Moderating the immigration thread

That isn't an immigration issue; it’s a matter of "human character." That’s exactly why those specific links aren't allowed here. If crime rates spike in certain countries like Sweden because they're taking in more asylum seekers, that’s a whole different beast—it's way more nuanced than just saying, "they arrived, and now there's more crime because that's just who they are," but we aren't going to get into all that here... still, things like this don't get deleted; they're a perfectly normal part of the conversation.

The fact that one guy (who might have nothing to do with this current wave of immigrants, maybe he's an asylum seeker from Africa who's been here ten years, or who knows, some people were saying he's mentally unstable) attacked someone with a knife... leaving that up in this context only serves to stir up panic and make people think "the killers are coming."

There have been crimes committed by Americans in Germany, too. I doubt anyone would appreciate it if German forums started a movement to ban us from entering Germany just to prevent those kinds of crimes...

lonebadger6 said:That isn't an immigration issue; it’s a matter of "human character." That’s exactly why those specific links aren't allowed here. If crime rates spike in certain countries like Sweden because they're taking in more asylum seekers, that’s a whole different beast—it's way more nuanced than just saying, "they arrived, and now there's more crime because that's just who they are," but we aren't going to get into all that here... still, things like this don't get deleted; they're a perfectly normal part of the conversation.

The fact that one guy (who might have nothing to do with this current wave of immigrants, maybe he's an asylum seeker from Africa who's been here ten years, or who knows, some people were saying he's mentally unstable) attacked someone with a knife... leaving that up in this context only serves to stir up panic and make people think "the killers are coming."

There have been crimes committed by Americans in Germany, too. I doubt anyone would appreciate it if German forums started a movement to ban us from entering Germany just to prevent those kinds of crimes...

I wasn't trying to dwell on that one specific link; I was mostly talking about posts pointing out immigrant crime in general and how the mods handle that kind of thing.

Personally, I wouldn't even care if Germany banned Americans from immigrating, though it would be a pretty weird move considering Americans are among the best-integrated immigrants over there.
Still, you're right—if they hadn't been let in, none of those crimes by Americans would have happened.

I reported this particular post as a textbook example of trolling—so, I would honestly appreciate some clarity on why no action was taken.
Bradley Sanders4 is actively engaging in the debate, posting within the thread... and, frankly, trolling just like everyone else—except, I suppose, since she holds a moderator position, the rules might not apply to her.
To be blunt—repeatedly insisting that everything is perfectly normal while making such a massive fuss over nothing more than a trivial "pickle season" argument is a prime example of how others are being treated as if they are simply dim-witted.

lonebadger6 said:By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...

Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged

Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once

Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name

How many posts have actually been deleted? Can we get some actual statistics here?

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

Some of these mods—honestly, I don't know where they get their training—don't seem to grasp the distinction between having an actual opinion and just straight-up being offensive or using hate speech... so, what does that leave me with now?

And then there's the moderators—armed with their shears and fabric... just waiting to cut things up...

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

So, you're calling an entire nation—one that sounds pretty much like everything you just listed—a hate state... that's your take? Just like that...

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

...just like those mods who can't seem to tell the difference between having an opinion and actual hate speech...

lonebadger6 said:That isn't an immigration issue; it’s a matter of "human character." That’s exactly why those specific links aren't allowed here. If crime rates spike in certain countries like Sweden because they're taking in more asylum seekers, that’s a whole different beast—it's way more nuanced than just saying, "they arrived, and now there's more crime because that's just who they are," but we aren't going to get into all that here... still, things like this don't get deleted; they're a perfectly normal part of the conversation.

The fact that one guy (who might have nothing to do with this current wave of immigrants, maybe he's an asylum seeker from Africa who's been here ten years, or who knows, some people were saying he's mentally unstable) attacked someone with a knife... leaving that up in this context only serves to stir up panic and make people think "the killers are coming."

