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.
If somebody has legitimate serious mental health issues, I don't think it would be nice to take shots at them belittling their condition.
Later, that very same paragraph....
Other than being obsessive and extremely annoying, we don't really have any evidence of jb actually suffering from mental health issues, so it seems to me that he is doing the whole "throw rocks and hide under mom's skirt" thing when he whines incessantly about being a victim when at the same time he makes a dozen posts a day attacking other posters.
Well for me it's about censorship rules, given i would like to discuss stuff that is partially censored, i'd like to know the exact boundaries because the more i can plainly state and argue about the better the debate can be.
I think you can understand that mindset specifically.
For ex i have been accused of coming very close to white supremacy after i wrote that i consider western culture objectively superior to all others in history, it's hard to be able to debate all the corollaries of that (geopoliticals, immigration-wise and so on), which is a widespread opinion among rightwing people still nowaydas and was the super-majoritarian opinion of all western countries until very recently, if that's the threshold.
Ofc i accept the threshold but until i knew that, i felt free to express my preferences for western culture.
But i think you can see that censoring a core value-system which was the main one in many countries for centuries until very recently, and still is the main one for 40 to 60 % of voters depending on the country (in the west), is kinda harsh
Do we know one way or another about anyone?
However, my personal view is that you have some sort of mental health issue that somehow manifests itself as you constantly acting like an obnoxious, arrogant, insufferable tit, then you should be treated like any other obnoxious, arrogant, insufferable tit.
Why don't we take the subject of your white knighting at his word?
This is super inappropriate and does not apply to me, and I don't appreciate the stigma of mental illness forced onto my persona. I don't have this issues others and King Spew assert I do...
His mantra is "Always be trolling." It doesn't matter if his point flies in the face of logic or shows deficits in basic reading comprehension, as trolling doesn't always have to be perfect to be effective. Trump uses similar tactics to great effect.
For the same reason we don't believe him when he tells us a cabal of panda bears secretly controls the world.
So we shouldn't point out problems with his posting just in case he suffers from some unstated, presumably undiagnosed condition, which he himself denies?
There are other posters here who have similar ideas about panda cabals or somesuch, maybe you should cut them some slack, just in case.
Ok, as JBouton has been banned and can't respond, please stop posting about him. You can post about the ban itself, I guess, but speculations about him having mental illness or not shouldn't continue.
Well for me it's about censorship rules, given i would like to discuss stuff that is partially censored, i'd like to know the exact boundaries because the more i can plainly state and argue about the better the debate can be.
I think you can understand that mindset specifically.
For ex i have been accused of coming very close to white supremacy after i wrote that i consider western culture objectively superior to all others in history, it's hard to be able to debate all the corollaries of that (ge
Your requests at least concern what you perceive to be substantive discussion. I was referring more to people who want to know exactly how much they can insult people, exactly how much they can discuss banned posters, exactly how long they can continue after being told to move, exactly how much loaded language they can use, or exactly how much mischaracterization or misrepresentations they can engage in before they are banned.
Your requests at least concern what you perceive to be substantive discussion. I was referring more to people who want to know exactly how much they can insult people, exactly how much they can discuss banned posters, exactly how long they can continue after being told to move, exactly how much loaded language they can use, or exactly how much mischaracterization or misrepresentations they can engage in before they are banned.
How much of this can I ask before it becomes a problem?
