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.
And why do you think that's how the world works? Was it an arbitrary decision bestowed from above, or is there a deeper reason for that maybe?
I agree with whoever is objectively correct. You should try it.
Btw i strongly deny that the world is dominated by "short term" greed. Greed, yes, short term, absolutely not.
Right now we are possibly in a bubble of over-investment in servers and computing power in general because of long term bets about the future of technology for example. Regardless of what you think about those bets, those aren't short term bets, and the most important companies worldwide are piling on those bets, right now.
Hundreds of billions per year are being wasted (or "intelligently invested") in renewable energy as well, no matter what you think about that capital allocation, that's not short term either.
The history of capitalism in general is about "we build it and then they will come" since railroads, when you think about capex. That's systematically not about the short term.
Btw i strongly deny that the world is dominated by "short term" greed. Greed, yes, short term, absolutely not.
.
If the climate had a voice it might have something to say to you about that. Instead, all it can do is throw increasingly violent protests at you while you and your extremist ilk look the other way.
Also, there's nothing inherently leftist about wanting to do something about anthropogenic climate change, despite Luciom's assertions to the contrary.
Basically, this. Saying "leftist regimes get corrupted by the right" is like saying "we played great and would have definitely won, if it weren't for the other team on the pitch".
Now that sounds like me. Well done!
Nonetheless the argument based on the 'left ignores human nature' is bogus. Soem do but no more than some on the right do or some in the middle do.
Human nature isn’t something as fixed as you seem to think it is. If you had any experience of people in different societies apart from shitholes like Russia, the Us and the UK you would know that.
Human nature isn’t something as fixed as you seem to think it is. If you had any experience of people in different societies apart from shitholes like Russia, the Us and the UK you would know that.
It's not even the case that those claiming superiority have some better grasp of human nature
I'm sure nazi germany was no holiday in the sun
d2 concludes thr right doesn't understand human nature
Human nature isn’t something as fixed as you seem to think it is. If you had any experience of people in different societies apart from shitholes like Russia, the Us and the UK you would know that.
I know about history and pre-history and it looks quite fixed.
Neolithic farmers routinely genocided other tribes thousands of years ago to take their land (and women).
The foundational myth about Rome is based, among other things, on the mass kidnapping of women from a neighboring tribe.
China had to fend off invaders who wanted to take chinese stuff for centuries, after it fought a genocidal bloody battle domestically which ended in unification.
It's always, everywhere, about greed. And because in many cases it's easier to take what someone else has than to make it yourself, it's always and everywhere about violence used to attempt to steal stuff and women from other human groups.
We are a genocidal, ultra-violent species. With immense capacity to coordinate in-group, all while fighting numerous 0 or negative sum games among ourselves for dominance, because dominance translates into more and better partners and more and better children that survive more often, so that's what nature selected us for across the millennia.
Everyone alive today has a long list of genocidal, murderous rapists among his male ancestor bloodline, because those were the people who sired more children and had the resources to let them reach adulthood.
d2, You are allowed to think. Use your great understanding of human nature as a startign point
Personally I'd recommend not taking a line that would have you arguing that the roman empire was the only way to do it.
It's ok d2, you aren't really to blame for being propagandised by some of the worst regimes in the world, or for being born too incurious to see beyond that.
Care to list countries that didn't use widespread violence to become dominant in their area and/or to acquire more resources from neighbors, that didn't cease to exist very quickly? You can go back a lot in time looking for them if you want
lol countries
