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.
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).
I have been banned for a day because a mod thought that me saying that we don't need to discuss the causes *to claim something else linked to the fact the gap exists even in democratic states* was racist.
I am curious if cordie agree with that ban. Tbh to the pleasure of stoprainman and others, i might be done here mostly after this grotesque, indefensible ban. Even if small and temporary, it was just predicated on complete lack of basic reading comprehension by someone who should never had any power of moderation to begin with, which is something that interestingly the vast majority of this forum users agree with, from the radical left to the radical right.
I wouldn't have personally made the ban, no.
I've almost flexed on fgators in a moment of indulgence but resisted
I wouldn't have personally made the ban, no.
I've almost flexed on fgators in a moment of indulgence but resisted
do you agree that my claim "we don't need to discuss the reasons why" those outcome exists, in the context of the argument i was making, wasn't racist at all not even in the slightest, not even vaguely, not even tangentially? it was just a logic argument related to the fact that the reason(s) for those gaps are completly irrelevant to discuss the contribution of state policy to those gaps IF those gaps exist both in democratic and republican states.
A very reasonable, normal, logical take that no one could be offended from right?
do you agree that my claim "we don't need to discuss the reasons why" those outcome exists, in the context of the argument i was making, wasn't racist at all not even in the slightest, not even vaguely, not even tangentially? it was just a logic argument related to the fact that the reason(s) for those gaps are completly irrelevant to discuss the contribution of state policy to those gaps IF those gaps exist both in democratic and republican states.
A very reasonable, normal, logical take that no
The problenm is that your chain of argument has glaring logical gaps that can't really be explained by anything other than an obvious agenda.
Saying that governance can't effect socioeconomic conditions and that obesity rates are entirely explainable by race is, uncontroversially, a moronic claim unsupported by any evidence. You needed a timeout for your dogmatic idiocy.
King Spew had to close the Trump thread due to your racist musings. Then you brought them in here. What did you think was going to happen exactly?
do you agree that my claim "we don't need to discuss the reasons why" those outcome exists, in the context of the argument i was making, wasn't racist at all not even in the slightest, not even vaguely, not even tangentially? it was just a logic argument related to the fact that the reason(s) for those gaps are completly irrelevant to discuss the contribution of state policy to those gaps IF those gaps exist both in democratic and republican states.
A very reasonable, normal, logical take that no
I think you knew that insisting to stress the issue would likely catch you a ban.
I think there is a time and place for every discussion and it’s been proven time and time again that this is no place for many discussions
It was worth a shot.
Use your prophet powers, craig
CN,
Watch this clip:
https://youtu.be/NrrPZ3O2jFM?si=bllbKF41...
He is a broken man, but she brings him to life through her belief in him. She is the Divine Female, and a piece of her exists within you.
It’s less than 5 minutes. Don’t think just watch it, go.
CN,
Watch this clip:
https://youtu.be/NrrPZ3O2jFM?si=bllbKF41...
He is a broken man, but she brings him to life through her belief in him. She is the Divine Female, and a piece of her exists within you.
It’s less than 5 minutes. Don’t think just watch it, go.
My brother in Christ, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much success do you think your attempts at proselytising atheists on this forum are likely to meet? Peace be upon you.
Wasn’t there a Karen read thread about the case?
goat car chase move
CN,
Watch this clip:
https://youtu.be/NrrPZ3O2jFM?si=bllbKF41...
He is a broken man, but she brings him to life through her belief in him. She is the Divine Female, and a piece of her exists within you.
It’s less than 5 minutes. Don’t think just watch it, go.
I watched this, meditated upon it, and I am now a Christian. Thank you, and God bless.
My brother in Christ, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much success do you think your attempts at proselytising atheists on this forum are likely to meet? Peace be upon you.
TEN
if I'm any indication, anyway
I watched this, meditated upon it, and I am now a Christian. Thank you, and God bless.
TEN
if I'm any indication, anyway
Next, become a Non-Christian:
Spoiler
The older brother is the Christian. The younger brother is the Non-Christian.
The older brother represents the firstborn son and rightful heir. The younger brother is the rejected one, an afterthought destined for hell.
There is nothing the enemy fears more than when the two brothers take on the identity of the other and unify. The enemy panics and uses bribes in order to transform the unified two back into the singular firstborn.
A house divided cannot stand, but if the two make peace in the same house, mountains can be moved.
If you feel resistance to the Christian story, then you know the younger brother.
ItÂ’s a miracle for the Non-Christian to will his way through the resistance and navigate through the story. Life counts on this miracle.
A Non-Christian must self identify as Non-Christian.
A ChristianÂ’s primary relationship is with their understanding of Christ; A Non-ChristianÂ’s primary relationship is with the self.
A Non-Christian takes the Christian story seriously and holds it as potentially true but has at least one foot outside of it.
The Non-Christian has an intimation that there is only one story which endures, and if he wants his loved ones to live across time, then he must figure out for them how to unite with the one story.
Being a Non-Christian means you acknowledge that navigating through the Christian story is required in order to pass through the great filter.
It means you realize the Christian story is not optional.
The common person has no category for the Non-Christian who truly lives a high faith life. The two might as well be different species.
