Can't post in the politics subforum

I logged in, but I can't post anything in Politics—any idea why?

Scott Rodriguez54, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

That's what pops up when I log in, and I can't even read the Politics subforum!

Per the moderator's decision regarding policy allocation, you have been issued a partial ban on this PDF. I intended to notify you immediately upon implementation, but I was offline at the time while you were active, which caused my delay; please accept my apologies for that.
In short, looking at the volume of infractions recorded just this year, you have accumulated three separate strikes for hate speech. Your participation in various discussions tends toward the aggressive, frequently veering into the realm of conspiracy theories and characterized by the demonization of politics that diverge from your own views. Consequently, it has become impossible to include you in any constructive dialogue with other users.

William Bennett53 said:Based on a moderator decision regarding American politics, you've been assigned a partial rating on that PDF. I really should have reached out the moment this was carried out, but I wasn't online at the time while you were, so I'm sorry for the delay.
Basically, looking at the cards issued just this year, you actually have three hate speech infractions. Consequently, your participation in discussions tends to be aggressive, often bordering on conspiracy theories and frequently involving the demonization of politics that differ from your own views. Because of that, it’s just impossible to include you in any constructive debates with others.

That username has been on the forum for 8 years, and they've put up 11,200 posts. And now, they've received a partial—which seems to reflect their overall contribution (they aren't grayed out right now). Out of those three hate speech cards, I saw one that could easily have just been labeled as heavy trolling. I'm honestly curious if the other two are just as borderline and what topics triggered them? If all three happened within a single thread in a short window, then the decision feels very rushed. To put it bluntly, quite a few forum members are saying the same thing. Should we expect that moving forward, there will be ongoing assessments of whether veteran users are capable of joining constructive discussions?

I realize this might come across a certain way, but here is the reality of the situation...
The subforum moderators are actually doing this constantly (every single subforum moderator, specifically within Politics). I don't have the exact count of how many users have been partially banned on hand, but it is certainly dozens. To put things in perspective, the Politics section alone has 3.36 million posts—and that doesn't even include the individual threads or election discussions that eventually get moved to the archives. It is a massive section. Just to give you an idea, there are more posts here than in both Sports and ZK combined. Right now, following the recent surge in activity, there are 273 active users in Politics. That thread regarding immigration opened on September 13th and has already been closed and replaced by a successor thread simply because it hit the technical limit of 10,000 posts.
My point is that moderation is forced to resort to these types of measures when other methods fail to yield results, and there isn't much else that can be done. In fact, during that recent debate about the threats facing men, the users themselves argued that if you can't deal with certain trolls, it's better to just remove them rather than shut down the entire discussion.
As for partial bans, they are primarily used as a tool for long-term members. A newcomer typically receives a permanent ban under these circumstances instead.

I’ve been following Scott Rodriguez54’s posts for years now. We’ve gone head-to-head more times than I can count—our views are basically polar opposites, especially back when we used to clash over everything involving Iran. But even as his most dedicated critic, I never, ever thought I’d say this about him.

You’re a real loose cannon, Scott Rodriguez54. 😉

Scott Rodriguez54 writes how he writes; in my opinion, his tone comes off a bit rigid and dogmatic, but that’s about it. It’s not like I’m printing out and laminating his posts or anything, but as a fellow member, I’d say I’ve never seen him derail a thread through trolling (I mean, we all troll occasionally, but you know what I mean). His posts haven't made a topic unreadable or disrupted the flow of conversation. I haven't seen him insult anyone either, and besides, people have been debating the definition of hate speech at the UN lately anyway—some decisions seem pretty subjective, even though I thought I had a clear grasp on the term. We're all learning as we go, including him.

Furthermore, during that recent discussion about the vulnerability of men, some users actually suggested that if you can't deal with a specific troll, it's better to just remove the individual rather than shut down the entire thread.

That seems like the right way to handle moderation, if someone is putting an entire thread or document at risk. In Scott Rodriguez54's case, that isn't really happening. There is one username over in politics that is basically designed to be a troll; everyone knows they are just messing around. Every single post from them is like that, so I guess they get a pass for being consistent. So let them be—if other members aren't complaining about them like in the quote above, then maybe some people find them funny, and new users might get caught up in it once in a while, and that's that. Clearly, the document is robust enough to withstand them, so I suppose it can certainly handle Scott Rodriguez54, who isn't a troll.

Linda King said:That’s how partials should be handled—if someone's being a nuisance, why kill the whole thread or the entire PDF? But apparently, that’s not how things work with Scott Rodriguez54. There’s this one user on Politics who exists solely to troll; everyone knows it. Every single post is a joke, and he somehow gets away with it because he's "consistent." So let him stay. If people aren't complaining about him like in the quote above, fine—maybe some find him funny, maybe newbies get sucked in, whatever. Clearly, the PDF is tough enough to handle him, so I guess Scott Rodriguez54 can survive too, since he isn't actually a troll.

