Moderation Questions
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.
Option C is called being a pacifist. Such people do exist. Not me. If a bunch of babies are coming at me wanting me dead I'm taking them out.
I said only that there is no option C that avoided killing civilians. I am aware the strict pacifism is an option. It isn't a defensible option imo if the consequences of pacifism are extreme enough, and the consequences of military action are favorable enough, but it is of course an option.
TYou’re saying we need to kill children because it will possibly prevent more deaths later
Not necessarily. It could be a near instant result. Imagine that you, Pointless Words, are POTUS. You receive 100% credible information that terrorists have gained control of an airliner from Europe and are committed and have the means to disperse a deadly bioweapon over New York City. Experts estimate that the bioweapon will cause 100,000 civilians to die. The terrorists have fifty innocent civilians on board the airliner, including five small children. The plane will reach NYC in ten minutes. U.S. fighter jets have been scrambled. If the fighter jets shoot down the airliner, the bioweapon will disperse harmlessly over the ocean, but all the civilians on the airliner of course will die. Do you give the order to shoot down the airliner or do you choose to let 100,000 civilians in NYC die in ten minutes? In my hypothetical, these are the only two options.
Your hypothetical sucks
Here's a real hypothetical: should we impose sanctions that will kill 100s of thousands of kids bc Iraq isnt giving us their oil for cheap enough?
Not necessarily. It could be a near instant result. Imagine that you, Pointless Words, are POTUS. You receive 100% credible information that terrorists have gained control of an airliner from Europe and are committed and have the means to disperse a deadly bioweapon over New York City. Experts estimate that the bioweapon will cause 100,000 civilians to die. The terrorists have fifty innocent civilians on board the airliner, including five small children. The plane will reach NYC in ten min
Yes we should and we are supporting killing babies for the greater good. Ofc you can argue you have an obligation to do so
However what we are discussing are wars where 50-100million people died, and so very many animals were slaughtered.
Yes many people may have had to live under harsh rule but would 50-100 million people be killed? I don’t think so
I think the people rise up and kill the dictators before that but maybe I am wrong. The holdomor and holocaust did happen
*yawn*
"baby killer" is obviously being used purely to rile people up instead of advance any kind of conversation and y'all should just sort of knock it off.
*yawn*
"baby killer" is obviously being used purely to rile people up instead of advance any kind of conversation and y'all should just sort of knock it off.
This would be true if the situation were like one of Rococo’s hypotheticals where there was a clear utilitarian benefit to a greater number of children by killing some children.
In our reality, I think there’s some value in “crassly” reminding people what they’re actually supporting when they support actions that are knowingly killing innocent people with a proportionality calculation that is far looser than what Israel’s allies tolerate for their own missions. All that for a security outcome that is far from clear.
This would be true if the situation were like one of Rococo’s hypotheticals where there was a clear utilitarian benefit to a greater number of children by killing some children.
In our reality, I think there’s some value in “crassly” reminding people what they’re actually supporting when they support actions that are knowingly killing innocent people with a proportionality calculation that is far looser than what Israel’s allies tolerate for their own missions. All that for a security outcome th
This is what that thread COULD centre around. The work actually proving and defining this. Objectively. Which if it matters, I do not agree with (and history doesn't).
*yawn*
"baby killer" is obviously being used purely to rile people up instead of advance any kind of conversation and y'all should just sort of knock it off.
...and THIS guy sure knows a thing or two about that fine line between riling and advancing.
Oh wait, that was Trolly. nevermind
This would be true if the situation were like one of Rococo’s hypotheticals where there was a clear utilitarian benefit to a greater number of children by killing some children.
In our reality, I think there’s some value in “crassly” reminding people what they’re actually supporting when they support actions that are knowingly killing innocent people with a proportionality calculation that is far looser than what Israel’s allies tolerate for their own missions. All that for a security outcome th
Put another country in Israel's spot and get back to me. You are comparing apples to oranges. The moral calculations are very different when you are being surrounded and attacked in your own country, and your own women and children are being murdered in their beds; as opposed to "imperial" wars fought thousands of miles away from your home soil by volunteer armies.
