Moderation Questions
Moderation Questions
8
zs

Moderation Questions

The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa

30 January 2024 at 05:27 AM
Reply...

24466 Replies

8
zs


by d2_e4 m

FYI, 2+2 pro tip: "bullshit", "horseshit", "dipshit", etc. are fine for some reason, only "****" itself is censored.

I don't believe you that's bullshit. Hey wait a minute you're right! I knew I liked you for a reason. πŸ˜€


by jjjou812 m

Reposting what resulted in someone else's banning because the banning was a joke is a strong move.

What are you talking about?


by d2_e4 m

FYI, 2+2 pro tip: "bullshit", "horseshit", "dipshit", etc. are fine for some reason, only "****" itself is censored.

It's because the censoring software is a bit crude


by chezlaw m

It's because the censoring software is a bit crude

It doesn't work for other words though, only that one, ****stick. See?


**** is probably treated as a string whereas **** is treated as a word, and since bullshit is a separate word it's not banned.


by Crossnerd m

So does everyone think it’s workable for a moderator to define parameters for posting and posters to then say β€œlol what a ****ing joke!” and willfully ignore those parameters? Because that’s what happened here. Mets has behavioral issues when it comes to authority and following boundaries he doesn’t agree with. A short break for posters who can’t follow rules is an easy way to

Viewing mods as any kind of 'authority' (as opposed to random middle-aged men sitting in their basements, probably in their underpants, delighting in how much pointless aggravation they can cause and then pretend to remedy for the sake of personal self-perceived validation) may be where you went wrong.


by Crossnerd m

I think in general many of you are unfair in your summations and treatment of Browser. I’ve said my piece, I’ll bow out of this discussion for the sake of not clogging the thread further while the mod is out of commission- something maybe some of you ought to consider doing as well.

Enjoying the taste of the polish on jackboots is a slightly (though sadly not very) unusual kink.


by Luckbox Inc m

**** is probably treated as a string whereas **** is treated as a word, and since bullshit is a separate word it's not banned.

"Word" is not a data type, at least, not the sort of data type you are thinking of. All text is strings, there is obviously just different logic for some banned strings, which allows them through when not delimited by spaces or punctuation on both sides.

ETA:

****.
****/
****:
Shita
****,

Only the one that is part of a "word" is allowed.


by 57 On Red m

Viewing mods as any kind of 'authority' (as opposed to random middle-aged men sitting in their basements, probably in their underpants, delighting in how much pointless aggravation they can cause and then pretend to remedy for the sake of personal self-perceived validation) may be where you went wrong.

I think you’re possibly projecting. A moderator, by definition, has the authority to enforce site rules.


by d2_e4 m

It doesn't work for other words though, only that one, ****stick. See?

**** is more than a bit crude.


by chezlaw m

**** is more than a bit crude.

no u


by Crossnerd m

I think you’re possibly projecting. A moderator, by definition, has the authority to enforce site rules.

Blocking the sort of content that comes from Daily Kos has never been a part of the site rules.


It's not so much the content, it was the argument the content was used to support. He was banned for attempting to perpetuate the racist idea that Palestinians don't care about their children and only have children to support a holy war against their betters, the chose Jewish children of light aka Zionists.

Ofc, in principle I don't support bans in general nor this one.


But I guess really he was banned bc browser told him not to post that trash anymore and he just went Leroy Jenkins.

I just don't want to downplay his reprehensible posting.


by Luckbox Inc m

Blocking the sort of content that comes from Daily Kos has never been a part of the site rules.

I’m sure that could have been debated in a way that didn’t result in his banning, but alas


by Victor m

It's always projection with these ghouls

-Just for the record, you guys are all outraged when Palestinians are dehumanized. But calling Jews/Israelis/Zionists 'ghouls' accompanied with obviously fake stories of rape and torture to justify the dehumanization is completely fine, correct?


by Dunyain m

-Just for the record, you guys are all outraged when Palestinians are dehumanized. But calling Jews/Israelis/Zionists 'ghouls' accompanied with obviously fake stories of rape and torture to justify the dehumanization is completely fine, correct?

Yes victor is allowed to fully dehumanize Israelis if he links to pro Hamas sources


by Dunyain m

-Just for the record, you guys are all outraged when Palestinians are dehumanized. But calling Jews/Israelis/Zionists 'ghouls' accompanied with obviously fake stories of rape and torture to justify the dehumanization is completely fine, correct?

Can we refer to Nazi's as ghouls? Bc it's the same picture at this point.


Also, all Jews are not Zionists and all Zionists are not Jews so I see your sleight of hand. It won't work with me.


by Crossnerd m

I’m sure that could have been debated in a way that didn’t result in his banning, but alas

Well I don't doubt that, but when Mets is posting that article from Daily Kos what he is effectively saying is that "look, this stuff is so standard and a part of the discourse that even left-leaning Daily Kos has a piece on it". Browser should have been able to understand that regardless of Mets' lack of tact.


by Luciom m

Yes victor is allowed to fully dehumanize Israelis if he links to pro Hamas sources

I mean I understand the basic operating system liberals are working from. They believe whites/Jews are operating from a position of power and privilege and should be held to a higher moral standard. The only problem is at some point you should actually look at the results you are getting and see if the system is working.

I would say the last 80 years of infantilization of Palestinians and more generally allowing bad faith tribal behavior from Arabs/Muslims while holding whites/Jews to higher standards is in fact not working at all. Holding Israeli's to impossibly high moral standards is just creating bitterness, and infantilizing and allowing bad faith behavior from Palestinians is just encouraging more of the same.

No one is benefiting from this, except parties that directly benefit from dysfunction, such as actors like Hamas and Netanyahu.


dont you ever call me a liberal. I will put up with a lot, but that is the vilest of insults and I have reported this post and notified my lawyers and the law enforcement authorities to proceed with using the fullest extent of the law to protect myself from such disgusting slander.


by Victor m

dont you ever call me a liberal. I will put up with a lot, but that is the vilest of insults and I have reported this post and notified my lawyers and the law enforcement authorities to proceed with using the fullest extent of the law to protect myself from such disgusting slander.

I dont think you are a liberal, and I was certainly not speaking to you. You dont have any liberal values (or at least the character you play over the Internet doesn't) and you certainly dont hold Israeli's to higher standards. You don't view them as humans at all.


I dont think Zionists should be treated like Palestinians. they can be reformed maybe. might need some reeducation camps.


by Crossnerd m

I don’t know how some of you meaningfully navigate the adult world

we hush our adult conversations when the thought police/workplace moderators are around.

browser seems adept at his moderator position but the line of what you can/can't talk about should be moved, imo. "feelings" are taken into account far too often.

i long for the old days of 2p2 where it was common to tell someone to die in a grease fire and not have to worry about being banned.

Reply...