arguments you make also seem on point. But lets give a rest for a while please.
Yeah d2, you seem to be antagonistic toward jb. Mostly for your own amusement. Not fair since the arguments you make also seem on point. But lets give a rest for a while please.
Sigh. Fine. Can't even get a laugh at another poster's expense around here any more. I guess I'll go back to trolling Luciom and the Trumpets.
I'm still trying to figure out what "soft modded" means. That I've posted a far more convincing argument which has nothing to do with my mod status?
He means you’re guiding the conversation in a way that people without green letters cannot, due to Telling people what they can and can’t discuss (even if those are the rules) feels like soft modding to J
Can you blame him?
What’re you having issue with?
PW: can you explain how 'the Keynesians' fit into the events which happened in the past 30 years leading to Russia HAVING to preemptively invade Ukraine (not a mistake btw) in order to save themselves (good job!) from the existential threat posed by USA?
Assuming keynesian economics loves the stock market, clearly the military industrial complex needed more profits and decided to goad Russia into a way by arming Russias neighbors along its borders.
He means you’re guiding the conversation in a way that people without green letters cannot, due to Telling people what they can and can’t discuss (even if those are the rules) feels like soft modding to J
Can you blame him?
I haven't done this, so yes, I do blame him.
Assuming keynesian economics loves the stock market, clearly the military industrial complex needed more profits and decided to goad Russia into a way by arming Russias neighbors along its borders.
There should be no need to assume anything. Just point to J's posts which explain what the Keynesians did and tell me, don't speculate on your own.
I haven't done this, so yes, I do blame him.
There should be no need to assume anything. Just point to J's posts which explain what the Keynesians did and tell me, don't speculate on your own.
No ty
I must question if you understand what the word should means. Sure things should be XYZ but they aren’t, so who cares? Why bring it up?
You never told J what the rules were about what he could or couldn’t post? Are you sure
