@ Eminem 🙂 It all comes down to how much the mods decide to step in... and whether that user is already on thin ice with a bunch of warnings. Or maybe they just got a yellow card the night before because a mod was feeling generous and sent them a DM to chill out before things escalated. And honestly, they aren't the only one, since we all know this topic is a powder keg... some people take the hint and back off, others argue a bit through private messages and stay civil, while some just refuse to listen 🙂
Creating a decent vibe where people can actually talk comfortably is also on the users themselves.
That goes for every single thread, including this one. If you’re confused about something, just ask—you can always hit me up via DM or post right here in the subforum. But please, don't start those "freedom of speech" threads using quotes from posts that didn't even get flagged... if you don't actually know what's going on, just don't 🙂 I think avoiding that would help keep the atmosphere a lot more relaxed 😉
I see you weren't kidding after all 🙂 Napornin ended up getting banned because she decided to lecture the moderators. It’s so incredibly obvious that this ongoing "misunderstanding" can't be anything other than blatant trolling, which is also against the rules...
EDIT: To be more precise, since I know how things work here, she only got a warning for commenting on the moderation team. She actually hit the ban threshold because she racked up five warnings from four different moderators in such a short window, which gave her just enough points to get kicked out...
Maybe you didn't quite catch my drift, so I'll try being much more direct...
On this forum, discussing the moderation team within specific threads is strictly against the rules.
There. Short and sweet. No exceptions allowed. There is an entire sub-forum dedicated specifically to that kind of talk, which is exactly where we are right now...
Do we have the right to express our own opinions? Of course we do...
Do you actually have the right to comment on the moderation? No, you don't, because it’s clearly laid out in the forum rules, the subforum guidelines, and probably mentioned a thousand other times besides... getting a strike for something like that carries a 30-point penalty...
So exhausting...:
I’d better not start quoting people’s reactions, unless I’m looking to get an immediate ban from this incredibly beautiful, humanitarian, and highly enlightened forum...
Maria Reyes35:
Where did all those posts from Napornin about the town halls in Oregon and the romantic spots in Washington disappear to...
If you ever find yourselves wondering why someone else actually got a card in the future, feel free to just ask, rather than typing out these endless manifestos built on nothing but pure guesswork...
I just dropped by to say something, even though it’s pretty obvious this thread has lost its purpose, since hardly anyone actually cares about anything substantive anymore... they're all just here to spit 🙂
But, just so you know, there aren't any specific threads handled by individual moderators. All the mods over in the Politics section cover everything.
Drew Brooks8 said:Are you being serious right now, or is this some kind of joke? We're in a thread discussing the massive crisis of mass immigration, and she’s over here rambling about what Muslim women look like in swimsuits on an American beach—whether they wear headscarves or not, and how many she's seen?😵 Can you seriously not see how wildly off-topic that is? Just be honest for once: you didn't delete the post because it was off-topic; you deleted it because the moderator is the one who wrote it.
Meadow didn't start this conversation. You're complaining about supposed double standards, yet you're applying them yourself... To make things even more amusing, the whole topic—though framed much more to suit your own views—was actually kicked off by another moderator too. Neither post was deleted. But somehow, there isn't a huge outcry about why someone else talking about Muslim women's clothing and hijabs hasn't caused any drama... She basically set the tone for the whole thing. So much for those "standards" of yours... Our rule remains the same—nothing was deleted, and we saw no reason to hit the delete button.
By the way, over in Politics, both of them are just regular users, with no more authority than anyone else on the forum.
Charles Wells71 said:But I did post them, didn't I? The moderator claims I'm trolling, but all I did was drop a link that completely contradicts what the other moderator is saying. Meadow thinks there's zero point even discussing Sharia in Europe and wonders why on earth we're debating it, yet the second I post a link where Muslims are explicitly stating they want to implement Sharia in Belgium, I get slapped with a warning just for repeating it. It's not like I had the brilliant idea to delete it; I don't see the logic there.
