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.
That bias can be overtstated by observer bias of it. I also think it's moraly correct to hold our own side to a higher standard (whichever side that may be)
but very few people even attempt to make their views under the veil of ignorance of serious consideration of the other side. How many israelis who support their side as moral would still support it as moral if they were on the otehr side or didn't know which side they would be born on?
Why do people go straight to complaining about double standards with moderation when they never even report the post that got them mad?
That bias can be overtstated by observer bias of it. I also think it's moraly correct to hold our own side to a higher standard (whichever side that may be)
but very few people even attempt to make their views under the veil of ignorance of serious consideration of the other side. How many israelis who support their side as moral would still support it as moral if they were on the otehr side or didn't know which side they would be born on?
The highlighted is interesting, because I am pretty sure 21st century western liberals are the only group of humans in the history of humanity that believe this. You could not find another example of any society, contemporary or historical, that thinks this way. And even in liberal societies, it is normally a small class of educated liberal elites which follow such an ethos.
And in the current context I think it creates problems, because in these kind of matters it just turns into one side being judged relentlessly from every direction and the other being given a free pass. Which creates a dynamic which I dont think makes things better. The side being judged gets defensive, and the side which isn't being judged at all is incentivized to be a bad faith actor. And this dynamic just makes everything worse.
The highlighted is interesting, because I am pretty sure 21st century western liberals are the only group of humans in the history of humanity that believe this. You could not find another example of any society, contemporary or historical, that thinks this way.
And in the current context I think it creates problems, because in these kind of matters it just turns into one side being judged relentlessly from every direction and the other b
It’s a moral truth. When you align yourself with a political cause, you risk group identity supplanting the self within each individual psyche. This is a moral failure with harmful consequences. It doesn’t matter how righteous you perceive your cause to be, when group identity gets elevated over selfhood in your mind, then you have lost the moral high ground.
A good test for when this happens is the following question:
“Am I critical of anything about my side?”
When you are not criticizing or conceding anything on your side, or at least playing devil’s advocate regularly, then you have lost the moral high ground.
Maybe this isn't the best thread for this discussion. It was just the first one I saw that seemed workable. Not really a "moderation" issue per se; although many of us have been aggressively moderated for much less. Just an observation of a sociological phenomenon.
I’ll say it guys: October 7th denial is pretty bad and should probably not happen. I know, I’m very brave for that.
Why do people go straight to complaining about double standards with moderation when they never even report the post that got them mad?
that is not an organic social interaction
you can't just click "report to dinner host" if you hear someone say something objectionable at a pot luck dinner
that is not an organic social interaction
you can't just click "report to dinner host" if you hear someone say something objectionable at a pot luck dinner
someone was complaining about moderation standards. I’ve been on a few forums in my time and people complaining about moderation usually never report posts and just skip straight to complaining, because they think that when they were moderated in the past there was specific targeting going on.
someone was complaining about moderation standards. I’ve been on a few forums in my time and people complaining about moderation usually never report posts and just skip straight to complaining, because they think that when they were moderated in the past there was specific targeting going on.
in my experience, not a single issue with moderation has ever taken place in which the mod in question was not already an active poster in the thread in which the issues arose
the mod can clearly see everything themselves, it is not some hidden easter egg where they do not need someone to report it to unlock it
nor do they require someone to first report something before acting
maybe i'm naive though and there's an entire group of people silently reporting posts and mods only respond to those and just assume anything which went unreported was free and clear because without someone reporting it then it was victimless/consentual
there's a specific user who i routinely point out does absolutely nothing but insult others in every single post of his, he is however, very careful about not explicitly breaking any rules in each and every post so nothing is ever done about it - any mod who would be a position to ban this user knows exactly whom i'm talking about, taking that person off the ignore list and just reporting their posts one by one would accomplish nothing other than be a drastic time suck and force me to see his posts so i lose twice in that venture and obviously not going to do it
I think it's fine to deny that 40 babies were beheaded but ya kno, I'm a facts type of guy. It's a fault for sure.
If you do a google search of "40 beheaded babies" it is literally just you (and people quoting you). This seems to be something you completely made up, projected it onto everyone else, and have spent the last 10 months using it as a gotcha as justification to deny reality which doesn't support your preferred narrative.
in my experience, not a single issue with moderation has ever taken place in which the mod in question was not already an active poster in the thread in which the issues arose
This is completely false, at least as to me. There were many threads in which I did not actively participate. And I only knew about issues with posting in those threads when they were reported.
