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.
Do you think men today are selected "better" for what you morally agree with than say 2 centuries ago, at becoming fathers, in the USA?
Is the trait selection in favor of the kind of men that end up impregnating women more agreeable to your values than it was back then?
why do we always end up here
Like high IQ rewards are higher than ever currently. In the past very often you were better off selecting a healthy but stupid sexual partner. Nowadays because of various reasons, high IQ low health and low physical dexterity/strength individuals can be very successful (resource wise).
lol, it's never been easier for low-IQ chuds like yourself to reproduce and survive, this take makes zero sense.
Seriously, can we move the social darwinism claptrap to the science subforum? What is any of this doing in this thread?
Evolutionary pressure doesn't disappear just because an organism is well-adapted to its environment. How humans will evolve in the future, I have nfi, but I'm sure Kelhus has all kind of exciting theories about that.
It seems very likely to reduce evolutionary pressure by a lot when an organism can change its environment to meet its needs, rather than needing to change to adapt to environmental changes.
Yes yes a living relative can be pro fitness for approximate genetic relatives true I was trying to simplify the thing (because it can also be a cost, think the drunk addict uncle and the mother struggling to help him AND her children)
Sure. I never specified what sort of influence. Personally I wouldn't consider a good influence to be one that lined up with high evolutionary fitness. Human genes made the horrible evolutionary mistake of letting us think.
It seems very likely to reduce evolutionary pressure by a lot when an organism can change its environment to meet its needs, rather than needing to change to adapt to environmental changes.
You don't REDUCE evolutionary pressures, you CHANGE them.
You still end up with, in every generation, some people reproducing a lot, some a little, some not reproducing at all.
That's evolution, whatever makes you reproduce more will become more widespread and vicerversa.
Keep in mind that the totality of behavioral attitudes are inheritable at least some.
Nope social darwinism is thinking "it is good" if the current societal arrangement selects against some specific genes.
Evolution isn't arrested in highly successful population. What is arrested is fitness improvement because they are already close to the current environmental asymptote.
You happen to describe mutations as the core of evolution. They are relevant, and very occasionally they determine large shifts in the population (see milk digestion in humans, our last evolution in the sense you
While higher IQ individuals may be more desirable as sexual partners, a very complicating factor is that we now understand how offspring is created and can control that nearly perfectly (at least among higher IQ members of an advanced society).
I think this is leading to higher IQ people having fewer offspring than others. The beginning of Idiocracy seems real to me.
What's going on with lagtight?
lol, it's never been easier for low-IQ chuds like yourself to reproduce and survive, this take makes zero sense.
Seriously, can we move the social darwinism claptrap to the science subforum? What is any of this doing in this thread?
What a ridiculous post. Regardless of how you feel about Luciom, he's clearly not low-IQ.
There has also been no current discussion here of who deserves to reproduce except by our lone female.
She's also the one who got this topic going.
Wb washoe, where you been?
You don't REDUCE evolutionary pressures, you CHANGE them.
You still end up with, in every generation, some people reproducing a lot, some a little, some not reproducing at all.
That's evolution, whatever makes you reproduce more will become more widespread and vicerversa.
Keep in mind that the totality of behavioral attitudes are inheritable at least some.
Maybe it's just a terminology difference, but I don't think of evolution due to sexual selection as being an evolutionary pressure. But maybe I should have said environmental pressures.
Maybe it's just a terminology difference, but I don't think of evolution due to sexual selection as being an evolutionary pressure. But maybe I should have said environmental pressures.
It actually is semantically and definitionally.
and sexual selection is always a major part of the environment if not the most important part of the environment at all times for mammals
Maybe it's just a terminology difference, but I don't think of evolution due to sexual selection as being an evolutionary pressure.
What? Why wouldn't it be?
There has also been no current discussion here of who deserves to reproduce except by our lone female.
She's also the one who got this topic going.
Wrong and wrong.
Darwin himself differentiated between natural selection and sexual selection. I've read a lot about evolution, and I've never heard the term "evolutionary pressure" applied to sexual selection. It's just a terminology difference though.
Who has talked about who "deserves" to reproduce other than Crossnerd?
It actually is semantically and definitionally.
and sexual selection is always a major part of the environment if not the most important part of the environment at all times for mammals
I find it more useful to think of the actions of individual organisms differently than the environment they live in.
Darwin himself differentiated between natural selection and sexual selection. I've read a lot about evolution, and I've never heard the term "evolutionary pressure" applied to sexual selection. It's just a terminology difference though.
This might help ya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...
Who has talked about who "deserves" to reproduce other than Crossnerd?
Where did she say anything about who "deserves" to reproduce? XN stated that incels aren't going to be in the gene pool long, which seems true by definition. But that's not a moral judgement, just an obvious consequence of not being able to have sex.
Life, uh, finds a way
I find it more useful to think of the actions of individual organisms differently than the environment they live in.
yes? but OTHER individuals ARE the environment especially for social species.
you aren't going to thrive as an individual of a social species if other individuals all hate you for example
