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.
Technically, you're correct. But you see, since it's open season on MAGA, it thereby follows that they're being oppressed. And if I've learned anything, it's that we need to protect the oppressed. The solution, it seems, is to prohibit any criticism of MAGA that doesn't come from within. The point is that you shouldn't call someone a MAGAtard unless you're MAGA.
I'm not convinced that it does thereby follow.
you're falsely attributing identity politics to being a liberal cornerstone when instead it's a brand new fringe element that has emerged and hijacked the party
remove identity politics, and i'm 85/15 dem/gop split in terms of policy
mind you, my senior thesis was that w bush was a more liberal president than clinton (if you remove the party affiliation and just look purely at his policies, they were all grounded on traditional democratic policy platforms - this was because his administration was
I mean, you seem pretty fiscally conservative and socially somewhere in the centre I'd say, so my question is what specific positions you hold that makes you say you're a liberal? What does this 85% comprise?
I mean, you seem pretty fiscally conservative and socially somewhere in the centre I'd say, so my question is what specific positions you hold that makes you say you're a liberal? What does this 85% comprise?
Clinton was the only one to balance the budget since WW2. Big fan of deportation of illegals as well. Big fan of working requirements for welfare. Didn't love the idea of gay marriage.
You see they moved dramatically to the left, and 90s liberals are now conservatives
Clinton was the only one to balance the budget since WW2. Big fan of deportation of illegals as well. Big fan of working requirements for welfare. Didn't love the idea of gay marriage.
You see they moved dramatically to the left, and 90s liberals are now conservatives
So Clinton wasn't a liberal then, cool. I was asking about rickroll, though. I'm not saying it as a criticism, I don't think I'm a liberal either. I'm just wondering what makes him say that he is.
So Clinton wasn't a liberal then, cool. I was asking about rickroll, though. I'm not saying it as a criticism, I don't think I'm a liberal either. I'm just wondering what makes him say that he is.
no, so Clinton was a liberal, it's most people on the left today which are to the left of liberals, and liberals now are the center/center right
I mean, you seem pretty fiscally conservative and socially somewhere in the centre I'd say, so my question is what specific positions you hold that makes you say you're a liberal? What does this 85% comprise?
I won't speak for rickroll specifically, but the real answer for some people is some variation of "I like weed and it would be really convenient if I could buy it from a shop on my corner."
The Republican Party was specifically founded as the abolitionist party and Lincoln was their first president. Hence the South was Democrat up to the 1960s and beyond because they hated Lincoln (and black people in the South, who probably didn't feel that way, generally didn't get the vote). Historically, there is nothing all that decent or liberal about Democrats.
I mean, you seem pretty fiscally conservative and socially somewhere in the centre I'd say, so my question is what specific positions you hold that makes you say you're a liberal? What does this 85% comprise?
mainly, i think the government should mostly function as duct tape
make sure roads are in order, ensure electricity and water are functioning, and heavily regulate or even directly control anything that it required for basic living - this is priority #1 for me and in a GOP only government, all these would be turned over to private enterprises
ie nearly every facet of our healthcare system is operated by privately owned enterprises, even the the hospitals which are supposedly non-profit still charge roughly the same as their for-profit counterparts - so it's more of a tax loophole than anything else
look at europe and it's mostly publicly owned, and in the few cases where it's not majority publicly owned such as germany (but still to a much lower degree than the USA) they overcome that by regulating it to the point where it still serves more so in the public interest than their own
these are all supposedly democrat ideals where the GOP would privatize everything and let the market sort itself out
obviously the devil is in the details regarding how we would transition, even if i were in complete control right now after leading a successful junta, i would still go about enacting this reform slowly and methodically (would probably be too focused on eliminating potential rivals to power like rococo first few months anyway to ensure i could stay in power long enough to fulfill my goals)
but this, there's no way any sane person could look at a chart like this and assume we have a clean system that doesn't need to be amended
The most expensive and the worst outcomes.
Clinton was the only one to balance the budget since WW2. Big fan of deportation of illegals as well. Big fan of working requirements for welfare. Didn't love the idea of gay marriage.
You see they moved dramatically to the left, and 90s liberals are now conservatives
When the idiots in Rome finally conceded that the Earth orbited the sun and not vice-versa, did they suddenly become more liberal for changing their position and opposing what it says in TheGoodBook? Or was it simply they became educated on the facts of the matter and their earlier positions were simply uninformed and wrong?
@Rickroll - so the thing that makes you a liberal is that you are anti privatising utilities and pro healthcare regulation?
Or number 11 but why let the facts stand in the way of a MAGGOT argument.
Characteristic Health care system performance ranking
Australia 1
Norway 2
Switzerland 3
Netherlands 4
Sweden 5
France 6
Germany 7
New Zealand 8
United Kingdom 9
Canada 10
United States 11
i legit didn't understand whatever point he was trying to make with that post - i don't mean that as a dig on him nor the post, i honestly had no clue what he was trying to convey
i legit didn't understand whatever point he was trying to make with that post - i don't mean that as a dig on him nor the post, i honestly had no clue what he was trying to convey
I think it was just that a lot of people who are pro weed legalisation call themselves liberals for that reason alone. That's how I understood it.
I think it was just that a lot of people who are pro weed legalisation call themselves liberals for that reason alone. That's how I understood it.
Yes. I obviously wasn't entirely serious, but there are some people who run in poker circles whose political ideology begins and ends with wanting little or no restrictions on the things they personally enjoy.
