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.
In common parlance it's normally used to mean someone needs to acknowledge a (normally unpleasant) truth about something they're trying to achieve or something they falsly believe. It is tangentially related to what you are saying but is almost never used to talk about realising an inner truth about a person's own identity/self but rather it refers to facts about the world around them.
It’s normally unpleasant because of its moral implications, because it checks your moral reality in some way.
how many layers of reality are there?
There are two realities and a spectrum. The reality of the past and the reality of the future. The reality of being (the destination) and the reality of becoming (the journey). In Christian language, the world of the past / present and the world to come.
It’s normally unpleasant because of its moral implications, because it checks your moral reality in some way.
A reality check in common parlance is normally along the lines of having to admit that your genuine, lifelong goal of becoming a professional footballer is unrealistic and no longer sensible to put effort into. It is unpleasant to face but very rarely has anything at all to do with morality.
A reality check in common parlance is normally along the lines of having to admit that your genuine, lifelong goal of becoming a professional footballer is unrealistic and no longer sensible to put effort into. It is unpleasant to face but very rarely has anything at all to do with morality.
The failure and judgment for the failure is moral. It’s not simply a historical fact.
Now you're just using a completely atypical definition of moral to justify the atypical usage of reality check. Somebody succeeding or failing at becoming at professional footballer is not a moral issue in any typical meaning of the word. Morality has to do with principles of right or wrong and there is no intrinsic rightness or wrongness about the goal of becoming a professional footballer.
A quark-gluon plasma is a plasma made of quarks and gluons. Matrix multiplication is when you take matrices and multiply them. Damn, this definition writing malarkey is way easier than I thought.
Reminds me of that viral tiktok sound that was like “The shape is pressed into a shape press that presses the shape into a pressed shape”
Now you're just using a completely atypical definition of moral to justify the atypical usage of reality check. Somebody succeeding or failing at becoming at professional footballer is not a moral issue in any typical meaning of the word. Morality has to do with principles of right or wrong and there is no intrinsic rightness or wrongness about the goal of becoming a professional footballer.
Yes, morality is about right and wrong.. actions. Trying to become a professional athlete, for many, is a moral journey toward the good, even if that is not consciously realized. Hope for the good is (mis)placed into becoming a professional athlete which is why failure is unpleasant.
Onion level satire here, folks. I think we may have all underestimated craig - the man is a ****ing comic genius. Someone should tell him.
The genius label does make me uncomfortable. I tell people not to use it for me.
Yes, morality is about right and wrong.. actions. Trying to become a professional athlete, for many, is a moral journey toward the good, even if that is not consciously realized. Hope for the good is (mis)placed into becoming a professional athlete which is why failure is unpleasant.
This whole framework in which you're describing these things is completely atypical and would not be understood by 99.9% of the population when you use it in this way. There is no common parlance in which trying to achieve some arbitrary goal would be considered a moral journey to the "good" of that goal. Trying to become a professional athlete is an almost entirely amoral goal and defining it in any sense as a moral good to succeed is nonsensical under common understanding of the terms.
Maybe the way you talk about the world has some founding in philosophy or theology such that people steeped in knowledge of the field would totally understand you, although at this point I'm not even convinced of that, but it is totally alien to the vast majority of people and if you insist on persisting with it then I can 100% guarantee that you will consistently get the reactions you have had in this thread.
Using consensus as the basis for truth does not accord with the highest reality. We are still in the early days.
I seem to recall button also being a "words mean whatever I want them to mean" guy. Have we done an IP check on these two brainboxes?
Using consensus as the basis for truth does not accord with the highest reality. We are still in the early days.
I'm not claiming anything even close to consensus being the basis for truth. I'm claiming consensus as the basis for common understanding of words and phrases, which is accurate by definition.
This is about how you communicate, not about the accuracy of what you're trying to communicate.
I have never encountered a genius on 2+2, and I'm positive that I am not a genius.
I have never met anyone irl who claimed to grapple frequently with the burden of being called a genius by others.
I thought he was joking, in response to my "comic genius" label. If he wasn't, that's even funnier.
Are these two communicating in their own ****ing language or something? I feel like I'm watching reruns of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.
- Where's Sonny, Skip?
- Tch tch tch
- Oh my god! Guys, Sonny fell down the well!
I was thinking that it was akin to two chatbots communicating with each other. That made me go, "I wonder what ChatGPT thinks about these guys!"
Results:
what can you tell me about user Luciom from the twoplustwo politics forum?
