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.
Right action often leads to a shitty life but is necessary anyway.
Which national identities do you think are less desirable?
I think the idea I’m trying to articulate is that the good life is a bottom-up pursuit, but people will always initially seek a top-down solution. So, unless you have an explicit national identity which emphasizes the bottom-up solution, then you get the increasing disfunction we have now.
I’m making a pro Protestant point and saying the political class in the USA has simply replaced the Catholic Church of old as the providers of lasting goodness. They can’t deliver on any of their promises either.
Thus, the need for a recovered national identity to get this country back on track. This national identity will have to come from outside of the political class for the reasons mentioned.
What would baby Jesus do?
is baby jesus aware of the self though? we can't know what he'd do if we don't know his own perception of self!
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 Ame
craig, what I wrote below is my attempt to rewrite your post:
I think it is important for people in the U.S. to have a national identity and not simply to think of themselves as citizens of an economic zone.
The underlying idea of the Declaration of Independence is that acting morally, doing what is right, will bring us closer to the good life.
To pursue the good life in a way that is consistent with the Declaration of Independence, citizens and governmental policy cannot be focused mainly on survival. The goal of social programs and safety nets should be to prevent people from focusing on survival. The goal should not be to provide people with a good life. As memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, acting morally is the only real path to a good life.
Did I accurately capture what you were trying to say? If so, do you believe that your version or my version is easier to understand?
Ithe political class in the USA has simply replaced the Catholic Church of old as the providers of lasting goodness. They can’t deliver on any of their promises either.
Thus, the need for a recovered national identity to get this country back on track. This national identity will have to come from outside of the political class for the reasons mentioned.
It will be news to most poor people that the Catholic Church was a source of lasting goodness rather than a leech which held them in penury on the untestable promise of reward after death (talking of entities which can't deliver on their promises).
As the role of the church diminished many of its claimed benefits were provided by communities and trade unions, and yes, some political parties (at least for a period of time).
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.
We have one already? It's called "The United States of America," a large, unified political entity with members who identify as American citizens. Hope that helps.
Yeah but don't forget that includes some undesirable national identities.
It will be news to most poor people that the Catholic Church was a source of lasting goodness rather than a leech which held them in penury on the untestable promise of reward after death (talking of entities which can't deliver on their promises).
As the role of the church diminished many of its claimed benefits were provided by communities and trades unions, and yes, some political parties (at least for a period of time).
If a populace hopes for a top-down solution for lasting goodness, then that institution in power inevitably becomes corrupt and totalitarian. We saw it with the Catholic Church and history is repeating itself with the American political class.
If your government has become corrupt and totalitarian, then that is a wake up call its citizens are placing too much hope onto them for the good life, and it’s time to start a correcting, bottom-up dialogue about it.
could probably take general chat out of the title. could also probably create a craig containment thread, or direct him to the philosophy forum
Yeah maybe. But I’m stuck on a real life issue at the moment. A little boy hit baby Xnerd in the face today at school, and I’m having some talks with myself about it because this is new for me. Emotional disregulation leads to poor outcomes so I need to really sit on this for a minute lol.
Craig has yet to tell us who exactly he is referencing when he says “undesirable identities”, so absent that clarification I’m left to assume this is a conversation we still do not want to have here in politics.
Craig, if you want to have a thread about this, you need to take it to the philosophy forum please.
Thank you 😀
Craig has yet to tell us who exactly he is referencing when he says “undesirable identities”, so absent that clarification I’m left to assume this is a conversation we still do not want to have here in politics.
Craig, if you want to have a thread about this, you need to take it to the philosophy forum please.
Thank you 😀
A national identity based on race or religion would be undesirable. We need to provide a better alternative I think.
