Great my question is when you remove posts were a poster is repeatedly personally insulting someone do you issue them warnings? And if you do how many times can they persist before you give them a short time out (ban)

So I can't comment very negatively on a specific group I very much dislike? Because my comment wasn't on "immigrants", it was very specifically about criminals (it's a crime to enter Italy illegally) entering by boats.

It's surprising that we are not allowed to define actual criminals in flagrante delicto as garbage.

I want to be sure I get it appropriately: any disrespectful comment about *criminals* will get a warning? or it depends on whether the mod reading the comment agrees or not with the laws of the country we are discussing?

Once again, no, you didn't. You said "Garbage coming from boats is never going to make the cut however.", with no context that demonstrated the "garbage" were criminals. So the fact that you were warned about that in no way comments on whether you are or aren't allowed to call criminals "garbage". However, it seems rather bizarre that you have such a pressing need to call people "garbage". I'd say d2 hit it pretty well here:


I've yet to see a forum that has rules that clearly delineates precisely what insults you can call what groups of people, for obvious reasons. But that's up to the mods of this forum, so I'll also bow out of this now.

No, not really. I mean, I'm sure lots of people would agree were you to say that murderers are garbage. All criminals? I hope most people would have a little more nuanced way of looking at things, especially if we're talking about something like refugees fleeing a war-torn country, for example. But that sounds like a discussion for another thread, so I'll leave it at that.

Oh ok so you missed the context of current Italian illegal immigration which is mainly by boats from Libya while there has never been any meaningful legal immigration by boat in Italy.

My fault probably because there is no reason why you guys should know what's going on, but it would have been 100% clear to an Italian reader that I was specifically referring to recent illegal immigrant waves.

So, given that information, am I allowed in the future to use "bad words" when talking about them or other groups of criminals I dislike? Or not?

Btw are you a mod?

Before I delete all the other posts I'll address this again. After the follow up question was asked to a mod there were 21 posts either answering his question or commenting on it. So that's 21 posts that get him no closer to the correct answer because he is asking about mod policy not the forums opinion.

This also illustrates the second aspect of this problem. If another poster posted about a different mod issue needing a mod response we would have to read through 21 immaterial posts to find it. And that 21 is just in a short period of time. On days that a mod can't get to the thread for a day or two the number can (and did in the old mod thread) over 100. We mods just do not have the time to wade through all that to find the posts that actually need mod attention.

This isn't a technology problem. Posters here are accustomed to using the mod thread as a discussion thread. So they fall back on that habit. As the saying goes "organizations and people will continue to do what they have always done, regardless of policy changes, until forced to act otherwise " so I will continue to delete posts as needed.

I left this post because there is a follow up question from luciom and since Bobo while not a technically a mod in this forum has more modding experience than almost anyone and so I won't need to retype his answers.

The post you were warned about said nothing at all about criminals. So if you want to specifically address a comment about that group you need to specify that. No one reading your post would draw the connection you are claiming to have made.

I believe Italy, like many nations, has signed onto various international agreements concerning refugees and asylum seekers, but can't confirm that right now as I'm out. But the single act of getting on a boat and landing on another country hardly qualifies someone as human garbage.

It is always a gray area so you will never be able to get a bright line as to what words you can or can't use in a particular situation. That's why we will often give warnings rather than other actions. Though some statements are egregious enough to warrant going straight to a ban. I'd suggest using terms that more accurately describe the situation rather than opt for the more inflammatory terms.

It depends on the situation, number,if any previous deletions or warnings, level of violation in the deleted post,etc. every case is different. Often when a poster sees their post has been deleted they know exactly why and so the deletion functions as a warning as well. Sometimes a pm explaining why it was deleted is sent. Sometimes a more formal warning is given. So all those things play into a mod deciding what action is appropriate for a particular post or a particular poster.

Flair1939 has been temp banned for two weeks for antisemitic comments and associating transgender with mental illness. Ive deleted most of the posts, though some are still up.

Wsopfinaltable has been tempbanned for one week for continued slurs of transgender people after previous warnings.

So how many insults does jjjou812 get ? Has the individual been warned ?

We dont address individual posters history in this thread, and we only announce bans, not warnings or pm.

A new thread was started on the Republicans causing the US border bill to fail. I moved it to the existing thread on the US immigration crisis.

I dont know what happened to the Ukraine thread. Mods can still see deleted threads but it doesnt show up on my screen. I will look into it and get back to everyone when I find out. It may take some time to unravel this.

What 5 threads on Trans and we couldn’t have that thread on a bill that covers immigration, Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan , Fentanyl .

I have created a new Ukraine-Russia War thread. I posted a detailed explanation on what we think happened in post 1. If you have any questions about that, pls post them in this thread, not the new thread. Save the new thread for actual discussion of the war, not the software glitch.

Thanks.

Is this kind of completely unprovoked posts allowed?