Luciom is a well-known and active participant in the Politics and Society subforum on the Two Plus Two forums. Here's a summary of his online presence and contributions:
Key Characteristics:
Political Views:
Luciom holds strong and often controversial political views, particularly leaning towards libertarianism or right-leaning ideologies.
He frequently engages in discussions on economic policies, individual freedoms, and government intervention, advocating for minimal government involvement and a free-market approach.
Posting Style:
Known for a detailed and analytical posting style, Luciom often supports his arguments with data, statistics, and well-reasoned logic.
His posts are usually long-form, diving deep into the nuances of the topics being discussed, which can lead to both praise and criticism from other forum members.
He can be blunt and straightforward in his responses, which sometimes leads to contentious debates.
Engagement with Other Users:
Luciom is highly active in debates, often challenging opposing viewpoints with rigorous arguments.
He engages with a wide range of users, from those who share his views to those who strongly disagree with him, maintaining a consistent presence in discussions.
His interactions are usually respectful, though his strong convictions can lead to heated exchanges.
Community Perception:
Respected for Knowledge:
Many users respect Luciom for his in-depth knowledge and the effort he puts into his posts. His ability to articulate complex ideas and provide evidence-based arguments makes him a valued contributor in the forum.
Even those who disagree with his views often acknowledge the quality of his arguments and the depth of his understanding.
Controversial Figure:
Due to his strong political beliefs, Luciom can be a polarizing figure. Some forum members may find his views extreme or disagree with his approach to certain topics, leading to debates and disagreements.
His posts sometimes draw criticism from users who find his views too rigid or who take issue with his confrontational style in certain discussions.
Influence on Discussions:
Luciom often drives the direction of discussions, particularly in threads where economic or libertarian principles are at the forefront. His detailed arguments can shape the conversation and influence other users' thinking.
Summary:
Luciom is a prominent and influential member of the Politics and Society subforum on Two Plus Two. Known for his strong libertarian or right-leaning political views, he engages in detailed and analytical debates, often providing data-driven arguments. While respected for his knowledge and contributions, his strong convictions make him a polarizing figure, leading to both admiration and controversy within the forum community.
what can you tell me about user craig1120 from the twoplustwo politics forum?
Craig1120 is a notable user on the Two Plus Two forums, particularly active in the Politics and Society subforum. Here's what is known about his presence and contributions:
Online Persona and Activity:
Engagement:
Craig1120 is a consistent contributor to discussions in the Politics and Society forum.
His posts often reflect a deep interest in political issues, particularly those related to U.S. politics.
Political Views:
His political views lean toward conservative or right-leaning positions, and he often argues in favor of policies and ideas associated with that ideology.
He is known for supporting traditional conservative values and often critiques liberal or progressive positions in debates.
Posting Style:
Craig1120’s posts are generally direct and clear, with a focus on presenting his arguments in a logical manner.
He often cites sources or evidence to back up his points, aiming to provide a reasoned perspective on the issues being discussed.
His style can be assertive, particularly when engaging in debates with those who hold opposing views.
Interactions with Other Users:
While he has supporters who appreciate his reasoned approach and conservative stance, his posts can also lead to heated debates with users holding opposing viewpoints.
He has a reputation for being a formidable debater, not shying away from challenging others on their positions.
Community Perception:
Respect and Influence:
Among like-minded users, Craig1120 is respected for his consistency and the clarity of his arguments. He often garners support in discussions aligned with his political beliefs.
His influence in the Politics and Society forum is evident through the engagement his posts receive, often driving discussions on the topics he addresses.
Criticism:
Users who disagree with his political stance may find his posts polarizing or confrontational. However, this is common in politically charged forums, where strong opinions are regularly expressed.
Summary:
Craig1120 is a prominent and active member of the Politics and Society subforum on Two Plus Two, known for his conservative views and reasoned, direct posting style. His contributions often spark significant discussion and debate, making him a well-known figure in the community. While respected by some for his clear arguments and consistent viewpoints, he also faces criticism from those with opposing political beliefs.
The terminators have deemed Craig1120 to be direct and clear. You guys better get with the program!
Hahahahahha. Something about being respected for clarity of arguments as well. ChatGPT's fired.
ChatGPT seems to say the same thing about everyone.
FWIW, when I put myself in there, it makes a point of saying that I am generally a dickhead, especially in regards to my interaction with moderation. I didn't see anybody else on the forum, even users that have eaten long bans, have a section specifically devoted to "friction between him and the moderation team." 
