Donk. If you read my post and still dont think I answered your questions then there is nothing else I can say to make it any clearer. So I wont be spending anymore time trying. Perhaps rather than continue with your ridiculous conspiracy theories about me somehow knowing the owners, why dont you answer a simple question of mine. Why are you so outraged about posters who refuse to stop personally attacking other posters getting posts deleted or temp banned? Is it your opinion that we should just ignore that particular rule? Do you believe that allowing the insults and name calling to go unchecked will actually improve this forum? Ironically you name the single poster that I have received more pm's and posts demanding I ban him than any other as a poster key to the health of this forum.

Only the owners can make that rule change. Almost all post reports we get are from posters informing us that they have been inappropriately attacked or insulted, or complaining that we didnt take strong enough action against those who did the insulting. So I really dont know what you are looking for. Are you suggesting you want the "attack the argument not the person rule" to be rescinded?

PS. After your long day in court I hope the jury finds you not guilty.

No idea where you came up with this, but...no.

how long would I get banned for this post? how long will gs get banned? how long would I get banned if I responded in kind?

You may not have seen some of the posts itt bc of your ban, but we dont address hypothetical actions or actions on other posters other than to announce bans when given. Every situation differs bc posters previous mod actions usually differ. So I wont be answering your questions now.

But when I have a chance I will review the post you quote as well as others leading up to it to get the context of the situation. After assessing that, a mod will make a determination of the appropriate action, which would likely differ from action against you unless you had a similar history of mod actions.

Also, you'll usually get a faster response if you use the report post function bc we get an email when a post is reported.

gs3737 has received a 2 day temp ban for personal insults to another poster

I understand that, but I was just curious on what sort of language is allowed. For instance, I have been warned about using the term ignorant to describe posts even when providing ample citations to educate. in this case, I was just curious if "delusional" was approved. didnt really want gs banned or anthing.

similarly, would this language be allowed when describing any group other than Gazans?

like, change "people of Gaza" to people of USA Russia Israel Iceland Judaism Islam Christianity etc and is it ok to express such a sentiment?

I write this with all due respect (bc I'm a big fan who thinks you genuinely care about this place) - given that entire exchange, that this was the comment worthy of responding to says a lot about what the forum has devolved into.

in the spirit of the thread, I'll frame this as a question - do you agree with the active mod policy that name-calling is ban worthy but being racist (literally at this point) is not? do you agree that name-calling is the thing that makes the forum unwelcoming/unreasonable/unreadable or whatever other bad things become of forums and worthy of moderation, while espousing racist viewpoints does not?

to save us all some time, let's please not do the "report the post" thing. if forum policy, which is what we're asking about, allows these guys to be here at all, the posters who engage them do not want them banned and will not report anything (myself include). but to then moderate as if calling a spade a spade is more detrimental to the health of the forum than actually being a spade seems backwards.

Id be curious to see whom you determine are racists and why ? Or Like Lucion says what you determine to be a racist post and have some discussions around that

As I said, we are not going to engage in trying to preapprove or disapprove some master list of words or phrases. It just doesnt work like that. It's almost always a gray area where the context matters, and which of the multiple definitions most words have seems to be the one being used.

Rather than try to keep probing the limits of how far you can go insulting people, you might try making your points without the attempts to denigrate the other side. You post a lot of comments that some other posters find offensive, but you also post source material to back up your comments. Many believe it is from biased sources and is factually incorrect and is just propaganda. But they have an opportunity to rebut your comments or offer alternate sources that contradict yours. That's the nature of political discussions.

But then you tend to add gratuitous comments either directed at the poster or the group of posters collectively, or add unnecessarily inflammatory language in critiquing their comments. Since that is a judgement call by the mods, if you continue that approach you will likely end up over the line again. Its not, to use a US football analogy, not a call like being Out of Bounds, where you either touch or dont touch a bright, white line. Its more like pass interference, where the referee has to make a judgement call if the contact reached a level to warrant throwing the flag or not.

you are making **** up. show a single post where I have done what was alleged since your initial bullshit ban 3 weeks ago.

anyway, good to know that this is acceptable posting.

I mean, we already knew that, but its nice to have it on record.

lets not play games. the reason you do not want the posts shown here is bc it would display your double standards and display some of the more heinous posts on this forum.

it also allows you to make broad accusations that are impossible to refute to their nature.

This is not a hill you want to die on trust me.

Though you addressed this to Bobo, I'll answer it because you have mistaken Bobo's response as coming from a mod in this forum, which he is not. That's why you don't see his name listed under the moderator listing at the bottom of the forum home page. But people confuse that because he has a blue name. Bobo is an admin, and as such has incredible powers, but he doesn't get involved in this forum mod decisions unless asked by a mod.

So, his comment only addressed the specific conspiracy theory claim that I had some sort of special relationship with the site owners or management. I dont, and his answer was given as a part of that management team that does regularly communicate with the owners. Bobo respects the fact (unlike many posters whose posts below this will be deleted shortly) that its up to the mods to respond to questions asked of mods. That's why he only addressed that particular subject.

Just to clarify, you seem to be saying that you do not think the forum policy should allow these guys to be here at all, but dont want them banned, which is the mechanism for how the site stops people from being here at all? That seems contradictory.

While you want to waive away the post report process, it's important to understand that moderation decisions are based upon what people POST, not what anyone believes they ARE. No one actually knows anyones true beliefs on an anonymous internet forum. People are free to, and often do, adapt internet personas that may bear no resemblance to their actual personality or beliefs. I may, irl, be the least nice guy you could imagine. So anyone who thinks "browser is a nice guy" is basing that solely on what I post.

