Okay then in the spirit of post 7205 I am suggesting that you needn't bother. The 600 posts of irrelevance where the thread, that's kind of how a thread works especially when it has no need to stay on the rails as indicated by the presence of the !!!. There's a thread for moderation that isn't a !!! this can be left to do whatever the people posting in it want.

Even !!! threads have to have some sort of distinction from each other. This one serves a very real demand for people to talk/complain about the forum and it's moderation in an unchained way - that demand isn't met by the other moderation thread.

But that very real demand is satisfied irrespective of whether other people are choosing to have a different discussion simultaneously. Like whatever it's your forum I can't say that I give much of a **** about how you choose to mod it but you've created this standard by which people can engage in !!! threads and then it seems to change.

Not many bother with the rules but the bolded bit was in from day 1

It was an issue I was aware of because ages ago there was a discussion about it when, I think JJ, said that a moderated politics forum only needed one unchained thread. My view was, and remains, that people can have as many as they like as long as they have some sort of distinction.

I also disagree that the demand was being satisfied with such a large element of irrelevant conversations. People wont carefully wade through 600+ irrelevant posts, mostly of the same old personal battles many are fed up of elsewhere, in the hope of finding the occasional one that may be of some marginal interest.

Why are you here?

I'm not sure people are carefully anything in forums on the internet and much less so in !!! threads here but it seems you've just taken what you consider a problem for this thread and shoved it over to another thread where it's somehow not a problem.

But as I said whatever it's your forum to mod as you wish.

You're views are very welcome, please don't feel you're interfering in other mods place.

The only problem with those posts were that they were in the wrong thread.

"perceived". Dude, you're a Sandy Hook truther. Lowest of the low.

It aint about you tho.. you dig?


NSFW

In the US, "blacks" is usually fine. It's not formal or anything and there are probably some constructions where it sounds bad, but the post in question was fine, imo.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...a-black-160773

Mostly because my parents rubbed their genitals together a long time ago.

There is more to it than that!

Maybe if you're religious.

Maybe you should start a ****ing sticky with the approved terms that can be used. I thought you conservatards didn't like PC gone crazy, which is what you are doing.

You can't fight chezlogic because there are no rules, he just makes this **** up as he goes and retro justifies it.

This is the Trutherism **** that got you banned last time NQ and should get you banned again.

Why would he be banned for this post?

It's about science.

I'd prefer to not hijack this thread like Kerowo!

He is supporting the idea that no one was killed at Sandy Hook, which is beyond the line of what 2+2 wants on it's site.

I googled some of the terms and ppl's names from one his truther posts. my gawd is that a disgusting theory. its may be one of the worst things Ive ever seen on the internet.

and fwiw, I dont really think the rest of the islamaphobes and supremacists should be banned. but promoting that sh truther garbage should be.

simply put, this site should not be safe space for ppl to link that stuff.

I think it's great that with General Pinochez's PC bias that a thread opening with a celebration of British homosexuals finally getting some justice would get the first response of a couple of alt-righters mocking the idea of an inclusive movement.

Does it bother you at all, Pinochez, that your supposed super liberal slant leads to alt-right bs in every single thread? Even a little?

Lots of things bother me Blades. Particularly about politics at the moment.

Of course. I make the decisions but one of the reasons for moderation threads is that what is or isn't PC isn't some objective fact and it changes over time. For example, if no-one else has an issue with 'blacks' then I will change my decision

NSFW
Yeah that's not going to cut it. The spoiler doesn't make it okay and it's no more acceptable in !!! threads than anywhere else. Final warning not to bring your views on Sandy Hook up again in any thread.

Why are you bringing this up here?

What part is mocking inclusiveness?