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.
On one hand I don’t envy moderating this forum cuz it’s a dumpster fire no matter what you do and someone will always be mad
On the other hand I got banned because I kept intentionally misspelling luciom’s screen name
Pick your battles I suppose
Lol, didn't you misspell it something like "lucumguzzlerom"? Easy mistake, I suppose.
That sounds accurate
On one hand I don’t envy moderating this forum cuz it’s a dumpster fire no matter what you do and someone will always be mad
On the other hand I got banned because I kept intentionally misspelling luciom’s screen name
Pick your battles I suppose
You called him a name for Satan. I feel badly about having to enforce ticky tack rules like that, but once someone complains and asks you to stop and it becomes an issue, I have to moderate it uniformly.
I’ve tried to back off a bit from that after feedback. All I can say is I’m sorry that you felt it was unfair. I really do like all you guys..
There wont need to be. For good or bad, he has shown he is not able to follow the proscribed rules (I admit I have similar issues) and the mods will eventually reach their limit and permaban him. And I am saying this as someone who enjoys his posting and wishes he was capable of staying within the rules. But I just dont think he is wired that way.
I….agree with Dunyain?
There wont need to be. For good or bad, he has shown he is not able to follow the proscribed rules (I admit I have similar issues) and the mods will eventually reach their limit and permaban him. And I am saying this as someone who enjoys his posting and wishes he was capable of staying within the rules. But I just dont think he is wired that way.
"Prescribed", Kel. You know, like rules.
tf?
If your point is that you "proscribe" rules, you are incorrect. It actually means roughly the opposite of that: to proscribe is to forbid. You can proscribe something by rule, you don't proscribe the rule itself.
But we all know that people who misuse it in this context are just thinking "what's a fancy way of saying 'rules'?" "I know, 'proscribed rules', that makes me sounds very smart".
You know how it goes cos we've been here before - the right and the libs stick together and play Let's Get The Lefties Banned, while the lefites don't really want anyone banned so ultimately will always lose out in forum wars.
This guy
The point is to grind down the mods until they quit out of exasperation. It's the reason the past 3-4 mods have quit. Just keep relitigating every singe moderation decision, complain about any kind of disparity, and demand simple rules be explained over and over, it's a surefire plan.
is one of the biggest ban lusters on any forum I've ever been on.
I actually think Kel is using the word correctly there.
No, Law does not "prescribe" things. Law "proscribes" things.
Outside of situations where you are incarcerated or likewise, you are free to do anything you want, unless forbidden by law. If law were to "prescribe" things, it would be vice versa - you would be forbidden to do anything, unless explicitly permitted - basically, a state of perpetual incarceration.
One letter, big difference.
We had this discussion a year ago! As a forum, we all really lack for personal growth.
You know how it goes cos we've been here before - the right and the libs stick together and play Let's Get The Lefties Banned, while the lefites don't really want anyone banned so ultimately will always lose out in forum wars.
This guy
is one of the biggest ban lusters on any forum I've ever been on.
Just ban all the shitposters, then housenuts and I can finally have the place to ourselves.
Rules are not proscribed. Conduct is proscribed. d2 is correct in his usage: conduct that is "proscribed" is conduct that is forbidden by law or rules. Speeding is proscribed by law.
Conduct that is prescribed by law is the opposite, in that it describes conduct that is affirmatively allowed or required. For example, your right to free speech is prescribed by law. Your duty to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition would also be prescribed by law.
tf?
If your point is that you "proscribe" rules, you are incorrect. It actually means roughly the opposite of that: to proscribe is to forbid. You can proscribe something by rule, you don't proscribe the rule itself.
But we all know that people who misuse it in this context are just thinking "what's a fancy way of saying 'rules'?" "I know, 'proscribed rules', that makes me sounds very smart".
no that was not my point lol
yes, yes, yes
Rules are not proscribed. Conduct is proscribed. d2 is correct in his usage: conduct that is "proscribed" is conduct that is forbidden by law. Speeding is proscribed by law.
Conduct that is prescribed by law is the opposite, in that it describes conduct that is affirmatively allowed or required. For example, your right to free speech is prescribed by law. Your duty to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition would also be prescribed by
Right. The point is that the law itself is, if anything, "prescribed" (although I'd still consider this usage somewhat stilted). To say that a law or a rule is "proscribed" is nonsensical.
Remember when Charles the Affable died after smacking his forehead against a doorway?
Maybe in the israel thread there has been a misunderstanding as to what a proscribed terrorist organisation is.
Right. The point is that the law itself is, if anything, "prescribed" (although I'd still consider this usage somewhat stilted). To say that a law or a rule is "proscribed" is nonsensical.
You are right that the law or rule is not "proscribed", but it is not "prescribed" either. In both cases it describes conduct, not the law or rule itself.
Prescribe. You can (or must) do XXX.
Proscribe. You cannot do XXX.
In both cases, XXX is what is prescribed or proscribed. You don't prescribe or proscribe a rule, but the conduct memorialized in the rule.
You are right that the law or rule is not "proscribed", but it is not "prescribed" either. In both cases it describes conduct, not the law or rule itself.
Prescribe. You can (or must) do XXX.
Proscribe. You cannot do XXX.
In both cases, XXX is what is prescribed or proscribed. You don't prescribe or proscribe a rule, but the conduct memorialized in the rule.
I agree. "Stilted" was rather mild, it's incorrect. I guess I'm just saying it would make more sense than "proscribed", although not by much.
obv there is an understood Israel in those statements doing the killing.
language can be ambiguous. context matters. bad faith actors often use this as weapon.
just for the record, I do not think that you or chillrob kill babies or are baby murderers.
Apparently you think we would love to do it though.
Plus, I have never once expressed support for Israel, in any way.