There have been crimes committed by Americans in Germany, too. I doubt anyone would appreciate it if German forums started a movement to ban us from entering Germany just to prevent those kinds of crimes...

Why do you assume your perspective is the right one and not someone else's?

Do you actually have evidence for this idea that "it isn't an immigration issue, it's a 'human character' issue"?

And do you have any proof that writing in that manner is what triggers the panic?

lonebadger6 said:By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...

Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged

Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once

Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name

That single instance where I was warned for trolling was actually because of the "pickle season." I was just being sarcastic in response to that unknown's comment, which felt like a troll itself—I honestly doubt anyone actually meant it seriously.

A question for Charles Fox10:
If I were thinking about the intense political climate and the debates happening during this pickle season, and I suddenly decided tomorrow morning that the volunteers eager to welcome immigrants/refugees reminded me somewhat of how Native Americans celebrated Thanksgiving with the colonizers, and I decided to post something like this on a US forum:

"Those volunteers should really look into what happened to the volunteers involved in the Thanksgiving celebrations.", would I get hit with a hate speech warning?

PS
I suppose such a comparison might be a bit much if I wanted to use it tomorrow morning for dramatic effect, knowing full well it isn't actual colonization but just wanting to urge potential volunteers to be more cautious. 😬

Maria Booth said:Man, because of that one totally unfair ban, I was locked out for a whole week. And of all times, it happened right during my vacation! Super annoying, seriously.

I'm dealing with the exact same thing here.
Honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to say the ban was completely baseless, but there's really no explaining it to Bradley Sanders4 since she just refuses to see it—and now the administration is acting like they have the right to ban someone just for having an opinion.

Bradley White73, well, all the better for you... 😉 My point is that nobody’s opinion is actually banned—you see plenty of sharp takes here, but as long as they follow basic civilized standards and aren't fueled by hate, they stay, regardless of what some moderator might think about them. You've got 41 posts and you've only been flagged once for "trolling" or maybe just being a bit too blunt when messing with someone else on the forum—not that we need to debate that right now, since there's an actual process for appealing warnings—but you haven't been hit once for simply having an opinion 🙂

Benjamin Reyes52 — sorry, I'm not sure if I can pull that specific number up even if I wanted to (unless I manually count through all 330 pages 😁), maybe the admins can see it, but who knows. All I can tell you is that there are currently 6,604 comments posted here.

Nathan Brooks4 said:I'm dealing with the exact same thing here.
Honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to say the ban was completely baseless, but there's really no explaining it to Bradley Sanders4 since she just refuses to see it—and now the administration is acting like they have the right to ban someone just for having an opinion.

My bad, on that immigration thread you actually picked up two (not one, my mistake) 35-point infractions. One of those combined with your old stuff from the other boards ended up landing you that three-day ban.

Look, our goal isn't to wipe people out or hand out bans for sport. Honestly, I handed out three yellow cards today to users who probably deserved a full red card—which would have triggered an immediate ban—but instead, I gave them a warning and a private message to dial back the rhetoric... if they keep pushing it, well, that’s on them, I guess.

Take today's comment about the American Government as a case in point... it wasn't because that user is "worse" than anyone else, just because it's a clear example. They called the administration "vile scum, even worse than the Mexicans," which obviously isn't allowed here. After being asked to tone it down, they changed it to calling the move by the Government "shameful and disgusting." That's a massive difference, and it's perfectly fine. We aren't banning opinions... we're just policing the way people choose to express them, which seems pretty standard...

Paul Bishop3 said:So why did you delete my post where I was talking about my experience with a relative living in Germany?

Neither I nor anyone else deleted your post about your German relative. You actually made three posts on this thread: I personally deleted one of them and gave you an explanation as to why, you deleted the second one yourself (which was on the exact same topic), and the third one is right here:

I won't go into anything else; you have all the explanations, including the ones regarding Gerald Rivera17.

