I'll briefly address jalfrezi's comment, as it ties into trolly's as well.

Im not sure why you would think being an ex Army guy would make any difference in moderating a discussion about a conflict in the ME or anywhere else. Mods enforce forum rules. But in my particular case, my military experiences probably enhance my ability to see all sides. I've lived or worked in about 35 countries around the world, including ME countries. The PSYOP Battalion I commanded had responsibility for the ME, the Horn of Africa and the Asia Pacific regions. Since PSYOP products require an indepth knowledge of cultural aspects of populations we had teams of analysts and Phds, mostly native residents of the key countries in each region. I have had much more exposure to the cultural issues underpinning various regional conflicts than the average military person.

So in my particular case, my experience in the military is likely a positive thing. But as I said, none of that is really required to mod any topic in politics.

This ties in to Trollys first question about whether I had ever met any Palestinians or people from other ME countries. The answer is yes. Dozens. Ive worked in country with military and government personnel of several ME countries as well as have known many who live in the US. And they were all great people. No question about it. My moderator decision about the post in question had nothing to do with my personal opinions of Palestinians.

But Trollys point about having wonderful Palestinians living in various communities in the US has nothing to do with my post or decision either. I specifically addressed that when I wrote that while the negative adjectives were mentioned irt the Palestinian people, it is clear from the context of the post and the discussion that it was referring to the Palestinians living in Gaza, not the worldwide Palestinian population.

As to the racist term, Palestinians are not a race. Arab is not a race. So if someone wants to raise the issue of whether other categories of people should not be stereotyped that's fine. But calling someone a racist clown for the sentence in the quoted post is just a misuse of the term. That's all I was pointing out irt to race. But as I said, that wasnt really the major point in my post.

The issue, from a moderation perspective, is that the first response to someone who you believe makes an extreme statement about a group of people is to rebut the statement rather than to call someone racist, a bigot, a transphobe, etc. Are the Palestinian people in Gaza too radicalized to peacefully accept a governing force from another country? Are they radicalized at all? Does believing Israel should be eliminated as a country mean you are radicalized? If a civilian population has done nothing to overthrow a terrorist group that controls them, are they in anyway complicit in their violence? Is any population that elects a government thereby complicit in that governments actions if they dont take extreme measures to stop them? Is the population of Israel in any way complicit in the massive number of deaths caused by their government and military?

These are sensitive topics that would make for spirited discussions that could likely get heated. But those discussions should take place, in the topic threads. And the response to a comment you disagree with should never be calling someone a racist, nazi, transphobe, etc. That adds nothing at all to the discussion.

Trolly's ban was simply for violating forum rules by calling someone a racist clown, within a day of me highlighting that such comments were not allowed. It doesnt matter if you believe that person is a racist clown, any more than you believe someone is a ****ing moron, or the stupidest person on earth, etc. attack the argument not the person.

And Trolly, you are very mistaken to think I don't like you. Though if you continue to call me bowser I might change my mind. I welcome everyones feedback, whether positive or negative, and I consider it all. I don't categorize posters into those I like or don't like; those who like my modding style or not; or whether someone is left or right on the political spectrum.

Sure, I have my own personal political leanings, but it doesnt affect my mod decisions at all. I don't care who wins our forum fights; I just want a fight that follows the rules of our game.

very balanced - browser was a purple gunner

We should ban people who call defending your nation genocide

we should ban the people who love that babies are being killed daily. oh wait, then I would be talking to myself.

Basically what you already do all day on these forums.

lol, more completely unhinged racist lies, great stuff:

Is there anything more unhinged than literally only posting about how bigoted other people are? Why can't you just address this in that thread?

What are you asking us here? Collect your thoughts and try again.

Since you have trouble comprehending even the shortest posts, let me break it down for you.

The first question was a rhetorical question. You see, the purpose of a rhetorical question is to make a point rather than ask for an answer. In this case, I am using this rhetorical device to call you unhinged due to your obsessive compulsion to constantly post about other people's supposedly bigoted posts, to the point that you do not post anything else of substance in this forum . The word "unhinged" is defined as "highly disturbed, unstable, or distraught." So to summarize, your incessant need to point out that you don't like other people's posts, and no other forum activity on your part, points to a highly disturbed and/or unstable state of mind.

The second question was not a rhetorical question. I am asking why you have to bring drama from another thread into this thread. You clearly could have addressed this in the other thread, but chose to bring it here. Obviously the reason is because you are calling for bans of people that do not hold the same opinions as you. Still, seeing as you just came off a ban for the same exact behavior, and then doubled down immediately, it is strange behavior for a long-time poster to continue the offending behavior that got him banned just a few days ago.