Let's call it what it is. Look at the user USAisfredom. I reported him twice for trolling in just the last few days, and yet, nothing. No punishment.

It's an obvious troll account, and instead of banning him for good, they go after Scott Rodriguez54.

Believe me, if I were actually defending Scott Rodriguez54, you'd know it.

* Seriously, he’s the textbook definition of a troll, not the kind of stuff people usually get yellow cards for. If anyone’s confused about what trolling looks like, just read his posts.

rustywalker42 said:Let's call a spade a spade. I've reported USAisfredom twice for trolling over the last few days, yet somehow, I don't see any actual consequences being handed out...

I won't get sidetracked by everything else, but regarding this particular point, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the idea that "no punishment is visible," considering USAisfredom is currently banned, and that marks the third time in an incredibly short window...

He was banned yesterday afternoon, so it’s not like it just happened...

lonebadger6 said:I won't get sidetracked by everything else, but regarding this? I don't get the whole "I don't see him getting punished" thing. USAisfredom is banned, and that’s his third time in a ridiculously short window.

(He's been banned since yesterday afternoon, so it's not even like it just happened)

OK, I was on my phone until now, so I missed it. Whatever. This guy needs to be kicked out entirely because every single one of his posts is pure trolling, not Scott Rodriguez54.

Big thanks to my fellow forum buddies for having my back! It’s pretty obvious the mods' fragile egos couldn't handle losing a few debates to me and some other folks over the whole immigration mess, so they just decided to kick us out instead.

I've been posting my way through this site for eight years now, so honestly, Dorian's little explanation is a joke. Does anyone actually buy that?

The bans they handed out are totally baseless—clearly just a move to silence me because they already made up their minds.

It sucks that the forum chose to stifle free speech like this. I'm genuinely worried this is just a preview of what's coming, and I'm not liking it one bit. Today it's me because I'm talking about the risks of illegal immigration and the Islamization of America, but tomorrow it'll be someone else. By the time we realize what happened, we'll be living in a total totalitarian society.

I see Scott Rodriguez54 posting a lot lately, and just like rustywalker42, about 99% of the time he’s saying the exact opposite of what I think. Still, I respect him because he doesn't sugarcoat anything just to make people feel better.

I actually find that style useful. When you get into an argument with him, you don't have to deal with petty jabs or wasting energy trying to figure out what he's actually getting at—he just says it, even if it's uncomfortable. Honestly, American politics would be a total mess without guys like Scott Rodriguez54 or other blunt posters on this forum. If I wanted to be dramatic, I’d say that as his political opponent, I feel insulted that the mods think I need "protection" from his way of debating. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I know this post probably won't change much, but I felt the need to get this off my chest.

Two things... I wasn't the one who handed out the ban to Scott Rodriguez54; that was handled by the Politics moderators. And since the decision has already been finalized according to standard procedure, he can look into appealing for leniency in at least six months.

While I find myself at odds with Scott Rodriguez54 more often than not, I feel compelled to point out that he is an engaging and remarkably civil interlocutor who refrains from insults or aggressive posturing toward those with differing views. He possesses a certain idiosyncratic flair that we have all grown accustomed to, which rarely causes any real friction.

I kindly request that the moderation team consider granting him clemency 👍

William Bennett53 said:Two things... I didn't ban Scott Rodriguez54, the politics mods did. And the call is final, per the usual rules—he can ask for a pardon in at least six months.

Honestly, you guys should be begging me to keep posting! I'm basically giving you all this free content for the forum and posts that people actually engage with. When people are reading and replying, your click rates go up and you sell more ads.

I have no clue who or what you're so scared of when it comes to letting me write. From what I can tell, the users aren't complaining about me at all. I just hope you guys are getting paid well for steering public opinion in certain directions.

If not, someone needs to get fired ASAP—starting with those politics moderators.

That moderator could have actually shown up in this thread and explained the reasoning behind their decision.

William Bennett53 said:Two things... I didn't hand out Scott Rodriguez54's ban, the Politics moderators did. The decision is final, following standard procedure. He can apply for an appeal in at least six months.

Unanimous? Anyone willing to leak who actually voted for the ban?

And more importantly, why? Politics loses big time here; you guys gain absolutely nothing. I honestly don't get this call. It feels like he was booted just to make room for something newer, especially since none of those Politics mods have been there longer than eight years, if I recall correctly.

I laid out the breakdown of this particular issue in my opening post for this thread. It doesn't particularly please me that certain individuals here disagree with my assessment, but the moderators are well aware of who is being given a pass despite their disruptive influence on the discussion. I could easily pull a few representative posts to illustrate my point, but I find that would be unfair to Kansas; he is already cognizant of his own standing, and my observations regarding the rest of you are irrelevant to him.

In any case, I am closing this discussion. Should Kansas wish to proceed, he knows exactly when and how to request a review of the decision.