@Nathan Brooks4 - even though, as I mentioned, there’s a specific thread for "Ban Appeals," I can tell you exactly why you got flagged. It was for this part: "immigrants, in whom, as has already been proven, there are many terrorists."
Nothing like that has ever been "proven"... those are just offensive assumptions that basically border on hate speech, so you actually got off easy with just a 35-point deduction.

As for the rest, I can only laugh... Like I said, there are over 6,600 comments on this thread, and probably 70% of them—if I'm being modest—are anti-immigrant.

Maybe it would be helpful if we had fewer "conspiracy theories" and more actual, reasoned communication... things like "they are terrorists," "they are going to steal and rape," or "these are people whose only goal is to slaughter Christians with swords" don't really count as arguments...

lonebadger6 said:Neither I nor anyone else deleted your post about your German relative. You actually made three posts on this thread: I personally deleted one of them and gave you an explanation as to why, you deleted the second one yourself (which was on the exact same topic), and the third one is right here:

I won't go into anything else; you have all the explanations, including the ones regarding Gerald Rivera17.

@Nathan Brooks4 - even though, as I mentioned, there’s a specific thread for "Ban Appeals," I can tell you exactly why you got flagged. It was for this part: "immigrants, in whom, as has already been proven, there are many terrorists."
Nothing like that has ever been "proven"... those are just offensive assumptions that basically border on hate speech, so you actually got off easy with just a 35-point deduction.

As for the rest, I can only laugh... Like I said, there are over 6,600 comments on this thread, and probably 70% of them—if I'm being modest—are anti-immigrant.

Maybe it would be helpful if we had fewer "conspiracy theories" and more actual, reasoned communication... things like "they are terrorists," "they are going to steal and rape," or "these are people whose only goal is to slaughter Christians with swords" don't really count as arguments...

you haven't actually provided any proof that your take is more valid than anyone else's on this forum

other than the fact that you're a mod and can basically do whatever you want—just like the rest of the mods...

but you haven't served up a single shred of evidence showing why your opinion should trump someone else's...

Alright people, do you seriously not grasp that correlation between two events doesn't imply that one causes the other?
That settles the debate about more immigration leading to higher crime rates.
Since you're all going to argue anyway, try practicing some basic logical reasoning.

The moderation here is fine, in my opinion.

I am also joining the protest against the abysmal moderation regarding the immigration thread, adding yet another example of how biased this moderation truly is.

It is frankly unbelievable that after a series of protests on this subforum regarding Bradley Sanders4's handling of a similar immigration topic, the administration decided to reward her by giving her even more complex and massive topics to moderate in Politics instead of issuing sanctions.

One particular moderator is extremely biased and inconsistent; she dismantles discussions rather than guiding them with the minimal corrections that her predecessor—who was removed for unclear reasons—used to handle so effectively.

The absolute incompetence regarding this subject is proven by the fact that this post received a mere 35 points for trolling. This specific post from our colleague unknown is a textbook example of a severe rights violation and blatant hate speech, yet it was barely penalized. If we compare that to an instance of hate speech where our colleague Maria Booth received 500 points regarding volunteers, I think it is clear to everyone that the current moderation is completely unprepared for the challenges these topics present.

I remember how the Germans used to call us 60 years ago when we were leaving en masse for Germany—no papers, no trade, no language skills. What a worldview we had back then, and what kind of population was leaving. People from the North America and Herzegovina, in tattered clothes, who had never even seen a TV or a phone in their lives. Let alone basic running water or sewage. These Syrians at least know how to use a cell phone.

North American pigs... You see how quickly those North American pigs got used to soap and toothpaste, and how quickly they shat themselves just because someone might take that same soap and toothpaste away.

