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.
Was Tooth banned? I thought he just stopped posting.
Guess not, seems he just got sick of everyone complaining about him and the lack of moderation
Though I did see there has been some murmers here that luciom is ts which hadn't really crossed my mind. Doesn't seem super likely imo but def not impossible
I mean I would bet my life Luciom is a secondary account . The account has existed for 16 years until I dunno a year ago maybe slightly more only had 1k posts
Hard time believing after 16 years this dude suddenly developed an obsessive interest in American politics
Either perma him or let him spew his racist nonsense unfettered, the current half-assed approach of giving him endless warnings and 1-day bans is the worst possible way to handle the situation and only guarantees the mods will have more bullshit to deal with later and/or Lucio will get better at couching his .
Lucio's made it abundantly clear that his behavior is not going to change no matter how many warnings and 2nd chances he gets. The mods need to decide if thinly-veiled eugenics is the kind of content they want here or not.
Lucio reminds me of TruthSayer in BFI. A controversial figure with a correct opinion on just about any subject. A lot of posters would complain that he sucked all the air out of the room and they were somewhat correct but Tooth ended up banned and all the people who complained about him stopped posting and now the forum is basically dead.
The most activity that forum has received in the last 3 years is old posters jumping out the wood work to beat up on maximus who got permabanned (probably) he
I will say I remember a really old forum I used to participate on that had a similar poster on it. Prolific poster with an opinion on almost any random subject that drives a lot of engagement but was constantly demanded to be banned.
Again I don’t think he was banned because of the specific content of his posts, because while right-wing he wasn’t maximally right-wing. He just got banned because the mods got tired of dealing with petty arguments and since he had wracked up his fair share of infractions they just permabanned him.
This was at the height of internet forum popularity though so while it did lower engagement, it was still able to find another villain to keep the forum going. However I do think forums need prolific villains to maintain engagement, and oftentimes the demands of the crowd to ban a particular jerk can be bad for the overall health of the forum.
I’m willing to take that chance. Get rid of him, you have given him way too many opportunities to correct his behavior.
I don’t disagree with checkraise in theory, lucy just posts so. Fucking. Much
Maybe a posting restriction on him? He can only make one post every ten minutes so 6 posts an hour? If it’s between that and banning him, I prefer the solution that allows him to stay.
Guess not, seems he just got sick of everyone complaining about him and the lack of moderation
Though I did see there has been some murmers here that luciom is ts which hadn't really crossed my mind. Doesn't seem super likely imo but def not impossible
Tooth is definitely not Lucium.
FWIW Well-Named "asked" Tooth not to post in this forum anymore, and Tooth complied. And AFAIK after this happened he kept posting for awhile in BFI, but most of the interesting threads in that forum got locked or ran their course, and everyone stopped posting there, including him.
Easiest answer ever.
The amazing thing about this when it happens (which is a lot because a lot of people are racist) is that it would never even occur to me to blame it on race. There is no causal agent there. There is nothing inherent in any race that would cause them to be more obese on average. There are OBVIOUS causal agents that correlate with race due to other (often rooted in racism themselves) factors, and for some reason, they are consistently glossed over or completely ignored in favor
The problem with progressivism though, is that it doesn't try to actually address the real issues either. It just blames everything on "racism." Blaming everyone on "race" and blaming it on "racism" are 2 sides of the same coin.
In the terms of poor outcome for pregnancies, the main factors (apart from age, which you really cant do anything about other than have children younger) are obesity/high blood pressure/diabetes and general poor compliance with maternal/fetal healthcare. Now you can say these are downstream of "racism" and maybe you are right, and maybe not.
But no matter how much time and energy and activism and studies you throw into the problem, unless your efforts are resulting in pregnant mothers being less obese, with lower blood sugar and blood pressure, you aren't going to move the needle much in achieving better outcomes.
The problem with progressivism though, is that it doesn't try to actually address the real issues either. It just blames everything on "racism." Blaming everyone on "race" and blaming it on "racism" are 2 sides of the same coin.
In the terms of poor outcome for pregnancies, the main factors (apart from age, which you really cant do anything about other than have children younger) are obesity/high blood pressure/diabetes and general poor compliance with maternal/fetal healthcare. Now you can
What states do you think have better outcomes for pregnant women, especially minority pregnant women, on average, red or blue states?
Lucio reminds me of TruthSayer in BFI. A controversial figure with a correct opinion on just about any subject. A lot of posters would complain that he sucked all the air out of the room and they were somewhat correct but Tooth ended up banned and all the people who complained about him stopped posting and now the forum is basically dead.
