Yes, back to TROLL MANSION.

This is a moderation thread. WTF?

A lot of back-and-forth about the einbert paradox ensues...

Anyway, chez wanted a game suggestion not taking to my suggestion of nudging einy a little bit on twitterstorms until a phenomenon called peak hilarity ensues. AND this is the game I came up with. Oh I could put it in the drink thread. But it does relate to modding. My bad.

Seconded

I'm not getting paid to teach people how synonyms work.

See, an ancap mod would be on the beer standard, or bitcoin at least. I prefer beer.

.

I wonder if the whiners actually think Chez will change his mind? He seems pretty intent on doing things his own way. There are minor issues, but so far it seems fairly decent here.

What is this spew? Juan's post was fairly mundane, my response was a violation of nothing (but an important question in the context of the discussion), and meanwhile a few posts up we have someone spewing hatred of transgender persons.

All I'm asking is for General Pinochez to maybe read the page before he starts arbitrarily deleting posts and before the mods start pretending that they're doing consistent work to keep things PC and inoffensive.

There was no arbitrary deleting. Juan's post was reported and most such posts will be deleted if reported. Replies are also frequently deleted.

Again I suggest (and request) that you report posts you have an issue with.

Cool, how about all those posts where I ask you to explain how linking to brietbart violates the pc rule and you ignore me? I have an issue with that.

Wow, you are really a jackass. I tried to explain something to you and you insult me in return.

Maybe I need to spell it out to you in simpler terms so there is no further misunderstanding. This forum typically has many ongoing threads each with many posts per day. A moderator is not reading each and every post as it is posted in order to make real-time decisions as to whether each and every post is "objectionable".

That would be beyond silly. Moderators have lives. They do not spend 24 hours a day on 2+2. They do not spend 100% of their time on 2+2 in the Politics v7.0 forum. And until recently there was just one moderator (now there are but two).

I have previously explained that the proper term we should be using is "violative", not "objectionable". Objectionable in this highly charged political climate, especially in a forum with both High Content and Low Content threads, has little meaning (or rather is too general of a term). Violative posts merit sanction from warning to deletion to timeouts as they violate the forum's rules in some way.

The typical path by which violative posts come to the attention of the moderators is via post notification reports. When a post is reported, a PM/email is sent to all the moderators of the forum. At their next opportunity, the moderators look into the possible violation and respond accordingly.

Regarding the incident you seem to be upset about, I have already mentioned that many times if a post is deemed to merit deletion, subsequent posts that quote the original post are also deleted as part of the clean-up.

Of course, moderators can and do review posts as they peruse the forum in their normal course of events. It would not be unusual for a moderator to identify posts they deem violative and to then delete them.

In either case, the fact that some other posts that a member may find objectionable are not deleted is not dispositive in determining where the "objectionable" line is drawn. I imagine that this is obvious but maybe it bears stating.

I hope my explanation has been at least somewhat helpful.

Below is the answer. You might not like the answer, but this is the answer. You can ask the same question a million times and this would still be the answer.

Chez, please do something about this post. It violates the rules of this thread afaik. TIA

So if Steve Bannon, an indisputably important and influential person, were to write an opinion piece that he publishes on Breitbart, it could not be discussed or linked to in this forum. Absurd. Can other statements made by Bannon be linked to in this forum? You're just banning linking to anything he publishes on his website?

Breitbart played an important role in the presidential election. Breitbart is an influential and important news source. You are providing a set of guidelines for bigots to make their bigotry less obvious, which is the opposite of what should happen. You're saying, hey, bigots, when you link to Breitbart you're making it obvious what you're all about. Don't do that. Be more subtle. Here's how you do that. Oops, you made another mistake. Don't do that either.

All you are doing is making it less likely for bigots to have their awful views confronted because you're giving them a useful set of heuristic rules to make their posting (not their actual views) less heinous. Not sure about you but that certainly seems to be chez's purpose here. That's certainly the effect.

Not Safe To YT

Also that isn't even an explanation.

You're just saying it violates the PC rule. There is no explanation. Not at all surprising, since the PC rule has never ever been explained at all. Except that you can't say gay or n*gger but you can say ****** or bitches.

You're really realizing the dream of conservatives to make racism and bigotry just a list of words you can't say and sites you can't link to.

It is quite sad that the "non-PC" mods allow the use of the word ******.

Just to see what would happen, I reported what seems like a blatantly sexist post:

And nothing came of it.

It's possible to talk about Bannon without directly linking to his website, as in fact I am doing so right now.

Bitches aren't a vulnerable protected group you ******

Never a rat like Donnie Brasco though, cause ain't no ho in me.

whosnext, thank you for offering the consideration of violative as a basis to qualify content. Keen.

People may cling to their argument and insult habits, what can we say about them?