Furthermore, I would like to know what qualifications a TV moderator has to handle such a complex subject. The Politics subforum deals with serious matters, and it shouldn't be moderated haphazardly by just anyone. This certain moderator has chosen to follow in Bradley Sanders4's footsteps, so I suggest that if you are going to infringe upon freedom of speech, do it with less shame: simply lock the thread rather than letting it be butchered by a moderation team that, without intending to insult, is simply incapable of handling it.

lonebadger6 said:Bradley White73, well, all the better for you... 😉 My point is that nobody’s opinion is actually banned—you see plenty of sharp takes here, but as long as they follow basic civilized standards and aren't fueled by hate, they stay, regardless of what some moderator might think about them. You've got 41 posts and you've only been flagged once for "trolling" or maybe just being a bit too blunt when messing with someone else on the forum—not that we need to debate that right now, since there's an actual process for appealing warnings—but you haven't been hit once for simply having an opinion 🙂

Benjamin Reyes52 — sorry, I'm not sure if I can pull that specific number up even if I wanted to (unless I manually count through all 330 pages 😁), maybe the admins can see it, but who knows. All I can tell you is that there are currently 6,604 comments posted here.

I don't think I ever said when I started this thread that different opinions were being openly punished. There is almost a consensus here that what's happening is a bit concerning—to actually ban people for their views would be totally grotesque, and then nobody would stick around the thread.
Instead, it seems certain moderators have decided to get really strict about the *way* those opinions are expressed. Like my own sarcasm, or William Kim9's wordplay (which is just how he writes, even on non-confrontational threads, I suppose), or Maria Booth's tendency to exaggerate comparisons to make an impact—all of this is coming from users in this specific thread. Over there, there's a warning just for using CAPS LOCK (Bradley Sanders4), while everything else is written in lowercase. 🤣
And suddenly, all these supposed clones of permanently banned users have been uncovered; everything has gone haywire. I'll go refresh the page, only to find that if a post is shorter than 100 pixels, it just vanishes. And that warning Maria Booth received—500 points for that? That warning actually concerns me because that post is still sitting there with a red flag for hate speech. Users learn from these things; you scroll through, you see it, you stop, you read it, and you learn that a sentence like that is the most strictly punishable offense—two of those and you're kicked off the forum. So, I guess I'd love it if Bradley Sanders4 could explain the reasoning behind that warning and clarify which general rule is being applied here, just so we all know where we stand.

lonebadger6 said:Neither I nor anyone else deleted your post about your German relative. You actually made three posts on this thread: I personally deleted one of them and gave you an explanation as to why, you deleted the second one yourself (which was on the exact same topic), and the third one is right here:

I won't go into anything else; you have all the explanations, including the ones regarding Gerald Rivera17.

@Nathan Brooks4 - even though, as I mentioned, there’s a specific thread for "Ban Appeals," I can tell you exactly why you got flagged. It was for this part: "immigrants, in whom, as has already been proven, there are many terrorists."
Nothing like that has ever been "proven"... those are just offensive assumptions that basically border on hate speech, so you actually got off easy with just a 35-point deduction.

As for the rest, I can only laugh... Like I said, there are over 6,600 comments on this thread, and probably 70% of them—if I'm being modest—are anti-immigrant.

Maybe it would be helpful if we had fewer "conspiracy theories" and more actual, reasoned communication... things like "they are terrorists," "they are going to steal and rape," or "these are people whose only goal is to slaughter Christians with swords" don't really count as arguments...

Can we please use the same standards for Bradley Sanders4's post?

which says:

In terms of economic migration, you have people from Mexico crossing the border near Subotica while pretending to be Syrian. But Europe sends them back.

It hasn't been "proven" or shown anywhere—by your own rules, this is just trolling, which borders on hate speech. I have no clue what people from Mexico supposedly did to deserve being slandered like this.😵

Well, I’m glad you at least brought up that bit about consensus, especially since others are out here claiming the Government is just "liberal indoctrination"... 🙂

Regarding those banned clones, is that supposed to be a moderation error too? Should we have just let them run wild so nobody would complain? Clones have been against the rules forever on every single subforum. Or are you actually suggesting these people are clones? It’s pretty simple... some people who managed to fly under the radar for a while just decided to get loud on this thread and ended up drawing way too much attention to themselves.

