Insulting things, obviously.

Yeah, I appreciate the time, but the problem with all this is that this isn't the first time the Great General has been told that his arbitrary deletion of posts completely ruins the flow of a thread.

All I'm trying to do is get him to read and think for a couple of seconds before the arbitrary deletions. Neither of the deleted posts I'm talking about (mine and Juan's) seemed to contain much of interest that was "violative", at least relative to the general bile the Great Leader doesn't care about. If he'd read the page at all he could've seen the comments about trans people as "males in dresses" and the rest of the hateful spew, but nope, that kind of stuff gets let go along with all the misogyny and homophobia we see spewed elsewhere.

This isn't new ground for Pinochez. It's been his shtick for long enough to pick up on the banalities of life and then go out to bat for the worst kind of posters. Him spewing gibberish about PC bias while mindlessly cracking down on nothing and protecting the worst offenders is what everyone expected of him.

Seems standard.

Okay, I didn't report this, but my issue is that either the Great General failed to read the page he decided to start deleting posts on, or he read all of this and decided to pick up on the most innocuous post on the page.

But I really am a jackass, so who knows?

Yes, your observation is valid, a mod who is enforcing the rule against ad hominem attacks directed such an attack at you. Standard.

I read this is a !!! thread concerning the mods. Seems they have some !!! to give.

This thread should go back to the /!\.

I just got home and will try to catch up.

1. This is de facto a !!! thread when it pertains to moderation and moderators. So in that environment calling someone a 'jackass' is well within bounds. Chezlaw has been called much much worse.

2. I honestly think some people must be trolling at this point regarding the prohibition of direct links to a specific website. It has been stated numerous times that content from that website can and is expected to be discussed in this forum. Posters will now be required to provide support for their views rather than merely link to a highly questionable site.

3. The forum's PC rule was introduced several months ago. It is fundamental to the current incarnation of this forum. I was not a mod at the time so I will leave it to Chezlaw to say anything more on this forum rule if he thinks that anything more needs to be said at this time.

4. The offensive words "*****" (the nanny starred out the word -- it rhymes with witch and begins with a b) and "******" are not allowed as insults. I cannot believe that this is an issue or controversial. (If, for whatever reason, they were previously allowed, I will discuss this with Chezlaw at our next moderation meeting.)

5. I don't want to mention names but everyone reading this may be able to guess who I am talking about. If a member posts about his offensive views on women or poor people, even though those groups can be considered "vulnerable", those posts would not necessarily be deleted. A post "Women are stupid and are only good for one thing" would be deleted. A post "Women talk too much and that really annoys me" would not be deleted. Of course, there is a huge gray area in which some posts would be deleted and others would be allowed to remain based upon individual mod judgment. This is not perfect but this is the way it is.

6. I appreciate that there is an entire history of posting and modding of which I am not fully aware. In particular, several members have strong feelings about Chezlaw as a moderator and have come to believe that he moderates this forum in a particular fashion to which they object. All I can say is that I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Chezlaw is anything other than a good forum moderator. He was open to my views on moderation of this forum before I became a mod of this forum, and we have agreed on every significant moderation issue that has arisen since I became a mod of this forum. (See below)

7. Relatedly, the moderators of this forum have discussed the issue of deleting offensive posts vs. leaving offensive posts in situ but issuing warnings, timeouts, etc. Deleting the posts has a tendency to interrupt the continuity of the thread. With a fair bit of discussion, Chezlaw and I have agreed to employ the "delete" strategy at the expense of continuity and any ill will towards deleting subsequent posts that quote the original offensive post. Of course, warnings, timeouts, etc., will still be issued (many warnings will be issued privately via PM). Unfortunately, the "delete offensive posts" strategy can appear to have the negative consequence of "protecting" the poster who posted the offensive post. However, the increased issuance of timeouts and bans (of extended lengths upon repeat offense) should have greater impact on the health and viability of the forum.

8. Without getting into any specifics, one of the reasons I became a moderator of this forum was to improve the tenor and quality of the forum's discussion. Obviously, we still have a long way to go, but I think the forum (collectively) has improved to some extent in the few short weeks I have been involved. I will continue to work with Chezlaw to move the forum in that direction going forward.

****** and bitches were explicitly allowed by chez. Of course you are correct that it seems odd that the blacks and the gays are vulnerable protected groups while bitches and ******s are not protected groups. You can see where there might be some uncertainty regarding the pc rule...

So stuff published on breitbart can be discussed but not linked to? What in the world? Why?

My views on women are offensive? Lololololol.

There is uncertainty - it can't reasonably be any other way when dealing with language use. The sanctions for breaking the rules are appropriately guiding and mild until a sufficient degree of certainty and awareness is achieved

I haven't so much explicitly allowed '*****' and '******' as not (yet) taken a decision that they should be outright banned. My inclination is to ban them but I've held back because they are such generic insults these. It's also not something I've discussed with whosnext yet but if he wants to ban them then it's highly likely I will agree.

I suggest anyone who doesn't want them banned start making their case.

And you wonder why there is widespread confusion about your pc rule when the gays are clearly a protected vulnerable group but you're not sure about ******s and punt on a decision for a couple of months.

They are generic terms and if you start banning because people claim "offense", then you'll never really stop banning words. People can claim offense to anything. ***** is literally used throughout slang. If you ban ****** why not ban politard? I find the term "Downy" much more offensive than "******", but maybe that's just me.

It's a slippery slope and once you start down that road it only depends on a person to take offense.

This isn't Europe.

There are quite a few reasons but from a practical modding pov it means that a) Anything nonPC is fairly obvious without anyone having to read the links (that includes helping people to report posts) and b) it prevents quick and easy link type posts.

The guy you called a jackass wasn't a moderator though.

The mentally impaired are a protected group - there should be no confusion about that. There is some uncertainty as to whether the words have become divorced from their nonPC meaning. That's true for sexists terms as well - I try to avoid the word 'hysterical' for example but maybe that's OTT.

So you could quote a lengthy passage from a Breitbart article but you couldn't provide a link to that same article in the same post? That seems totally insane man.

The mentally impaired are a protected group, OF COURSE. You're just not protecting them because ??????????

I can't stop you ignoring the difference between words and the group. You will just have to accept the uncertainty (with or without complaining about it)

In practice I'm not sure it has caused you any big problems has it? - maybe some very very tiny ones.

When it's discussion about the moderation (as that specifically was) then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't go both ways.

Nice.

I don't understand what "the PC rule" or a "vulnerable group" is if you're sure calling someone gay is not PC but you need to think about if calling people bitches or ******s is OK for a few months.

Vulnerable groups are those who suffer from prejudice and discrimination. The PC rule is to make an effort to avoid offense to such groups. The exact implementation is necessarily vague at times because of the nature of language use.

You may just have to accept that you (and all of us) find this tricky at times. As long as you're not getting timeouts without having first been given sufficiently precise guidance on the particular offense then I wouldn't worry about it.

Bro I'm not worried, I'm just pointing and laughing at you because you're acting like a total ****** here. I mean you've made this incredibly vague and inconsistent PC rule the centerpiece of this dumb forum but are completely incapable of articulating it in any sort of logical and consistent manner.

no offense to any vulnerable groups