Not to mention I got a second warning basically just because of the timing—while I’m mid-sentence typing out my reply, Bradley Sanders4 swoops in with a moderator notification that I can't even see until after I hit post. So, I end up getting warned right after, and it wasn't even Bradley Sanders4, it was lonebadger6. Like, man, try to actually follow the flow and the rhythm of the conversation for once.
The only warning I actually deserve is the one where I commented on the mod alert. Everything else feels like a straight-up attempt to suppress free speech.
Based on your own words, it's pretty obvious you saw the warning from Bradley Sanders4 and decided to just brush it off with a smug little smiley face...
I haven't argued with a single moderator in a thread, except for when I asked Bradley Sanders4 why we aren't allowed to talk about sexual assault. Like, who even are you and what are you talking about?!
And obviously, that's why I got flagged, so let me ask you again: why is discussing the issue of rape off-limits if it's a legitimate concern regarding immigrants—especially when it's blatantly obvious that in the countries where they are most prevalent, we see the highest rates of sexual assault involving them. Please, if your answer is just "because we said so," save your breath.
On top of all that, I got hit with a strike for reposting this: Dear Charles Wells71,
You have received an infraction on Reddit.
Reason: Violation of sub-forum rules ------- Reposting deleted content = violation of sub-forum rules. -------
This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=55361606 Quote: Quote: Meadow says: Check out this post No matter where Muslims live in the West, Sharia law isn't going to be implemented as a legal system. I don't know why people even bother discussing it. Oops, maybe because Muslims actually talk about it? Welcome to Belgistan. All the best,
I honestly don't know if my post was deleted or just lost in the void of your glitchy servers, but seriously, why on earth was it deleted?!?
Look, a moderator warning—that colored text—is where the conversation ends. It’s right there in the site rules. If you're confused, you can ask about it here or just shoot a private message to the mod who issued it, which in this case was Bradley Sanders4.
As for anything else, if Bradley Sanders4 feels an answer is necessary, he'll provide it...
I can explain your strike, though—you got it because you ignored a direct warning from a moderator. If they say "stop talking about rapes," you have every right to come here and ask why, or complain about the rule itself, but you don't have the right to keep pushing the exact topic the moderator told you to drop a few posts ago...
Charles Wells71 said:I think it’s pretty damn obvious you guys are just trying to shut me up because I managed to rack up a record 90 points in like 15 minutes.
It’s not like I was insulting anyone, being a troll, or even veering off topic. It feels more than obvious that you're just policing this thread based on some script, so maybe you should stick to the topics you actually assign us—because honestly, how else am I supposed to explain a moderator jumping in like, "okay, enough about sexual assault now"?
If people are genuinely worried about immigration due to higher crime rates in certain areas, where on earth do you get the right to ban discussions about it?!
Then I get hit with a warning for "duplicate posting." Yeah, because my previous post vanished. And how was I supposed to know it had been deleted and wasn't just one of those glitches on your supposedly high-tech servers?!
On top of that, I get flagged when, frankly, I don't even know why, and god knows I have no clue why that other post was wiped in the first place.
One of the golden rules around here is that you don't argue with moderator warnings. That’s exactly why this subforum exists—so you can file an appeal, just like you could have sent Bradley Sanders4 a private message to ask why you got flagged or what the issue was... You ended up with a record-breaking 90 points because you ignored three separate warnings and just kept pushing back against the mods right there in the thread...
Edward Ortiz77 said:I just got slapped with a ridiculous warning for allegedly "trolling," when I was actually staying perfectly on topic. Honestly, if you're going to be this arbitrary, just lock the thread entirely; this whole situation is a farce and an embarrassment. I don't doubt that certain moderators are trying their hardest, but their best clearly isn't enough because they're effectively killing the discussion.
You got flagged for hinting at some kind of "vow of silence" or conspiracy regarding incidents involving immigrants, especially since you were trolling from a few different angles...