This was in the Palestine thread, and microbet just randomly said that Viktor shouldn't be banned if I am allowed to write because he thinks I am "openly fascist". Not even answering me or talking with me, he just randomly went with this wild, absurd take

Click report post if you think it's hot okay, this thread isn't for asking people to be banned

I am not asking for that poster to be banned, I am asking in this thread about moderation policies, to know if that kind of content is allowed or not

What are the rules as of now for posts like this, while we’re at it?

OK. I was not online yesterday and came back to a robust discussion about individual posters, past offenses they may have committed, whether or not they are antisemitic, facist, nazis, racist, baby murders, etc, non of which pertained to the I/P thread as it all was directed either at individuals personally rather than the arguments, or at modding policies which also dont belong in the I/P thread. I deleted them. If you posted stuff that did pertain to the thread in a post that also included mod stuff or personal attacks, the entire post got deleted.

Several of the posts asked about below also got deleted as inappropriate posts. So while I will make comments underneath various quoted posts, my comments apply generally to lots more posts that were deleted.



No that's not appropriate.

Definitely this. You dont need to think someone needs to be banned to report a post. Report a post if you think it violates our guidelines to the extent that a mod should made aware of it. The mod may decide it's a no call, or delete the post, warn the poster either in a post or by pm, or temp ban them. It all depends on various factors such as previous warnings and bans, level of offense, etc. Do not expect a personal reply to every post report. Its just not practical. And we dont announce things like warnings or other actions short of bannings.

See above.

It's not allowed.

Now, a recap/slash warning to prevent further confusion:

Generally speaking, if the subject of your comment is a poster rather than an argument, you are going to be wrong. So comments saying anyone is racist, antisemitic, etc, etc are not allowed. If you think someone posted a racist, etc comment, then either challenge them as to why you think so, or, if it is clearly such, report it. Dont start the name calling chain going.

Dont critique other posters in any thread. Disagree with them, rebut their arguments, etc. But dont get into the generalized critique mode of "poster X sucks" or etc.

If you got banned for something and you disagreed with the banning, you could have appealed the ban or can start a thread in ATF laying out the case why the big, bad mod unfairly banned you. But if you repeatedly post in other threads about it, or complain about how you got banned and poster Y didnt, then you are trolling with off topic posts and those posts will be handled accordingly. We are never going to compare mod actions against other mod actions as each situation is different and the histories of posters are different.

By and large, if everyone would focus their attention and efforts on discussing the actual topics and less on what happened to this poster or that, things would go a lot smoother. And on the occasion where you believe a mod's attention is needed, then report it. We don't stay up on every post in every thread in real time or anywhere near it. So if you feel the need to comment in a thread that a post is inappropriate, dont make that post. A mod may never even see it. Report it instead.

I think discussion between users about how other posters bring down the levels of discussion and which should be banned is productive and should be allowed to happen somewhere. And I think mods should take the reasons given in those discussions under serious consideration instead of relying completely on their own judgment. It seems to me that most regular posters here would agree with me.

Noted. Not going to happen, though.

What if you knew that every single poster in this forum agreed? It still doesn't matter what the users think? If the mods were able to do a perfect job without user feedback, these kinds of discussions wouldn't keep happening. It should mean something.

It means that mods mod and posters post and if posters feel that a post violates the guidelines they can help the mods by reporting the posts. No one gets banned without first posting unacceptable things. So any (or all) posters opinions on whether a poster is goodor bad really doesnt enter into to it. I get pms saying this guy should be banned but then I look and the person who sent me the pm has never reported a single post by that person. More often then not it is a poster who has taken an unpopular position, and rather than rebut the position, posters start asking for a mod to ban them instead.

So mod decisions are not based on group votes. If you want input into the process, report the posts that violate the rules. And give an actual description of why you think the post violates the rules. That helps the mods make informed decisions. Now, a mod may not agree that the particular post violates the rules. That's a mod call in what is often a gray area.

If there is some particular fact about a posters posting history that you think the mod may not be aware of, then pm a mod. Eg this guy was banned under adigferent account name, or there was some peculiar circumstances that should be considered. That can be helpful, and has been taken into account in earlier decisions. But what isnt helpful arecomments like "this guy messes up threads" or "this guy is anti-(insert group)" but no post reports have indicated that.

As I said previously, I have reported many posts without seeing much happen from it. When a user does that they almost never find out if a mod actually even read the report.

When the same users consistently violate rules without consequence, it will be assumed that either the mods aren't reading the reports or else are hopelessly biased.

People want to know that their complaints are at least being taken into consideration. When they make a complaint in a thread they know at least someone is going to read it, and if it is later deleted they at least know that a moderator has read it.

These discussions are not the problem; they are a symptom resulting from what it many believe to be inconsistent or unfair moderation policies and the terrible ways discussions fall into meaningless, repetitive arguments any time a certain few individual posters enter the thread.