As for the warnings, the fact remains that there are very few of them, and there's absolutely no evidence of anyone's opinions being suppressed. Of course, you're free to disagree with any warning you get. But the point is, we aren't handing them out wildly or without control. You asked Bradley Sanders4 why Maria Booth got a warning, so let her explain it... but the reality is Maria Booth left 81 posts in this thread, and she only got one warning. It’s one thing for her to complain about it—she has every right to express dissatisfaction if she feels it was undeserved—but it’s a completely different story to claim that Maria Booth, or an entire group of like-minded people, is being silenced. You even mentioned yourself how much anti-immigrant sentiment dominates the comments. She put up 80 posts that didn't cross the line for anyone...

Nathan Brooks4 said:Can we please use the same standards for Bradley Sanders4's post?

which says:

In terms of economic migration, you have people from Mexico crossing the border near Subotica while pretending to be Syrian. But Europe sends them back.

It hasn't been "proven" or shown anywhere—by your own rules, this is just trolling, which borders on hate speech. I have no clue what people from Mexico supposedly did to deserve being slandered like this.😵

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's even remotely similar, let alone the same, to claim that people from Mexico are "sneaking in" alongside refugees from Syria—which you see in plenty of news reports—and then suggesting there's "proven amounts of terrorists" among those refugees...

lonebadger6 said:Well, I’m glad you at least brought up that bit about consensus, especially since others are out here claiming the Government is just "liberal indoctrination"... 🙂

Regarding those banned clones, is that supposed to be a moderation error too? Should we have just let them run wild so nobody would complain? Clones have been against the rules forever on every single subforum. Or are you actually suggesting these people are clones? It’s pretty simple... some people who managed to fly under the radar for a while just decided to get loud on this thread and ended up drawing way too much attention to themselves.

As for the warnings, the fact remains that there are very few of them, and there's absolutely no evidence of anyone's opinions being suppressed. Of course, you're free to disagree with any warning you get. But the point is, we aren't handing them out wildly or without control. You asked Bradley Sanders4 why Maria Booth got a warning, so let her explain it... but the reality is Maria Booth left 81 posts in this thread, and she only got one warning. It’s one thing for her to complain about it—she has every right to express dissatisfaction if she feels it was undeserved—but it’s a completely different story to claim that Maria Booth, or an entire group of like-minded people, is being silenced. You even mentioned yourself how much anti-immigrant sentiment dominates the comments. She put up 80 posts that didn't cross the line for anyone...

Just to add my two cents—regarding the two warnings I received, both of which I appealed—nobody ever responded except for the person who gave them to me (Bradley Sanders4), and that was only once you spoke up about the second one. That should tell you everything you need to know about how the comment system functions around here.
And from what I've seen in other threads, things get deleted or closed incredibly fast, usually with the admins just siding with the moderators. If you want to talk about "one-sidedness," just look at how often an admin disagrees with a moderator's decision. To any rational person, that should be enough to show that accusing the site of being one-sided isn't just some baseless nonsense.

lonebadger6 said:I wouldn't go so far as to say it's even remotely similar, let alone the same, to claim that people from Mexico are "sneaking in" alongside refugees from Syria—which you see in plenty of news reports—and then suggesting there's "proven amounts of terrorists" among those refugees...

She’s claiming they are smuggling themselves in, which hasn't been proven—and I mentioned that terrorists might be slipping through, which also isn't "proven," even if every intelligence agency is sounding the alarm. It's just not the same thing, right? 😂
Of course it isn't the same when Bradley Sanders4 is the one writing it.
Sorry to bother you all—it seems like any kind of debate here is just a lost cause.
Best regards!