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.
In any case, rickroll was inferring based on absolutely nothing that I was defending how gay people are treated in many Arab countries when, in fact, I never did anything of the sort.
but then why contest it?
obviously you can see why they are doing it because disenfranchised groups tend to band together with other disenfranchised groups (hence how T+ got lumped in with LGBQ)
but that's just insane, if they go to Gaza right now protesting like that with queers for gaza at the very least they'll be soon pelted by rocks
this is basically like protesting queers for nazis during nuremberg where they sift through and protest against punishment for those who were just taking orders
conservatives should really take note of how the liberals do racism. or is it xenophobia?... I dunno. regardless, this a lot more effective.
Babe Ruth esque
vic, i largely agree with a a very toned down version of a lot of what you post
but you always take it to absurdist extremes like Putin>America etc etc
but if you lived in the middle east and made the same posts you made here about how evil the government was you'd wake up one night to knocks on your door
just complete bonkers how you can correctly see all the evil in the US without being able to also see it in other places of the world, you assume we have a monopoly on it, which is insane
rickroll, it's also worth noting that populations are rarely homogenous in their beliefs and that many people who are suffering do not fully endorse the views of their government.
being islamophobic for gay rights while also being a transphobe is indeed incredible
not sure it's all that effective, but very funny yeah
Truly an injustice of our time that Always sunny has never won an Emmy or even been nominated in one of the main categories. Snub of our lives iyam.
I’ve mentioned how I think it’s important for the USA to have a unifying national identity rather than merely see itself as an economic zone.
I’ve mentioned how the Declaration of Independence was about the moral high ground. The underlying idea is that if we take the morally right action, if we do what is right, then we will get closer to the good life (lasting goodness). In this way, the USA is an aspirational country aimed at lasting goodness for all.
To be an aspirational American aimed at lasting goodness through a morality mindset, this requires one to not be in a survival mindset. The purpose, then, of our social programs and safety net is to assist Americans in transcending the survival mode and NOT to attempt to provide them with the good life, which, again, must be pursued in the moral domain through right action.
Thoughts?
No, it was about continuing slavery in defiance of Lord Mansfield's ruling in the Court of Appeal in England, which found that slavery was not lawful. That's all it was ever about, and the rebel leaders were slavers who just wanted to carry on slaving because they couldn't make an income otherwise.
Craig, this is the moderation thread.
Haven’t we already been through several prior versions of this too?
At least give him a chance to crowbar Jesus in as usual before you close the derail down.
No, it was about continuing slavery in defiance of Lord Mansfield's ruling in the Court of Appeal in England, which found that slavery was not lawful. That's all it was ever about, and the rebel leaders were slavers who just wanted to carry on slaving because they couldn't make an income otherwise.
Can you point out specifically where this is mentioned in the DoI?
I’ve mentioned how I think it’s important for the USA to have a unifying national identity rather than merely see itself as an economic zone.
I’ve mentioned how the Declaration of Independence was about the moral high ground. The underlying idea is that if we take the morally right action, if we do what is right, then we will get closer to the good life (lasting goodness). In this way, the USA is an aspirational country aimed at lasting goodness for all.
To be an aspirational American aimed at las
Cool, since it's allowed, say all that again in English and I'll give you thoughts.
My thought is for my proposed meaning of American identity, don’t we already act this out - right action leads to the good life?
Nobody should object to this form of national identity, right?
Having an explicit national identity like the one I’m proposing will help prevent less desirable national identities from (re)surfacing.
My thought is for my proposed meaning of American identity, don’t we already act this out - right action leads to the good life?
Nobody should object to this form of national identity, right?
Having an explicit national identity like the one I’m proposing will help prevent less desirable national identities from (re)surfacing.
Right action often leads to a shitty life but is necessary anyway.
Which national identities do you think are less desirable?
Craig, this is the moderation thread.
Haven’t we already been through several prior versions of this too?
He started a thread about the topic. You said the post could be used to justify white supremacy or something like that and then deleted it. It was obvious that wasn't what he was going for, and it could have led to an interesting discussion. However, it might be better suited for the philosophy forum.
He started a thread about the topic. You said the post could be used to justify white supremacy or something like that and then deleted it. It was obvious that wasn't what he was going for, and it could have led to an interesting discussion. However, it might be better suited for the philosophy forum.
It has never been obvious what craig was going for.
