Do you think it is a conspiracy where all these posters got together and said we are going to ignore the rules and keep posting off topic stuff in the mod thread or do you think each poster came up with that poor decision individually?

And interestingly there have been around 15 posts reports about insults in the last week alone. The standard for when someone reports a post is that the reader believes it is a flagrant enough violation of the rules that it requires a mods action. So that means 15 times in one week forum members wanted action taken. So otoh I've got claims of overstepping our duties while otoh I've got lots of requests to take action, including from some who also say I am overstepping my duties.

appreciate this clear cut response. I have no added "with all due respect" to my text check.

Good call. That phrase is about as valid as a disclaimer as a warning on a Trump financial statement.

Free srm!

guys your posts aren't the biting criticisms you think they are when you screenshot yourself not using dark mode.

I say out the snitches, and we'll deal with them in the streets.

I find the phrase "you are, at best, misguided" can do a lot of heavy lifting when you want to call someone a moron while maintaining civility. Gave up a bit of game there.

All of these post reports due to "insults" are your own fault. You are banning people left and right under the flimsiest pretexts, and that is creating a new culture where people are demanding bans where they never would have beforehand. Example: With the possible exception of JMakin (which was totally justified), I don't remember Victor ever demanding that people be banned before you banned him. You banned him for two weeks for the genocide lovers remark. As soon as his ban was over, he was in here demanding similar treatment of other posters for their jabs against him, which you apparently felt like you must oblige as you went ahead and took the requested actions. You see how that worked out? You ban one poster for two whole weeks over something that is certainly insulting to many, but still not historically ban-worthy, and it cascades into him demanding bans of other users, and then those users demanding bans, and on it goes. After all, if somebody is going to eat a ban in this forum for perceived insults, then it is only fair that everybody else does as well.

I am not saying you are 100% at fault for this. There are certain posters that came into the politics forum after the October attacks on Israel and immediately started demanding bans of people that they didn't like. What you are responsible for is reinforcing negative behaviors that are detrimental to this forum, such as the wanton reporting of insults and people demanding bans for innocuous jabs. There was a time where we would go back and forth with each other and sort this out on our own, and as long as it didn't go too far, it was alright. Now this forum is turning into a bunch of crybabies running to daddy because the big brother isn't playing nice.

In conclusion, if you want people to stop the excessive post reports for nonsense reasons, then stop rewarding people for making excessive post reports for nonsense reasons. You could probably start by not publicly using the reports as justification for your mod actions, as you did in the quoted post above.

Have a great day!

I think we've reached the rinse and repeat cycle in this discussion, so I'll close it with this. Here is rule number one, applicable to the entire site.

This rule was approved by the new owners and reflects the culture they want on their forum. There is no carve out for the politics forum, or for posters who have known each other a long time. It's a pretty straight forward and easy to understand rule. Mods enforce site rules. If posters in politics would simply follow this rule,95% of mod actions would be eliminated and people could just focus on discussing the various topics.

But it is not realistic to expect mods to just stop enforcing the rules because some posters are unwilling or unable to follow them. Ultimately the responsibility falls on the posters themselves to adhere to the guidelines, whether they agree with them or not. All of this noise about moderation can end immediately. Just follow the rules. And if you think the rules should be changed, ask the owners to change them. Before you hit the post button, just ask yourself, per rule 1, "are you attacking the argument not the person" and "is your post kind, or at least civil". If the answer is no (and in almost every case it's obvious) then don't post it.

It really is that simple.

Mods have always exercised their own judgement as to how and to what extent to enforce the rules, as do you. It's just that most regs here disagree with yours.

Dear Browser,

Instead of deleting any of this could you please move all of this discussion including the imperative stuff from last night to a thread called "Pedants discuss language and grammar", where we can house all future discussion?

*Eta looks like you're on it. Ty

Done. It's called The Grammar of Politics Thread

Victor- stop trolling the mod thread. I deleted those posts. You know why you were banned. You dont think you should have been. Fine. You've been told that we are not going to address every possible phrase as to whether something is allowed or not. The I/P thread alone had over 200 posts in it in the last two days. No one, including you, has reported any of those as thinking they require mod action. And I, for one, certainly didnt have time to read every line in every post at all, much less carefully enough to catch every possible violation.

You really need to move on from this.

Thanks

no I really dont think that people should say that I love rape apology.

so the only way I move on is when you admit that there are 2 sets of rules and that any accusations against me personally is allowed, and that I am not allowed to respond in kind nor am I allowed to point out all the insane tiktok videos from Israeli soldiers.

find a partner that loves you as much as BOIDS loves defending genocide

how dare u

Wow Vic totally stole that guy's line!

Victor = not wrong

Well Luckbox with all due respect...

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. You are wrong, though, on two things. One, that there are two sets of rules. And two, that that is the only way you will move on.

Dear Browser,

Am I going to be allowed to respond to this post in any thread?

I think maybe we should start deleting posts like this.

It was a mod question. Although I think we've learned it was an accidental deletion. Just waiting for my deleted post to be restored now.

Excuse me but I didn't equate being transgender with mental illness.

I repeatedly wrote I don't think that's the case, which btw is why it should not be a healthcare issue and we shouldn't pay for it.

I used the word deluded which isn't about mental health. I am not a native English speaker but I know being deluded simply means being convinced of something which is objectively false (and I checked the dictionary which confirms that).

I would like you to re-read the post you deleted and that got me banned to please indicate exactly where I said trans people are all mentally ill, because I didn't.

Otoh I can call a policy insane I hope, even if it's a policy about trans people, without that being read as a claim of mental illness. It's just another word for absurd in that context as it's used by most people.

Please clarify where exactly I equated being trans with being inherently mentally ill because I didn't and I have tens of posts stating quite the opposite.