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.
You have decided I'm your enemy because I respond with facts to you arguments and because I've had to limit where you can post (although giving you ample other places to post) since you have used similarly unproductive ways of communicating in a part of the forum that I mod.
You won't let me post bitcoin related content in the bitcoin thread, and I'm by far the most knowledgeable person here on the subject by far.
It's weird.
As I've said, this was the end result of trying to discuss the Sachs video with you:
I dunno, but its just getting obvious I think. I usually think more of the long plays. Like getting caught being right over time.
As I've said, when asked why it is important that you attach this "proxy" label to the Ukraine war, this is how you responded:
So then you've been helping cover the truth as it builds into the real war that the proxy fighting and 'unprovoked' narrative were hiding from the general public.
As I've said, this is a recurring theme with you. You do not want to discuss these issues. You want to state them as fact and have them accepted as fact. When they are discussed you cry that you are being silenced by a mod and not by facts. You then disappear and come back and restate your same debunked arguments. This has happened over and over again. It is not conducive to a productive discussion. When easy ways to have a productive discussion have been suggested to you, you have consistently refused.
Admitting that the entire point of your even bringing this up is to attack a poster is not good either.
(It is extremely ironic that I am addressing all of your arguments with posts and examples, and then you continue to keep stating your original arguments despite them not being grounded in fact as the posts and examples show.)
Bringing up your false interpretation of what is happening regarding the bitcoin thread does not help your cause. I suggest discussing it in the appropriate place.
Saying that Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine is false and not allowed, short of some new facts or actual intelligent analysis.
This is the serbian president I think talking about how the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy [...]
my argument going along with the evidence is that "the US and allies have been using ukraine as a proxy for a preemptively draining putin of his resources before they attack him and Serbia's President Vucic agrees"
I'd also like to submit this as supportive evidence that the idea that its not a US lead proxy war is a false narrative
What I wrote was that it's wrong to just state that Russia was provoked. This doesn't disallow:
1) discussion about whether the war is a proxy war, which your posts here seem to be about. Those are 2 different topics.
2) posting of new information to show how Russia may have been provoked. All the old arguments have been gone over in circles and lead nowhere. Simply stating that Russia was provoked just antagonizes the thread and goes nowhere. But new information or analysis can certainly lead to real discussion.
All the old arguments have been gone over in circles and lead nowhere. Simply stating that Russia was provoked just antagonizes the thread and goes nowhere. But new information or analysis can certainly lead to real discussion.
The old arguments, that were deleted, were that this is a proxy war that is preparing the battleground for a bigger conflict between the US and its allies versus Russia. That was the 'circle'.
Now there is evidence that this is true, because leaders and politicians are saying it openly now.
These leaders and politicians are saying the plan all along was to provoke Russia into attrition before hand.
Ur policing facts.
Now there is evidence that this is true, because leaders and politicians are saying it openly now.
These leaders and politicians are saying the plan all along was to provoke Russia into attrition before hand.
Ur policing facts.
Serbian leader is not the same as you stating that politicianS and leaderS are agreeing with the idea that US is trying to provoke a bigger war.
Do you know of multiple statements to that? Two is not multiple in my eyes.
That would go toward your claim that mods are "policing FACTS"..... because there are few people who agree with your "facts".
The old arguments, that were deleted, were that this is a proxy war that is preparing the battleground for a bigger conflict between the US and its allies versus Russia. That was the 'circle'.
Now there is evidence that this is true, because leaders and politicians are saying it openly now.
These leaders and politicians are saying the plan all along was to provoke Russia into attrition before hand.
Ur policing facts.
The video you posted did not say that the West provoked this war to weaken Russia. He did say that those in the West are prolonging this war to weaken Russia, thereby turning this into a proxy war, but those are different things. I will again reiterate that provoke and proxy are different words.
