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.
I wasn't suggesting it was. I'm not even suggetsing that TD and I have the same moral views. I am saying that our morality is prior to the rest.
Personally I believe we should be aiming for a democracy with no welfare. I think we will probably fail horribly and instead lose democracy. Currently we need welfare.
Even though we all have different opinions than each other, we all hate Luciom because he has a different opinion than us. It's something that is wrong with everyone else. Luciom is completely innocent.
Spoiler
(you have it backwards - he LITERALLY wants to make it legal and IMPERATIVE to ERADICATE me and people like me because of my opinions. That's why I despise him.)
Thank you for sharing!
So, what do you think now?
So, in conclusion, I hope my explanation followed by him showing up to not only not deny it, but defend it while just saying we aren't calling it by the correct name, has absolved you of the notion that it is somehow our fault we despise him.
Just to make sure you didn't miss it, he tried to defend the mass killing of his political enemies by referencing the fact that it has happened before.
I hope that demonstration helped.
He has his opinions and some are extreme. So what? If he bothers somebody or offends somebody then they should just put him on ignore. I actually scroll past a lot of his postings because they tend to be long and I have ADD. People here seem to hate him yet they constantly engage him. He is more likely to say what is on his mind than the rest of you. I think people actually secretly like having a perceived villain in the forum. What would you say if you didn't think there would be consequences? What a person thinks of me or says to me doesn't bother me on an internet forum. I do respect the fact that it effects other people differently. I think people should be able to say what they want as long as there is not a realistic threat to another person.
I understand your anger. I respect your opinion. I disagree with the want to ban him or anybody for their opinion on something. If I thought there was a chance that he may become the next Hitler I would speak up. In this case it's just one persons view on how things should be dealt with. I'm also very big on less is more with regards to moderation. Notice this forum has run quite smoothly recently without the threat of timeouts or bans.
Dream on if you think that the owners of those machines will allow the machines' profits to be spread around more evenly. When has that ever happened in the west?
I mean, it's pretty much been happening since the US has been a country - from actual slaves, through the industrial revolution to potentially a 4 day work week! - but its happening too ****ing slow obv compared to places like Norway or even Alaska with their oil revenues.
But the owners of the machines still need their consumer demand or they aint **** themselves - so they'll have to avoid any possibility of economic disparity or civil unrest that collapses their own method of making money. They still need to maintain a society that can afford to consume what their machines produce. And societal pressure will continue press that issue and raise the bar. Or not, who the **** really knows.
He has his opinions and some are extreme. So what? If he bothers somebody or offends somebody then they should just put him on ignore. I actually scroll past a lot of his postings because they tend to be long and I have ADD. People here seem to hate him yet they constantly engage him. He is more likely to say what is on his mind than the rest of you. I think people actually secretly like having a perceived villain in the forum. What would you say if you didn't think there would be consequences
To be clear, I've never suggested banning him or isolating him. I just think he's a Pos, which he obviously is. Id respect you more if you admitted that much.
Large but dwindling, with younger people far less enamoured with democracy than their elders. Not surprising when the parties thrown up by democratic systems have converged around a conservative/liberal consensus that has failed to provide young people with affordable housing and non-toxic work environments.
Also, if we are literally focusing on creating the possibility of having our work done by machines, it would not only make sense, but be pretty idiotic for us as a society to not allow that capability to make it so that we don't have to work as hard and successfully allow the govt to fund our permanent vacation away from it.
In the 1960s everybody thought that, with automation, our only problem in the future would be how to spend our affluent leisure time. You may have noticed that it has not worked out like that.
This is nothing like then.
It's an even worse an arguement than climate has changed before so nothing to see here.
I would guess that a large percentage of the Western world thinks of themselves the same way.
Maybe. I hope so.
But many will vote authoratarian if it promises a better economic situation for them. And as we saw in the UK brexit debate peoeple who who consider such matters as democracy, sovereignty etc are scoffed at (or worse) because what really matter is trade.
Sanders the genocidal stooge of the genocidal Democrat party? that guy?
This is nothing like then.
It's an even worse an arguement than climate has changed before so nothing to see here.
No, it's exactly the same. Automation will only 'increase leisure time' in the sense of increasing unemployment. That is, in economic terms, what automation is for. The amount of offset from jobs created in new-tech is debatable.
Maybe. I hope so.
But many will vote authoratarian if it promises a better economic situation for them. And as we saw in the UK brexit debate peoeple who who consider such matters as democracy, sovereignty etc are scoffed at (or worse) because what really matter is trade.
These two things are far from mutually exclusive: (i) thinking that you are an enemy of non-democratic systems and immoral laws; and (ii) voting for authoritarian jackasses.
These two things are far from mutually exclusive: (i) thinking that you are an enemy of non-democratic systems and immoral laws; and (ii) voting for authoritarian jackasses.
I did wonder if that was your 'point' but it's only true in short time frames. Longer term rationalisation makes them close to mutually exclusive. I doubt commitment to democracy is near strong enough to make that break my way. I may be wrong, I hope so.
ya I mean, in general I tend to "hate", for lack of a better term, people who support the mass murder of children. I know its not pragmatic.
