Posts by northernsailor8

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, this was what Kroger wrote in response to a ban appeal. I have to admit, I find this stance somewhat unclear.

So... they issue a ban if someone accuses left-leaning political groups in America of supporting Chetniks.
My question is, does the same rule apply if someone accuses right-leaning political forces in the US of supporting the Ustashe?

Yes. Unless there is clear evidence that it's true (like the Republican Party, for example).

The Ustashe and Chetniks aren't on the same level of accusation in America, where 90% of the population is American and only 4% are Mexicans with just two moderate minority parties. Some more prominent right-wing groups in the US have certain ties to Ustashe ideology, at least indirectly through rhetoric or flirting with those ideas. Nobody supports the Chetniks; those people generally left in 1995. Accusing any American party—especially a centrist one—of supporting Chetniks is basically just trolling.

Besides, the Ustashe don't exist anymore. A historical court ruling or an old stance is perhaps a slightly milder category than supporting a fascist movement that is still very much alive, like Chetnikism.

You’re basically a textbook case of the boy who cried "Wolf!". If you want us to take immediate action on the post, maybe ask someone else to report it or just wait until we see it ourselves. If you're the one filing the report, there are fewer chances that it will actually be sanctioned.

rowdygardener5 said:I didn't actually ask you for your input, nor did I address you directly. I am speaking to those higher up in the hierarchy. To reiterate, northernsailor8 is engaging in an unprecedented level of censorship driven by ideology and intolerance, effectively destroying the work of many forum members.

He refuses to permit any perspectives outside of the mainstream narrative. He stifles critical thinking and violates the forum's own rules—essentially making this an unpleasant place for anyone looking to have a real discussion. I don't see what's wrong with debate or expressing different views, including legitimate speculation.

For instance, the media reports that another individual was arrested for allegedly planning an attack on a Pride parade in Santa Monica. They frame it strictly as a hate crime rather than something else. Similarly, one might argue that instead of saying a person killed 50 people at a club in Orlando, it could be framed as a result of police actions being unprofessional since they don't negotiate with hostage-takers...

I am asking northernsailor8 to stop responding to me. Communication with him is over due to his illegality, bias, ideological exclusivity, and other factors.

What "work"? 🤣

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On this platform, we don't allow the relativization of crimes or malicious conspiracy theories, especially when they lack support.

Your request won't be granted. And perhaps a little less drama wouldn't hurt...

I suppose I was feeling a bit lenient and skipped flagging that post, but I won't make that mistake again.

I am ignoring you. 🤦

Next time you decide to downplay history or start making up war crimes, expect a ban instead of just a warning card. On this forum, we don't allow people to throw around random victim estimates without any actual arguments.

Furthermore, there is a specific thread for official appeals regarding warnings. This isn't it.

steelheron25 said:If I’m following correctly, if anyone dares to criticize Putin and his supporters, they just have to accept being called a fascist by some idiot on a forum—and apparently, there are no consequences for that (post hasn't even been touched). Reporting a comment like that seems like a gamble; you might just end up getting flagged yourself, especially if the moderator is a bit thin-skinned.

I guess it’s no wonder that everyone who actually tries to have a civil conversation gets driven away, leaving only the usual crowd behind.

I didn't really see that post as an outright label, but maybe more as a toxic, yet valid, reaction to constant provocation. If someone actually calls another person a fascist during a debate, then sure, they should probably be sanctioned.

I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve been labeled a Putinophile. In reality, I am quite pro-Western and regularly criticize Russia, which I suppose just shows how far some of you have drifted into conspiracy theories. By that logic, you aren't any better than the other side that treats Putin like a deity.

To be honest, I would prefer to just ban almost everyone here for nearly every single post. But that seems pointless, as your constant propaganda and mindless noise have already driven away anyone attempting to write even remotely neutrally. Closing half the threads on World News would just be foolish.

Discussions regarding Russia and Syria were once incredibly difficult—requiring endless effort and a massive amount of bans—but they have become easy enough now. This is probably the highest level of discourse we will ever see on these topics.

Now that I’ve said my piece, I should warn you not to get worked up with me; I might actually decide to tighten the moderation rules.

The reason this is considered Topical News is because discussions regarding American foreign policy pop up on the World forum far too often. This thread was essentially created as a designated space for those topics, just so people wouldn't have to start new ones elsewhere.

That said, I suppose it hasn't been particularly relevant for a while now. I'll go ahead and remove it, then we can see how things evolve from here.