The video you posted did not say that the West provoked this war to weaken Russia. He did say that those in the West are prolonging this war to weaken Russia, thereby turning this into a proxy war, but those are different things. I will again reiterate that provoke and proxy are different words.
bold is what i think as well and i 100% agree that has nothing to do with "provoking", ESPECIALLY under the meaning of that word of "justifying the reaction as a proper response"
The video you posted did not say that the West provoked this war to weaken Russia. He did say that those in the West are prolonging this war to weaken Russia, thereby turning this into a proxy war, but those are different things. I will again reiterate that provoke and proxy are different words.
Whats the charge here? What have I done wrong?
You've watched the video now, what am I accused of?
I've had my posts about it being a proxy deleted and mod'd and told I'm being circular and that its ridiculous to call it a proxy. Now we have leaders around the world announcing it publicly.
What did I do wrong?
bold is what i think as well and i 100% agree that has nothing to do with "provoking", ESPECIALLY under the meaning of that word of "justifying the reaction as a proper response"
What are you talking about? I used a word in a way you disagree with? Why are you dissecting the word 'provoke' in a mod thread? Why are we afraid of the truth.
Lets just talk about it in the actually thread.
We don't have to act like this.
Serbian leader is not the same as you stating that politicianS and leaderS are agreeing with the idea that US is trying to provoke a bigger war.
Do you know of multiple statements to that? Two is not multiple in my eyes.
That would go toward your claim that mods are "policing FACTS"..... because there are few people who agree with your "facts".
Ok. I was told I can't post these things.
How many leaders have to start saying these things before we are allowed to discuss them as possible realities pan-da?
Whats the charge here? What have I done wrong?
You've watched the video now, what am I accused of?
The 'rule' by me you're complaining about relates to saying Russia was provoked into war. This video and your recent postings are about this being a proxy war. Those are not the same issue.
I've had my posts about it being a proxy deleted and mod'd and told I'm being circular and that its ridiculous to call it a proxy.
When was this? Was this by me? I don't actually think about this forum all the time so need a little help with the context.
What are you talking about? I used a word in a way you disagree with? Why are you dissecting the word 'provoke' in a mod thread? Why are we afraid of the truth.
Lets just talk about it in the actually thread.
We don't have to act like this.
I mean that I strongly disagree with the idea Russia had any justification to take Crimea and later to invade Donbas.
Putin Russia barely has a justification to exist as a country.
I am "dissecting" because it's completely different to claim, as I explained, naked skin on a young girl provoked a rapist, or to claim that 10 7 provoked Israel response.
The latter implies full moral justification, the former doesn't.
The 'rule' by me you're complaining about relates to saying Russia was provoked into war. This video and your recent postings are about this being a proxy war. Those are not the same issue.
When was this? Was this by me? I don't actually think about this forum all the time so need a little help with the context.
WTF?
You have been CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY moderating me and my posts without the proper context and you know that you are doing it.
Ok well, if you don't want to believe that I don't remember what you're talking about, then we will not resolve this. Doesn't matter to me.
No I totally believe you don't know the context. Totally. Thats what I just accused you of and I'm right, and you know I'm right.
how about we declare that its ok to discuss alternate views in this forum. In the politics forum. More specifically the view that the 'unprovoked' narrative was a media propaganda campaign as explained by sachs.
Just allow the discussion, the back and forth.
Lets see what happens when we are allowed to discuss facts that are posted and allow those facts to be posted.
No I totally believe you don't know the context. Totally. Thats what I just accused you of and I'm right, and you know I'm right.
I don't know that you're right about anything because I don't know what you're even saying half the time.
how about we declare that its ok to discuss alternate views in this forum. In the politics forum. More specifically the view that the 'unprovoked' narrative was a media propaganda campaign as explained by sachs.
Many alternate views are discussed openly in this forum without issue. However, it's objectively false to say that the West provoked Russia to invade Ukraine. That was a choice Russia made by itself.
I don't know that you're right about anything because I don't know what you're even saying half the time.
Thats your first clue ur abusing ur powers.
Many alternate views are discussed openly in this forum without issue. However, it's objectively false to say that the West provoked Russia to invade Ukraine. That was a choice Russia made by itself.