**** was viral
This is completely false, at least as to me. There were many threads in which I did not actively participate. And I only knew about issues with posting in those threads when they were reported.
i was speaking from my own experience
i also don't think that it's coincidental that i've never once had an issue with you as a moderator
the moderators who's decisions i felt have been a net negative are all regular posters in the various threads in which i feel they do terrible work moderating
Ah yes the proof of the 40 beheaded babies being a claim that is being pushed is news stories from 4 days after saying that the reports are unconfirmed.
Also Biden said that he saw pictures of "beheaded babies" not 40 ones. Furthermore, he was receiving pushback from his staff.
Things happen in the fog of war when there is a terrorist group that comes in and does a horrific terrorist attack with sexual assault against innocent civilians. People tend to have trouble accurately reporting their eyewitness accounts after a traumatic incidence.
I don't want a lecture from lefties who chronically lie about police-related violence after like a day after an incident happens with 15 seconds of video footage. Learned your lesson from Kyle Rittenhouse about jumping the gun on developing stories? Or is it just you become skeptical when Jews are involved?
yes it was a pretty big deal. maybe the mainstream press shouldnt push scurrilous unconfirmed stories without you know, doing the barest amount of due diligence.
good job rewriting history tho.
yes it was a pretty big deal. maybe the mainstream press shouldnt push scurrilous unconfirmed stories without you know, doing the barest amount of due diligence.
good job rewriting history tho.
Oh kind of like how lefties are pushing the lie that 180k people have been killed based on an awful Lancet article that doesn't even say what people are saying that it says?
https://x.com/KyleKulinski/status/181071...
You're a stalinist so I know you're not actually in good faith, but just for anyone that thinks that you have any shred of credibility left, are you going to denounce this just like you denounced the media reporting on unverified reports, making it clear they're unverified, and then continuing to be clear that they are unverified?
Biden should not have said that but the pro-Palestine side has BY FAR more disinformation that they are relying on for their position.
famously pro-Palestine Western peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet
famously pro-Palestine Western peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet
I'm going to laugh my ass off when I force you to read the article and you start to cope about the LITERALLY 186K PEOPLE KILLED talking point being completely false, both from how insanely dumb their methodology is and from how you science illiterate people don't even understand that they were saying that it COULD reach that figure IF it falls in line with other conflicts OVER THE COURSE of the war. It's not saying 186k people have been killed right now in this moment, and it's not even saying that it definitely will happen. In fact it's one of the stupidest analysis I've read and it makes me think there should at the very least be reputational consequences for the Lancet for how lazy and stupid that article was.
Here I'll show you how this BS machine works in real time
By June 19, 2024, 37 396 people had been killed in the Gaza Strip since the attack by Hamas and the Israeli invasion in October, 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as reported by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.1 The Ministry's figures have been contested by the Israeli authorities, although they have been accepted as accurate by Israeli intelligence services,2 the UN, and WHO. These data are supported by independent analyses, comparing changes in the number of deaths of UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) staff with those reported by the Ministry,3 which found claims of data fabrication implausible.4
Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given the intensity of this conflict; destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population's inability to flee to safe places; and the loss of funding to UNRWA, one of the very few humanitarian organisations still active in the Gaza Strip.8
In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.10
This is what they said. They reported how many deaths the Gaza health ministry has reported (disputed accuracy, but let's just go with it for now). Then they said there will be indirect deaths attributable and pulled out 4 indirect for 1 direct out of their ass.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...
By the way this was NOT PEER-REVIEWED. It was a letter.
Content type
Correspondence
What it is
Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.
Journals that publish it:
All, including our gold open access titles
https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publis...
So yeah you are a hack, you don't care about fake news, you are a propagandist and a self-admitted pro-Stalinist. Your fake indignation is disgusting.
This is from the article from your screen shot
Marc Owen Jones, an associate professor of Middle East studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar who studies misinformation, told NBC News that he found that the source of the “40 babies beheaded” allegations largely stemmed from a viral Israeli news broadcast clip that did not specifically refer to the allegation.
Nicole Zedeck, a correspondent for the privately owned Israeli news outlet i24NEWS, said in the video that Israeli soldiers told her they’d found “babies, their heads cut off.” The video has been viewed more than 11 million times on X, according to its view counter. In another tweet, Zedeck wrote that soldiers told her they believe “40 babies/children were killed.”
“Somehow those two bits of information were connected, the story became ‘40 babies were beheaded,’ and in the British press today, about six or seven newspapers had it on their front pages,” Jones said.
-It looks like the British tabloid newspaper media was the only one that ran with this narrative at all, and they dropped it very quick. And no one in this forum except you even picked up on it at all, and for the last 10 months you have just been using it as a bad faith gotcha to deny the atrocities that did happen on October 7th, that has been co-oberated and confirmed over and over; in a very callous, malicious manner.
Victor was lying and propogandising? I'm floored.