*yawn*
"baby killer" is obviously being used purely to rile people up instead of advance any kind of conversation and y'all should just sort of knock it off.
There would still be the issue of certain people claiming that Palestinians just don’t love their children that much, that they use their own children as shields, that they only had children in the first place to outnumber the Jews, and that certain poster’s children are personally bringing about the second Holocaust, all of which I personally find more offensive than the term “baby killer”, but there’s the rub.
Each side of that thread wants “rules for thee but not for me”, and gets upset when I won’t just DO that for them.
Vic and I get mad at people not playing by the rules… you mean mods?
Am I going to get banned (again) for reporting on crossnerds abuse of Mets?
If you keep it up, yeah. Mets is an abusive poster, and abusing me on his behalf helps exactly nobody, especially Mets.
I am aware that when you lack the evidence to attack positions, you attack the person instead. I’m done tolerating all the ad hominems.
Mets is a regular in POG, everyone knows his name. It is freely available on this site and he doesn’t care.
I met many people from the POG community over the years. Probably 15+. Several of them I saw repeatedly because I lived in Las Vegas and everyone would come for the series. One of the poggers I met and became friends with has dated Mets in the past. That does not make ME have a relationship with Mets, no matter how he wants to spin it.
It makes me deeply uncomfortable how familiar Mets
He called *me* an antisemite so I was the one to ban him. I had told him over and over and over again to stop calling people antisemitic.
Yes, I banned him. He should have known that would happen based on what I showed you. None of the other mods want to deal with him; I was the last one.
I called him a fascist worm one time in response to him calling my family fake Jews. I’ve undeleted any posts I’ve made toward Mets from before I was a mod. Feel free to cite.
Where can I escalate this to other mods?
The sexism , sexual harassment, religious bias and personal attacks here are shocking to be honest. Here is a copy of the complaint I made
“ Poster is outlining why they are justified in treating Mets poorly. Poster is making excuses as to why they are abusing other posters. Additionally, Jewish people should not be punished for saying someone is being anti semitic, just like brown/ black people shouldn’t get in trouble for calling someone racist.
This type of harassment is sexist, has religious undertones , and even lack of children has been brought up as insults.
This needs to end and be addressed. It is inappropriate for a representative of 2p2 to treats 2p2s customers this way ”
If you keep it up, yeah. Mets is an abusive poster, and abusing me on his behalf helps exactly nobody, especially Mets.
I am aware that when you lack the evidence to attack positions, you attack the person instead. I’m done tolerating all the ad hominems.
So you’re admitting and agreeing that you banned me for reporting on the abusive posts you have been directing at Mets. Oh and you were also hiding at least one of said posts
I am not asking. I am telling you this conversation is done. I am not spending any more energy debunking the same baseless accusations.
See you in a week when you can try again.
Some of you need to learn when to stop.
I blame myself for being so tolerant of it. That time is over.
PW... Seems you are having a problem. It is a YOU problem. A mod made a decision that you don't like. So what. Let it die on the vine please.
Time for you to stop this nonsense. Too many days.
edit: slow pony is slow
♥
Just stop PW.
Put another country in Israel's spot and get back to me. You are comparing apples to oranges. The moral calculations are very different when you are being surrounded and attacked in your own country, and your own women and children are being murdered in their beds; as opposed to "imperial" wars fought thousands of miles away from your home soil by volunteer armies.
I think you’re right that most countries would react similarly but I also think it’s terrible policy to base your tolerance for innocent casualties on how traumatic your own experience was rather than on the expected outcome and the ideals you claim. And if you want to argue that it’s existential so all bets are off, I’d say it still isn’t, although Israel seems to be trying its hard to make it that way.