Jessica Peterson2 said:If posts like these don't actually trigger a moderator response, am I also allowed to start "speculating" about how my opponents are all on the RT payroll?
It used to be that making claims like that would get you slapped with a red card immediately. Is that just not the rule anymore?

There is a 24-hour window for thread moderation. As lonebadger6 pointed out quite nicely, we can't possibly monitor every single post the second it goes live.

crimsonjackal63 said:Well, sometimes you just need a bit of luck;
- A collection of posts, complaints, and comments—which I spent about fifteen minutes drafting on the "Messages, Complaints, and Comments" board before his mysterious disappearance—was actually read by someone. 😍

But that isn't the point.
It matters much more that Anton is on the right track, and honestly, someone should probably act on this.

Here is an example of how things shouldn't be handled, in my opinion:
- I rushed over to the "Politics" section and found the first nearby closed thread:
"Should the government ban dangerous wireless (WIFI, WLAN) and tablets in schools?"
Here is the link:

- The user put in the work, wrote a post, included links, presented arguments, etc., but then a moderator stepped in and chopped the thread down at the root instead of waiting to see if it would spark interest among users or if counterarguments might fuel further discussion.
Users themselves should be able to show whether a topic is worth attention—whether it's natural science, non-science, conservative, liberal, etc.—or if it's totally uninteresting and will simply evaporate from the forum on its own without outside intervention.

Basically, in "Politics," people should be allowed to open various topics, and interventions should be kept to a minimum.
Less is more.
That way, interesting titles stay at the top while the less attractive ones fade away.

Hot topics like "The US Government" and such shouldn't even exist as permanent fixtures.
When something interesting happens in Washington or around the administration, someone will open a specific thread about a specific issue, and that’s how "Politics" returns to being current.
A thread will last exactly as long as it needs to, and in its place, a third or tenth current event from the Government will take over.

I hope someone takes good care of these well-intentioned suggestions from forum members.

I closed the thread primarily because it has nothing to do with Politics; it belongs in Natural Science, or perhaps Alternative Studies based on what we know now. In America, there is no political movement or legislation regarding wireless devices, and cases abroad are marginal rather than part of national policy.

So, I really don't see how a serious discussion about the social impact could unfold; I just see arguments over scientific validity and conspiracy theories. We let the thread about the World Trade Center run to let people vent, and even there, the discussion had little to do with politics and veered wildly into talks about secret societies and support pillars.

Gary Perez7 said:About 40 years ago, relevant publications used to print scientific papers claiming lead in fuel didn't harm people or the environment.
They would attack anyone who dared to investigate the dangers of smoking or CO2 emissions.
It all came from their own colleagues—scientists paid to publish content tailored to the companies funding them.

Undeniable facts.
So, suppressing freedom of speech or thought on a topic just because some study or viewpoint claims otherwise is perhaps the worst kind of delusion and censorship.

Herbert Needleman

For instance, this gentleman was mocked by his peers, the media, and the general public simply because he dared to assert that lead in fuel damages the human brain. It took massive legal battles and many years before he finally proved his point.
If you think things are any different today, you are probably mistaken.

It only took Needleman three years to convince the top expert bodies that his research was correct. The first regular review of fuel standards happened in 1983, and by 1986, his position had been accepted. Furthermore, his specific research triggered changes in the regulations of the CDC, which sets health standards in the USA. For his work, he received over 20 major scientific awards from institutions worldwide.

Why? Because he proved his point, whereas those arguing against him lacked consistent evidence. Believe it or not, not every published scientific paper is accurate; in fact, a significant percentage isn't. However, even those are important because they highlight methodological flaws and show future researchers where the dead ends lie. Evidence is everything in science, and it is unstoppable. It always surfaces eventually because science is built upon it. If science stopped accepting evidence, it would cease to exist, as it would have no useful results.

A ten-year data collection effort by university and institute researchers in medicine and physics has undoubtedly proven that Wi-Fi connections do not harm health in daily doses. Had they proven the opposite—that it is dangerous—the conclusions and regulations would be different. It is quite simple.

I get the impression that dealing with the server has discouraged quite a few people over the last few months. The moderation has been more or less consistent throughout, and many of the moderators have been around for a long time now.

Noah Diaz said:So, I suppose the official admin stance is:

Trolling is allowed!?

That’s just the nature of Alternative, I guess. If they actually banned trolling, they might as well shut down the whole subforum. ☕

I deleted it during her third iteration just a few days ago; someone else took down the first one.

The thread was attracting nothing but trolls rather than any actual debate. As for the subject itself—the European Union doesn't even possess functional armed forces; they basically only exist on paper. Any real interventions are carried out through NATO as a military alliance. An "EU intervention" isn't really a possibility, since there’s neither an agreement, a legislative framework, nor the political will for it. That whole idea is mostly just talk for the Alternative.