Likewise, the forum is the sum of its posts. So calling someone a racist, or whatever other term, doesnt really change anything. And some posters take great offense, believing their opinion is not racist (or transphobic, etc) and the name calling is not just insulting but inaccurate. So by reporting posts you believe violate forum rules, you start the review process.

So again, if you could clarify what it is you are actually asking for, that would be helpful. Do you want posts you believe are racist, etc deleted, but the poster not banned? Or the racist (in your opinion) posts not deleted, the poster not banned, but you want to be able to respond by calling him a racist?

browser would you ban someone if you knew 100% he was really racist , or transphobe, or whatever other label the left typically uses to describe everyone that disagrees with them?

really appreciate the thoughtful reply. don't have time atm to answer in kind to everything, but I will just quickly say to this point that it's not wizardry to identify people for who they are (politically) given the positions they take on the issues under discussion in the forum. it's all about the posts.

will give some more thought to what you've said though

No. What someone is irl really has no bearing on anything. Irt bans in this forum, its all about the posts. For example, a person may believe irl that all transgender people are mentally ill. If I somehow knew that about him, but he never posted that because he knows its against forum policy, then of course no ban would result.

I quoted these so I can use them to illustrate a couple of points after I delete them.

First, I think pointing out grammar errors on an internet forum post is really silly. Auto fill in often completes a different word than the one I'm thinking of, and I don't catch it. While I know the difference between your and you're, my ipad at times does not. I often just don't care enough to go back and edit it. And since probably 99% of the posters here read by subvocalizing the words in their heads it sounds the same anyway.

If all you have to rebut someones argument is a grammar error, your position must be awfully weak. As our forum guidelines state, condescending remarks like that should be avoided. They don't add anything useful to the conversation.

The other thing these posts illustrate is how quickly the mod thread can get clogged when other posters chime in on questions directed to mods. If allowed to remain the number can grow to 50-100 posts in a day.

Oh, no! Whatever shall we do?

Put that stuff in the general thread and talk about it all you want. I don't know why, when someone asks a mod a question, that so many posters feel like they need to answer that question. I guess while no one wants to step up and volunteer to be a mod, they like to play one instead.

I noticed you deleted my post that had a question so Ill just ask the question

Is this ok ?

Don't know what you think I'm making up. I made comments on your overall posting style and suggested ways to avoid ending up with further mod actions. You are seeking black and white answers to a gray area. You've been back from your ban for what, two whole days and that's the only window of your posts you think I should refer to?

I don't follow at all your comment about me deleting posts itt to hide heinous posts. I was referring to posters chiming in on questions posed to mods, and then going back and for with each other. Those posts tend to be banal or content free, but rarely heinous.

The post I deleted was your response to luckbox, which again illustrates the problem for mods identifying actual mod requests in the middle of back and forths between other posters.

No it's not ok. But I see you reported that post just about 2 hours earlier and then put in another report 90 mins later saying you were still waiting for mod action. It just doesnt work that way. Modding isnt a realtime process. It can be many hours or at time a day or two before a mod will see and take action on a post. So just bc you see a post up a few hours after a report hardly means it is acceptable.

I didnt say anything about you deleting posts.

I said that you dont want to be questioned on posts like chillrob's bc it would expose the double standards that you use.

yes obv. how many times are you gonna punish me for posting at about 10% of the vitriol that is thrown at me?

I would be happy to discuss the subject but it is not me that starts these personal critiques. I am running through the older posts and it looks like this forum spent a lot of time discussing me in particular and spreading a lot of lies about me. ofc I am not allowed to respond to that.

I mean, its so bad that even Crossnerd who has hated me for many years (some of them deserved) even noticed it and criticized it.

anyway, it should come as no surprise that the poster who was proven to be gaming the report feature with ludicrous reports and who has called others posters pedophiles on at least 3 occasions and who hates Gazans more than anyone and doesnt care if they are killed is untouchable.

Thanks.

That I chose to reply only to that post is indicative of nothing more than the fact that I was included in the "accusation" (I'm the closest thing to non-owner management on this forum), and was one of the best able to answer the question. Since I'm not a mod of this forum (and have no interest in being one as I think I would be poor at it), I try not to interfere in the moderation, and don't comment on it all that often.

That said, I don't want to ignore the rest of your well-thought out post. From my own observation, I've seen both insulting and racist posts that have been moderated, just as I've seen posts of both types that were not, which of course usually depends on degree. Perhaps I should broaden racist to bigoted though, since I don't see racist posts all that often, likely because I don't read the threads that seem to get the most complaints about racism (Israel-Palestine and Ukraine), simply because from the beginning they seem to be nothing more than people entrenched in their positions endlessly arguing. I suppose that's true for most threads here, but I've just found it more extreme there. What I see more often are transphobic posts, most of which have been moderated the way I would hope for. Of course nothing is ever perfect in modding.

So no, I wouldn't agree that "name-calling is ban worthy but being racist (literally at this point) is not", but I know that isn't stated policy, nor have I observed it being practice.

You said I didnt want posts shown here, which came after I made a comment about deleting posts, so I thought that's what you are referring to. I didnt delete your post quoting chillrob, so I don't know what you are talking about there.



The "untouchable" one received a ban for the pedophile remarks. I guess our definition of untouchable differ.