The most activity that forum has received in the last 3 years is old posters jumping out the wood work to beat up on maximus who got permabanned (probably) he
There would be some serious early stages of dementia if TS was Lucy, and i'd be curious why he would be calling crypto cripto, but maybe that's for the deception.
Tooth definitely fueled BFI around 14-16. Cant really remember why i stopped posting there but I did enjoy talking with a few...BriantheMick and Ahnold comes to mind.
What states do you think have better outcomes for pregnant women, especially minority pregnant women, on average, red or blue states?
-The white infant morality rate in the US is 4.52. The black community in EVERY state (blue and red) is significantly higher. Because the political orientation at the state, or even local, level is not particularly salient. What is salient is the BMI, blood pressure and diabetes levels of the mother. And low SES blacks have relatively poor health profiles regardless of the state or local politics.
-The white infant morality rate in the US is 4.52. The black community in EVERY state (blue and red) is significantly higher. Because the political orientation at the state, or even local, level is not particularly salient. What is salient is the BMI, blood pressure and diabetes levels of the mother. And low SES blacks have relatively poor health profiles regardless of the state or local politics.
What the ****? How is it not salient? Are you trolling?
Yes. I am the one that is actually addressing the health issue that is the primary cause of the health disparity, as opposed to bad faith ideological handwaiving, so clearly I am the troll.
Yeah, your contention was that progressives don't do anything for black people and then confronted with progressive states doing better for black people you changed the subject. And, ironically, your whole point was about how progressives make everything about race and then you immediately made it about health results relative to white people instead of about what policies are strictly better for black people.
Yes. I am the one that is actually addressing the health issue that is the primary cause of the health disparity, as opposed to bad faith ideological handwaiving, so clearly I am the troll.
It's "wave", Kel. You know, the thing you do with your hands.
I'm hoping beyond hope that this 353rd time of being corrected on this same basic error, you will finally remember, but you don't seem to really have a capacity for learning from your mistakes.
-The white infant morality rate in the US is 4.52. The black community in EVERY state (blue and red) is significantly higher. Because the political orientation at the state, or even local, level is not particularly salient. What is salient is the BMI, blood pressure and diabetes levels of the mother. And low SES blacks have relatively poor health profiles regardless of the state or local politics.
Why would we assume that, all else being equal, state policy does nothing to bring down the obesity rates of the black community?
If we take a look at this article, based on data from the CDC, despite the weight of black americans being worse in pretty much all states, some states do better than others and the southern/red states seem to do the worst. So it very well could be that state policy makes things worse even if it doesn’t explain all or even most of the disparity.
Yeah, your contention was that progressives don't do anything for black people and then confronted with progressive states doing better for black people you changed the subject. And, ironically, your whole point was about how progressives make everything about race and then you immediately made it about health results relative to white people instead of about what policies are strictly better for black people.
Progressive activism certainly does nothing to address maternal health disparity. Show me a population that had poor outcomes that improved do to progressive political measures.
If your argument is that places where black people are on average higher SES and concordantly in better physical condition will have relatively better health outcomes, sure. But attributing this towards progressive activism seems incorrect.
A disparity between populations doesn’t mean that a particular population even with a large disparity between the other population measured hasn’t generally improved. Also, any particular policy is going to underdetermine the outcome of any particular group.
We’re looking at a total figure throughout the US of 1200~ deaths. While a tragedy, those aren’t exactly huge statistics. Non hispanic black accounted for 66~ per 100k. Compared to Africa where it is 500-999 per 100k. That means at the very least if there is some strong racial component then this can be brought down quite significantly based on social policy and environmental factors. And this is in light of the increased rates of obesity.
I certainly think that we have feminism and an increased emphasis on female reproductive health to thank for the decrease in rate. And certainly I haven’t done the math but I’d assume that we had some pretty bad rates at one time that improved with more modern practices, just like we probably have an infant mortality gap but the overall infant mortality rate is much lower than 100 years ago.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/mat...
https://files.aho.afro.who.int/afahobckp...
Can we at least get a eugenics containment thread?
Why would we assume that, all else being equal, state policy does nothing to bring down the obesity rates of the black community?
If we take a look at this article, based on data from the CDC, despite the weight of black americans being worse in pretty much all states, some states do better than others and the southern/red states seem to do the worst. So it very well could be that state policy makes things worse even if it doesn’t explain all or even most of the disparity.
Fair enough. It is very possible govt policy at the state or local level can be moving the needle some. See, now we are having a good faith discussion, because we are actually addressing real issues; instead of empty ideological hand waiving (hi D2_E4, I am waiving at you).
Couldn't it be culture also? I mean traditional Southern food isn't exactly the Mediterranean diet or anything.
It could be a combination of a few things, but one thing it can't really be is race.
