Topic: Consider banning politics

[Madiel]

I'm not going to debate the politics of reparations with you here. (1) It's inappropriate to do it here. (2) I'm not seeking to change your view (no matter how misconceived I think it is). (3) I doubt I could change it anyway.

I'm just trying to deliver you insight as to why someone else might have seen your post in a quite different light.

I think I've said all I have to say on the topic.

[greg]

I'm just trying to deliver you insight as to why someone else might have seen your post in a quite different light.

Much appreciated.

[Florestan]

Madiel, you haven't read greg's post (neither have I) but I suspect you haven't read amw's either. Here it is:

These days I think most of us think the purges by Stalin and Mao didn't go far enough. If Khrushchev had been sent to Lubyanka or Deng Xiaoping had met the appropriate fate in the Cultural Revolution, etc, maybe we'd have a different (and better) world, one in which the permanent destruction of the United States of America would be within reach.

Greg is right. If this post (which is not even a bad taste joke, it's serious --- and actually not the first one along these lines from this poster) is not questionable, then nothing is because the word itself is meaningless.

(For the sake of truth and reason, I had to say it. Sorry for the interruption, guys, carry on.)

[Madiel]

I don't know how much clearer I can be that I'm not interested in the comparison game. There are so many different factors about topic, tone and context that it's essentially valueless.

Plus I'm not a moderator so who the fuck cares what my opinion would be.

[Florestan]

I don't know how much clearer I can be that I'm not interested in the comparison game. There are so many different factors about topic, tone and context that it's essentially valueless.

Plus I'm not a moderator so who the fuck cares what my opinion would be.

Yours not being a moderator did not hinder you from expressing at length your opinions on greg's post, which you haven't even read. Just saying. Over and out for good.

[Madiel]

Yours not being a moderator did not hinder you from expressing at length your opinions on greg's post, which you haven't even read. Just saying. Over and out for good.

Oh FFS. Learn to read. What I am NOT interested is employing the reasoning that if Post X is deleted, Post Y must also be deleted because Post Y is 'worse' than Post X. Not least because I was taught in law school that that kind of reasoning rather than taking each case on its own merits tends to lead to bad errors. Half of the exam questions we got were deliberately designed to catch out students trying to do that kind of comparison and lead them astray.

I'm not going to enter an opinion on amw's post because amw isn't in here arguing endlessly about whether the rules are unfair. And because whether or not amw's post should be deleted is completely irrelevant to the deletion of greg's post. Greg's post is assessed against the guidelines, NOT AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE'S POST.

[Florestan]

I'm not going to enter an opinion on amw's post because amw isn't in here arguing endlessly about whether the rules are unfair. And because whether or not amw's post should be deleted is completely irrelevant to the deletion of greg's post. Greg's post is assessed against the guidelines, NOT AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE'S POST.

You make me break my word but I can't help it.

Here is the relevant guideline:

Any questionable posts will be deleted

The very first word is any, meaning that all posts are subjected to this scrutiny. Now, greg's post was deleted which means it was analyzed and found questionable; amw's post was not deleted which means it is was analyzed and found not questionable. It's as simple as that.

[Que]

For anyone that is directly affected by a moderating intervention and has a question about it or issue with it, I repeat our request to take it up with us  by sending us a private message. This is the general rule, interventions on the USA politcs thread are however the exception. You might be surprised how reasonable we are. And if you are not directly affected, the issue is frankly none of your concern.

It's dissapointing that most opt for the unfortunate path of public drama instead.
This is confusing for the other members that do not have a full picture of what happened. And they are encouraged to second guess the moderators, which serves no purpose other than fueling tensions and bruising relations. Such debates mainly attract those who have a general or personal issue with moderating. The silent majority of those who have no issue, will wisely stay out of it.

I understand: if you are angry with the moderators, you are not interested in a dialogue but you want to put them on the spot. But the rest of the forum is not a jury that will be able to pass an informed and independent judgment in your case against the moderators, nor has it the power to do so. And as moderators we are not at liberty to fully speak our minds or disclose all relevant information, in the interest of the forum and of those involved.


Meanwhile.... proceedings on the new USA Politics thread are running surprisingly smoothly and discussions are conducted in a calm and orderly fashion. 

I concur with the notion that those who object to a more intensive form of moderating, should simply stay out of that thread.

Finally: moderating is not an exact science, and there is a lot of "grey area" we have to deal with, but we try to be as fair and as consistent as possible. But as has been said before: no two cases are exactly the same.

Q