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 don't expect you to be convinced, but here's my explanation:
1) I think being called a rapist is worse than being called a racist.
2) You made a post about race (which I thought was fine and appropriate):
And he responded with this:
Which isn't the same as just calling him a rapist baselessly.
3) He only continued to explain himself when you pushed back:
On the other hand, you called him a rapist out of nowhere multiple times. I told you to sto
you don't see how this rewards the op's original baseless insult
if you must ban one, ban both
I’m sorry but this is just not based in reality. You have more personal attacks against others than anyone else in that thread since I’ve started moderating and it’s not close.
I mean mets is an easy person to correct because he posts so many things that are wrong
I think his post was pretty spot on. Theres nothing wrong with going back and forth as long as we arent lying and attacking one another
like calling people whiners or bullies
is it possible to know precisely which time-stamp is used for bans? I was banned till 6pm of 27/06 but I was only able to join in the last couple of minutes ehichs means something weird like UTC -5, not eastern not western time
Pw, your issue with oppositional defiance to any form of authority is noted, thank you
Victor posted that or isn't possible for Israel to show compassion and you were fine with it but not my reply
Victor is infuriated that anyone could believe that isreal could treat anyone with compassion and no issue
But
No issue with Victor but my post isn't okay
You really see no bias there? Alright then
Regarding my posts to trolly:
I'm not surprised I got a timeout for replying to trollys attacks but i sincerely doubt trolly would have
Apparently mentioning or responding to Victor is against the rules now, too. Don't see how anybody could possibly say that Mets' response is inappropriate, unless of course if you just want to find any flimsy excuse to punish a poster you don't like.
Also, lol at asking for "stats" of your biases. As if people around here are keeping an Excel spreadsheet of your mod actions.
Don't see how anybody could possibly say that Mets' response is inappropriate, unless of course if you just want to find any flimsy excuse to punish a poster you don't like.
Doesn't prove I'm right but at least I know others see it too
is it possible to know precisely which time-stamp is used for bans? I was banned till 6pm of 27/06 but I was only able to join in the last couple of minutes ehichs means something weird like UTC -5, not eastern not western time
It does appear to be UTC-5, which is the default time zone of the east coast of the US except during DST, which is stupidly more than half the year.
Mets. I’m not going to do this with you every single time you are moderated. Apparently you learned nothing from the last time we did this.
The conversation is over. Go take your timeout.
Don't see how anybody could possibly say that Mets' response is inappropriate, unless of course if you just want to find any flimsy excuse to punish a poster you don't like.
Doesn't prove I'm right but at least I know others see it too
It’s bizzare. As mostly just an objective observer who reads the threads, I have no idea why you are suddenly getting singled out. You so overreact, but it’s clearly in response to garbage that two posters in particular are directing to you. I mean if someone was allowed to post that my people were raping people with dogs, I’d be pretty upset too.
It’s bizzare. As mostly just an objective observer who reads the threads, I have no idea why you are suddenly getting singled out. You so overreact, but it’s clearly in response to garbage that two posters in particular are directing to you. I mean if someone was allowed to post that my people were raping people with dogs, I’d be pretty upset too.
How would you feel if your people were getting raped by said dogs?
It’s bizzare. As mostly just an objective observer who reads the threads, I have no idea why you are suddenly getting singled out. You so overreact, but it’s clearly in response to garbage that two posters in particular are directing to you. I mean if someone was allowed to post that my people were raping people with dogs, I’d be pretty upset too.
She doesn't like me or my opinions.
Mets. I’m not going to do this with you every single time you are moderated. Apparently you learned nothing from the last time we did this.
The conversation is over. Go take your timeout.
I don't tell anyone to defend me
Every time you ban me people come out of the woodwork to defend me. People who i don't even know. Maybe I am not the problem
Alright. Then I will ask King Spew to take over moderating you since that is apparently what you want. You are the problem, but at least you won’t be *my* problem anymore.
Maybe you should consider all the regulars that don't ever come to your defense who thinks you are the problem. I certainly fall into that group.
ye I mean we wouldn't expect extreme radical leftists to come for the defense of someone who is clearly on the very right at least on one pivotal topic of the day (I/p).
if anything we do expect you, as a radical leftist, to be in favour of violence against people you disagree with, which you clearly are (you just mentioned my recent ban happily)
Apparently mentioning or responding to Victor is against the rules now, too. Don't see how anybody could possibly say that Mets' response is inappropriate, unless of course if you just want to find any flimsy excuse to punish a poster you don't like.
Also, lol at asking for "stats" of your biases. As if people around here are keeping an Excel spreadsheet of your mod actions.
fwiw, I almost never report posts and I didnt report this one. nor do I really have a problem with it. however, if I made a similar post I would probably expect to be banned.
ye I mean we wouldn't expect extreme radical leftists to come for the defense of someone who is clearly on the very right at least on one pivotal topic of the day (I/p).
if anything we do expect you, as a radical leftist, to be in favour of violence against people you disagree with, which you clearly are (you just mentioned my recent ban happily)
Thanks for babbling nonsense about me again. I'm starting to feel important to you.
If mets wants us to believe one person coming out of the woodwork to defend him has significance, why wouldn't we also consider all the people that don't defend his conduct.
It’s bizzare. As mostly just an objective observer who reads the threads, I have no idea why you are suddenly getting singled out. You so overreact, but it’s clearly in response to garbage that two posters in particular are directing to you. I mean if someone was allowed to post that my people were raping people with dogs, I’d be pretty upset too.
afaik, there is no rule against posting interviews from Al Jazeera. maybe there will be now.
fwiw, I almost never report posts and I didnt report this one. nor do I really have a problem with it. however, if I made a similar post I would probably expect to be banned.
I know you didn't and didn't mean to imply that you lodged any complaint regarding Mets' response. We all know that isn't your style.
I/P Moderation ^
Impressive. What are the stats for yesterday?
I don't know, I just note them in the doc and it doesn't include all the general warnings to the thread that don't single out individuals or the instances where the argument was simply moved from that thread to this one or all the deletions and personal messages I respond to either. It's not a great feeling to make every effort toward fairness and camaraderie only to be spoken to so rudely and accused of personal bias.
Anyway, the antidote to such accusations is obviously transparency so there are my moderations.
missed my 30 dayer. like it didnt even happen.
