Moderation Questions

The only reasons I'm still enjoying playing in this sandbox is to be entertained and to be entertaining

I am seldom disappointed.

It is amusing

I listened to an interview with an author a while back and the last questions was, "What would you say to kids who are having a hard time in high school?" and the first part of his response was that it doesn't get better, it gets worse, and the best you can do is try to keep your head down but that's often not enough.

And yet you really didn't like when I quoted you about being here for the lols.
So which is it?

Good question!

I wasn't here just for the lols until very recently.

I have learned that taking anything that is said in this forum seriously to be a poor life choice for me.

That said, could the mods make my undertitle 'Here for the LOL's?'

They didn’t make it Christo-Fascist when you asked them to so why would they do this?

Because some of the mods around here can be quite fickle.

You mean bias

Whimsical and capricious

I might be biased but I've probably doled out 10x the ban hours to lefties

No, I mean fickle.

Listening to people act like it is hard to avoid bans is always amusing.

It can be hard to avoid bans if one has a worldview that is at odds with the prevailing Spirit of the Age.

That is why certain topics are off-limits for me. (Which is fine and dandy like cotton candy now that I am happy just to be amused and to be amusing.)

Actually I didn't like it when you made the following false claim about me:

I've never stated I am only here to troll.

I believe you've said that English isn't your native tongue, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe(d) that "being here for the lols" is the same thing as "being here to troll." But they ain't the same thing.

Come on, man, you were warned time and time again about your homophobia and you persisted. Don't cry victim. If you want to spew homophobic tropes, do it at your church where it's accepted.

it's hard to avoid bans if you are rightwing and agree with trump/maga even on just a part of their platform, and want to argue why.

Which is quite absurd if you think about it. Basically the Weltanschauung of 35-40% of american voters and 20-30% of european voters (depending on the country) cannot be expressed in full and plain language without risking a ban several times.

25% of German people express their preference for AfD for example. Just agreeing with them is against many of the forum rules here (as interpreted by moderation), if you go through the rationale as to why you agree with them.

I have been temp banned for expressing opinions about genetic determinism of human traits in groups that are believed by a lot of people as well (a majority on the right in most countries).

When a mainstream political idea held by mainstream voters of governing parties in first world countries cannot be elaborated upon in full (including full agreement), i think that defies the scope of a political forum.

It's like a political forum bending on the technocratic center-right (or neolib) BANNING people who endorse rent control (or state ownership of companies) just because it fully goes counter their idea of how the world works.

rightwing "extremism" on the climate is allowed here for ex: a person can claim the world isn't warming and he won't be banned for that. That's far far far more extreme as a view (a view held by fewer people in the 1st world) than claiming different races have different median traits for stuff we care about , for genetic reasons. But claiming the latter and elaborating on that is a bannable offense.

Why? because it hurts the sensibilities of the moderators. Simple as that. Well i think a political forum should disregard "sensibilities" and allow all mainstream views (10% + of voters in at least a couple first world countries agreeing with that), no matter how disgusting they feel for some people on the other side, to be expressed, elaborated upon, corollaries been drawn from that and so on.

Notice that ofc i also agree that at the end, owners have the last call. I am just saying what is supposed to be moderated, in the moderation thread.

I'm not 'crying victim' at all. My perma was well-deserved, which I've admitted several times, dum-dum.

And I wasn't 'spewing homophobic tropes', you peabrain.

And my church would absolutely not be happy with anyone 'spewing homophobic tropes', you loony-tuner.

Same as with "racism", or "fascism", or "transphobia", they invented a definition of homophobic that only they use , and no one else, which encompasses everything they disagree with about the topic basically.

Note well that I keep my composure and still try to be humorous even when folks are lying about me.

nice gotcha bro!

Yeah, if. If you're reetarded. No need for your dissertation of bullshit.

If you weren't crying victim and deserved your ban, then wtf were you derping about it being hard to avoid a ban? Fukk outta here with that shiit.

And though I didn't post much then, you were always going off about trans/gays and using the Bible to hide behind. Some weakass shiit.

It's not hard to behave in a way that won't lead to a ban, but there's a good chance of getting one for expressing a viewpoint. I've seen bans just for arguing that a specific viewpoint should be allowed, not even supporting it. So with that, it's hard to avoid bans if one wants challenge norms and express profoundly unpopular viewpoints — not limited to those forbidden in the guidelines, many of which are open to subjective interpretation.

That's one way to say it

What I am about to say should not be construed as a criticism of Rocco, who is actually one of my favorite posters in this Forum.

It's easy for someone like Rocco to not get banned because:

1. The vast majority of his stated views are neither far-left nor far-right.

2. He does not have a contentious posting style.