Ok so are we allowed to talk about this, because you previously stated only if there is new evidence, but I had posted 'evidence', at least such that we should be able to discuss it.
And your assertion something is objectively false, that is denying everything sachs said. Thats objective denial? Are we allowed to discuss this subject?
You haven't been modding me fairly either.
I just came off a 3 month ban from this politics forum.
WTF is going on kids.
Lets have a discussion like grownups.
And there are two mod factions on this forum. Figure that out.
I certainly never gave you a three month ban. I banned you for two weeks back in September. I think that's the only ban I ever gave you.
I don't know. I would bet you have, maybe it will come to me. But you have been doing what ganstaman is doing. Modding me without context. And overmodding me without context.
I just got off a 3 month ban from this sub. For nothing and nothing anyone is willing to put forth.
All I'm doing is presenting truth, that goes against the mainstream narratives which are already falling apart. Now we want to look at this forum over the past year and talk about which narratives weren't allowed and were censored here.
I don't know that you're right about anything because I don't know what you're even saying half the time.
No, it's yet another clue that you are a truly, truly terrible communicator - one of the worst on 2+2, possibly the worst currently active one. Again and again you're misunderstood, people have no idea what you're talking about, etc. This doesn't happen to anyone else on the scale that it does with you. Yet you never take ownership over it, you just continue doing the same thing over and over again.
A great example is all of your "pan-da" nonsense that I'm reluctant to even mention as it seems to be just an attention grabbing thing of yours that people are doing a great job of ignoring when you drop into conversation as if anyone has a clue what you're talking about.
When you make up your own words/definitions of words, assert things as fact without being able to back them up, proclaim yourself the foremost expert on topics for which you are completely unable to clearly articulate yourself, this is the result. People stop engaging or taking you seriously, because there's no point.
Sadly, this is nothing but me wasting time venting, because you seem incapable of self-reflection.
No, it's yet another clue that you are a truly, truly terrible communicator - one of the worst on 2+2, possibly the worst currently active one. Again and again you're misunderstood, people have no idea what you're talking about, etc. This doesn't happen to anyone else on the scale that it does with you. Yet you never take ownership over it, you just continue doing the same thing over and over again.
Thats complete bs. I'll accept this if ganstaman claims to not have modded me without proper context. I'm being heavily mod for no good reason. Others are understanding me just fine. Others don't like my views. Others don't like the facts I post.
A great example is all of your "pan-da" nonsense that I'm reluctant to even mention as it seems to be just an attention grabbing thing of yours that people are doing a great job of ignoring when you drop into conversation as if anyone has a clue what you're talking about.
I did a whole a thread explaining it. And I've been explaining it as I go, and im in the middle of expressing it. It obviously has a component of art. You want to ban such art on this forum now? You want to ban the creation of meme phrases?
really? seriously?
I quite often engage in the disambiguation of words that others don't realize are important. I always try to be clear about my intentions and definitions. Few others are sincere about this. I am the opposite of your accusation here.
I keep posting evidence and facts and sources and mods keep deleting them and saying they are invalid because they go against the narrative of the thread.
proclaim yourself the foremost expert on topics for which you are completely unable to clearly articulate yourself, this is the result.
I am the expert on Ideal Money. and I have more knowledge about bitcoin than anyone on this forum and I'm not allowed to post in the bitcoin thread.
Thats complete bs. I'll accept this if ganstaman claims to not have modded me without proper context. I'm being heavily mod for no good reason. Others are understanding me just fine. Others don't like my views. Others don't like the facts I post.
Your lack of self-awareness is impressive. I've not seen anyone be unable to clearly articulate themselves in as many different threads, on multiple topics, as you.
I did a whole a thread explaining it. And I've been explaining it as I go, and im in the middle of expressing it. It obviously has a component of art. You want to ban such art on this forum now? You want to ban the creation of meme phrases?
really? seriously?
Your reading comprehension isn't quite as bad as your communicating, but it's not great either.
I've neither said nor implied anything about banning any "art", "meme phrases", or anything (or anyone) else.