Have a nice day!

I'm not really convinced that accusing people of being unhinged, disturbed, and unstable is much better than accusing people of being racists.

Or transphobes.

I’m bringing concerns about the moderation into the thread that’s specifically for moderation issues, not sure why this is confusing to you.

Not a bad idea IMO, because I'm sure I'm not the only one sick and tired of Victor and this nonsense. I mean, apparently now it's everyone in the forum that loves babies being killed daily.

You're idiots for not having him on ignore

Nope. But that certainly is a choice we have.

Victor is only allowed to post because you have like 7 active posters. It's a business decision.

Yes every single person. A totally reasonable understanding of that post.

Yeah, the commission we mods get every time he posts is much higher than the commission we get on other posters. And the posters we ban are the ones we get docked pay every time they post. Business is business.

As far as the baby thing goes, his argument is fairly straight forward (and tiresome) and goes something like this:

I put that in a quote box not to suggests those are his words, just to separate it from my commentary.

Now, I don't agree at all with this "logic train" ( if one would even call it that at all). And I think that the continual reference to baby killing in places it doesnt pertain is approching the trolling stage where I will need to take action.

But what hasn't happened, as far as Ive noticed, is a substantial rebuttal of his logic chain. Lots of people say no, I support Israel but not baby killing. And that's great. But I havent seen anyone lay out the case that you can say you support a country's war effort but selectively exclude certain war activities. Particularly in the case of the Israeli bombings, which is a major, if not THE major prong of the war effort. So how can someone say they support Israel's war effort but say they dont support the bombing?

There is an argument to counter this line of thinking. But Im not going to make it. That's up to the other posters to do. Engage in the issue. Point out the flaws in his logic. Make the case that support for Israel is not the same as support for the killing of babies. Of course it can go both ways. Make the argument that supporting Palestinian freedom is not the same as supporting Hamas killing civilians and babies as well.

So as you can tell, as distasteful as this strikes so many people, I dont consider it a name calling issue. I consider it an argument to be rebutted. If no one wants to rebut it, and delve into the topic of whether countries or individuals can support a war effort with weapons and intelligence on one hand while claiming they dont support the effects of those war efforts on the other, that would make an interesting discussion. If not, then either ignore the comment or put him on ignore.

I hope people take up the discussion in the appropriate thread. Please dont do it here.

Is it a choice we have? I was under the impression that mods are not supposed to put users on ignore. I've never seen anything official on that though.

I vaguely recall something about mods not putting people on ignore when I first was a mod inB&M. I actually thought it meant that the software wouldnt let a mod do it. But IDK. So if you dont want to see a poster's posts anymore, use the permaban instead. Thats what I do.

According to the above logic, anyone who supported allied retaliation bombing of Germany in WW2 also loved baby killing.

And that Hitler guy was a real jerk, but at least he didn't hide in hospitals, using sick babies as shields.

Of course, because it is the literal meaning of that post.

Yes, it's obviously rhetoric on your part, but the same rhetoric over and over again is really boring, and completely ineffective now.





That wasn't an all-inclusive we. Ideally, mods shouldn't put users on ignore, and this is more important when they post in forums you mod. Kind of hard to moderate posts/posters you can't see.

I'm actually not a moderator of any forums now (aside from a couple of pretty quiet forums that were without active mods which I recently added myself to), so it's not important for me. That said, even as admin it's probably best that I don't, and it's never been my approach anyway, as I figure we can just scroll on by. In my 17+ years here, I've only put one poster on ignore.

In the software, it's the other way around - regular posters can't ignore mods, or at least that was the case in the past.

So go into the topic threads that it applies to and point out the flaws to that position over there.

It's a complex and nuanced issue, because it revolves around the concept of greater good or lesser evil. It ranges from launching a cruise missile in a small scale attack targeting some key enemy leader but knowing a few civilians in the building will be killed as well to the hundreds of thousands killed in the carpet bombing and nuclear bombs used in WW2. Is it a sliding scale where some number of deaths is acceptable but after that it isn't? When a country is at war, does the concept of innocent civilian even still apply? Or is that a throwback to a time long ago where military combat was pretty much conducted on battlefields away from populated areas?

Lots of layers in this onion waiting to be peeled.

Thanks.

Im so hungry I could eat a horse

thats not really my argument. its close enough but some of the premise is off. so ofc there are logical flaws in that argument. but not in mine.