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.
Not sure. Sounds like it depends on who's in charge - if it's democrats then no, if republicans then yes. At least that's what what I inferred from all the rhetoric surrounding their policy positions. Also, I think Trump ran on a platform of actively going out to find them as opposed to just deporting them if they happened to pop up on the radar.
If they're caught committing crimes they get deported regardless though.
I'm pretty sure illegal aliens were being deported under Obama . And it's irrelevant if they pip up o a radar or if Trump us more proactive they're illegal illegals get deported if as you say democrats are reluctant to deported illegals then maybe that's one of the reasons they lost in a landslide I still don't understand your comment re republicans believing deportation helps homeless. Their belief is irrelevant. Illegals get deported . That's it.
What’s really great is how we can call humans “illegal aliens” now and they hardly sound human at all. Good work!
I'm pretty sure illegal aliens were being deported under Obama . And it's irrelevant if they pip up o a radar or if Trump us more proactive they're illegal illegals get deported if as you say democrats are reluctant to deported illegals then maybe that's one of the reasons they lost in a landslide I still don't understand your comment re republicans believing deportation helps homeless. Their belief is irrelevant. Illegals get deported . That's it.
I don't mean republicans as in the party. I mean the voters. Their beliefs, dumb as they might be, are relevant in the respect that they influence their votes.
I don't mean republicans as in the party. I mean the voters. Their beliefs, dumb as they might be, are relevant in the respect that they influence their votes.
But not relevant to the fact that illegal migration is well, illegal, so will therefore lead to deportation. Individual conservatives beliefs are still irrelevant. Maybe I inferred wrongly but you seemed to be implying that Conservatives believe deporting illegal aliens will help the homeless but they're wrong, ergo deporting illegal aliens is wrong due to their belief being wrong. Which would be like saying that locking up murderers is wrong because people believe it harms the homeless or increases the risk of cancer. It's irrelevant what they believe, murdering people is illegal and if you're caught doing it, you're getting incarcerated.
Likewise if you illegally migrate you will be deported whether people believe it helps the homeless or not. Again if I inferred wrongly then my apologies.
But not relevant to the fact that illegal migration is well, illegal, so will therefore lead to deportation. Individual conservatives beliefs are still irrelevant. Maybe I inferred wrongly but you seemed to be implying that Conservatives believe deporting illegal aliens will help the homeless but they're wrong, ergo deporting illegal aliens is wrong due to their belief being wrong. Which would be like saying that locking up murderers is wrong because people believe it harms the homeless or incre
You inferred wrong. If anything, I was implying that conservatives believed deporting illegal aliens will help the homeless ergo they are credulous and susceptible to empty populist rhetoric (but more than anything, I was just responding to a poster who wrote "’I'm just surprised that anyone thinks Trump has ever had anything but contempt for the homeless," i.e. lots of people think his policies - deporting illegals - will help the homeless). I wasn't commenting on the deportation issue itself one way or the other.
Fair enough
You inferred wrong. If anything, I was implying that conservatives believed deporting illegal aliens will help the homeless ergo they are credulous and susceptible to empty populist rhetoric (but more than anything, I was just responding to a poster who wrote "’I'm just surprised that anyone thinks Trump has ever had anything but contempt for the homeless," i.e. lots of people think his policies - deporting illegals - will help the homeless). I wasn't commenting on the deportation issue itself o
So, removing 25% of homeless people from the streets wouldn't help the remaining 75%? same resources available for fewer of them, how doesn't that automatically help them?
So, removing 25% of homeless people from the streets wouldn't help the remaining 75%? same resources available for fewer of them, how doesn't that automatically help them?
Source that 25% of homeless are illegal aliens? And what are these fixed capacity resources that there will now be more of per homeless capita?
Homelessness, similar to crime, is a social issue which could be solved by providing everyone with their basic human needs.
But the Christians are often confused by the whole WWJD thing and get very bent out of shape when it’s suggested.
Poverty is only one, and probably not even the biggest cause of crime. Most drug dealers who move any sort of weight beyond dime bags, armed robbers, fraudsters, etc. etc. are not on the poverty line. In addition, some material % of crimes are not financially motivated.
Possibly Crossnerd is referring to just petty street crime though.
Homelessness, similar to crime, is a social issue which could be solved by providing everyone with their basic human needs.
How can you say this and then believe people like Trump can be criminal and hold both beliefs in your mind at the same time?
If you ever believed for a second a criminal existed who anyway had his "basic human needs" fulfilled, then your statement is utterly false.
Source that 25% of homeless are illegal aliens? And what are these fixed capacity resources that there will now be more of per homeless capita?
Shelters, grants for homeless people by states and localities.
Pro-homeless people source (see how they say "undocumented", already on the radical left)
Shelters, grants for homeless people by states and localities.
Pro-homeless people source (see how they say "undocumented", already on the radical left)
OK, thanks for the source on the 25% figure. Are you saying that if a homeless person somewhere in the US wanted access to a shelter right now, they couldn't get in because they're full?
OK, thanks for the source on the 25% figure. Are you saying that if a homeless person somewhere in the US wanted access to a shelter right now, they couldn't get in because they're full?
That happens fairly frequently in California yes. They could be moved to other empty places elsewhere and if in desperate need they will have a roof that night (after waiting many hours for confirmation).
But if 3/4 of eligible people are there everything including waiting times to have showers in shelters, to get your linens, to get processed in general will be smoother (=better).
Have you ever spoken to someone who was actually homeless like he was a real human being? Have you ever cooked him dinner?
That happens fairly frequently in California yes. They could be moved to other empty places elsewhere and if in desperate need they will have a roof that night (after waiting many hours for confirmation).
But if 3/4 of eligible people are there everything including waiting times to have showers in shelters, to get your linens, to get processed in general will be smoother (=better).
Have you ever spoken to someone who was actually homeless like he was a real human being? Have you ever cooked him di
I give money to homeless people all the time when I'm drunk and feeling generous. Like, real money sometimes if I've had a decent session at the casino and have cash on me. The one time I invited a homeless guy up to my apartment for a drink and a game of chess, I passed out in my armchair while we were playing and woke up a few hours later to discover he'd robbed all the electronics in the place (laptops, phones, etc.). That was pretty inconvenient, and also, never lived it down with my buddies who to this day refer to that incident as "remember when you tried to **** that homeless guy and he robbed you". Needless to say, won't be doing that again.
Much better just to take them to a fast food place and get them something to eat. That way they don't feel obliged to give you a blow job (though that may be a drawback for you).
Much better just to take them to a fast food place and get them something to eat. That way they don't feel obliged to give you a blow job (though that may be a drawback for you).
That was a ****ing nightmare. I had to knock on my neighbour's door (whom I'd spoken to like twice in the lift in about as many years) and ask to use his phone/internet to contact someone. To your point - ironically enough, I felt so embarrassed about what happened, I told him I got rolled by a hooker.