Rough weekend, my apologies... 🕺

I suppose we'll just keep things light and casual for now. ☕

It seems you might have missed the update in the relevant VPT thread: as of today, I’ve stepped in as a new moderator here.

As for everyone else, I suppose we'll just have to see how things unfold in the near future regarding the current moderator status on the forum and whether there's any actual need to expand the team.

Casey Ramos31 said:Seriously though, if I called the Democratic Party a criminal organization, would I get slapped with a libel suit?

It depends on the context, I suppose. There aren't any active criminal proceedings against the Democratic Party, so there isn't much of a factual basis for that. If your argument is simply that they are just as corrupt and deserve their own indictment, then maybe that's fine.

If you start trying to link them to the crimes of the previous regime, though, you'll probably get banned.

That "rule" is just a byproduct of how much freedom we give people to talk about political parties and public figures on this Politics sub
.
Using softer ways to call the Democratic Party some sort of offshoot of the Communist Party has been common in debates for a long time, though I suppose one shouldn't overdo it. However, since there is an ongoing legal case against the Republican Party in the US court system, calling them a "criminal organization" seems entirely fair enough.

Nicholas Watson said:Is it pure irony? 🤷

That’s exactly why things go south. When the admins of a subreddit pick a new moderator, they tend to choose someone who already agrees with them. It ends up irritating the regular users—not the trolls or the conspiracy theorists, but actual decent people. They start feeling like it doesn't matter whether the ban came from one person or another because they're essentially the same person. You really feel this most on the Politics and Business subreddits, mostly due to the specific nature of those boards and just how many people hang out there.
I recall a rather amusing situation from a while back on the Reddit thread regarding Card Appeals. A user was asking where they could view all the issued cards, and two of the moderators were completely unable to explain it to him because they actually didn't know themselves. They tried some technical tinkering to find an answer, but it didn't really work out. In the end, they were saved by another user who stepped in and explained exactly where to find the cards in just a couple of quick sentences.

One might suggest that a third party, acting as an impartial observer, could be asked to periodically review certain appeals and offer a perspective—though I suppose such an opinion wouldn't necessarily have to be binding.
Or perhaps what I’m suggesting is that we first look toward a moderator with some actual standing, someone like... I suppose one could call it a lie. Maybe. Someone I respect deeply and value highly could have just as easily shared her opinion publicly, both here and elsewhere.
When things happen behind the scenes in moderation, us regular users on Reddit don't see any of it. I guess it ends up feeling like the judge is also the prosecutor.

The moderators don't actually have visibility into specific group settings, so they can't really tell if someone has viewed their Infractions or how they went about it. We aren't making any assumptions that the user was incapable of simply clicking on the page number clearly listed under their Infractions. I guess we just don't know.

The moderation policy on Politics and Business is actually quite straightforward. We issue bans for malicious generalizations about individuals or social groups, ad hominem attacks, direct insults, and belittling other users. While these posts are often heavily ideological—leading some users to complain about political bias—those claims are usually just spin. At the core of every single one of those complaints is basic incivility and a failure to follow the rules, sometimes even crossing the line into criminal territory regarding hate speech. To be clear, we don't particularly care whether the topic is immigration or crochet; our only concern is maintaining a certain baseline level of quality in how people communicate.

It’s impossible to keep up with every single thread here. If I see a colleague participating in a discussion, I usually just leave it alone on purpose. Honestly, I don't have the energy to sift through five pages of posts where everyone is writing essays that are thousands of characters long. Besides, if I jump into a conversation myself, I know I won't be able to address every single point either. The only exceptions are the high-stakes, active topics—like the debates over immigration—where we actually try to stay current and present.

Then everyone would have to watch who hands out which penalty, checking in with one another about every single infraction within a thread, involving all the Reddit users and everything. It seems entirely impossible. The only way that could actually work is if the moderators were full-time employees of the site, working three paid shifts. Since that’s never going to happen, I guess this is as functional as the system can get.

I suppose I can't be surprised that a small handful of disgruntled users on Reddit—the ones who seem to collect bans like trading cards every few days—are feeling dissatisfied. Honestly, what can I say? If they actually learned the basics of civilized communication and behaved online the same way they do in real life (assuming they do, of course), there wouldn't be any issues to begin with. When a guy who has racked up over 100 infractions from 20 different moderators starts lecturing me about ideological bias, I find it hard to take him seriously. To maintain a track record like that, one really has to put in some genuine effort.