That story you mentioned from Index—I have no clue which one you're actually talking about since you didn't bother with a link, and honestly, I don't spend much time reading Index anyway—you compared it to that video from... 2012. It’s been years since that whole thing went down... specifically regarding that incident in... 2009. He claimed there was some kind of "vow of silence" in effect, because apparently, you won't find any of that "fresh" news on Index... or whatever the hell he was trying to imply...
And we’re looking at anti-Israel protests that aren't just limited to Islamic groups, all playing out right while the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip is in full swing...
Besides all that, it honestly took me about two seconds of Googling to realize there was never any kind of "conspiracy of silence" back then... everyone was reporting on it quite thoroughly, actually...
Jebiga, that’s basically the textbook definition of trolling, sorry...
Bradley White73 said:The idea isn't really that expressing an opinion is banned—that’s not what I was getting at. It’s more about how the sense of freedom in writing gets stifled by over-moderating absolutely everything, and I have my doubts that this stems from the moderator's personal biases. Maybe I'll wait to see if Bradley Sanders4 or Charles Fox10 comments on Maria Booth's warning (since I did argue why it applies to others too), and then they'll probably end up complaining about your warning. I wouldn't say yours was undeserved, but I guess there might be another way to look at it. I'll try to explain more once I find a bit of time.
Honestly, I'm on the same page. It might not even be undeserved—you basically got caught in a "sour grapes" situation where things were twisted into trolling, though you might have just paid the price for the general mood of the thread at that exact second. I wouldn't be against the admins lifting it, though...
I’m probably done weighing in on this topic if all we’re doing is airing specific grievances about the bans... there’s already a thread for that, and if the complaints are actually about "my" decisions, I'll address them over there. It seems like whenever someone isn't happy with an answer, instead of having a real, reasoned debate, it just devolves into a pile of trolling and personal attacks... it doesn't bother me, just lesson learned, because most people here don't actually want to talk to the moderators, they just want to fight. That ship has sailed 🙂 and I’m not talking about you, Bradley White73.
I’ll just correct you on one thing, though, purely so nothing gets misinterpreted. I never claimed that was an example of good moderation. What I said was that it disproves the idea that anyone is being forbidden from expressing their opinion. Bradley Sanders4 expressed it 80 times. Once, according to the moderator, he did it in a way that wasn't allowed. Sure, because of that one instance, he ended up banned, and if you think that ban was unfair, it's perfectly natural to conclude the moderation is bad, since from your perspective, an injustice was done. You’re entitled to your opinion on that, no argument there. But that still doesn't mean anyone is being silenced. He voiced his opinion before the ban, after the ban, and another 80 times besides.
Your post was nuked because you brought up Islam in the Religion section. The Catholic doctrine was included in the story for a reason, specifically since it mentions that Papal statement about how failing to welcome refugees is basically a war crime. If you want to debate interpretations of the Quran, there are other threads for that, and this one was shut down immediately. If the bit about the Pope and Catholic teaching is somehow an error, then let the admins handle it and delete that too...
Look, you’re missing the point here. I never said being North American makes someone a criminal; if anything, I was saying the exact opposite... You really need to work on reading the room and understanding context. It's not like I claimed all Americans were responsible for some guy attacking a homeless person with a rock in my last post either. Anyway, you asked a question and I gave you an answer, so if you're still feeling salty about getting a ban, there's a specific thread for that...
Dana Robinson4 said:The head was severed—if you have the stomach for it, just look it up... It was done by an immigrant from Eritrea who was shouting Allahu Akbar during the act... The second head was only partially severed, and there aren't any photos of that one.
You're right, I should have said "people" instead of "grandmothers." Or does this partial one not count?
What part of that didn't click?
How is an Eritrean killing two people at IKEA a reflection of all Eritreans or Muslims, yet an American hitting a homeless person with a rock isn't a reflection of Americans or Christians?
You aren't just trolling, you're being cheap and failing miserably, because equating an entire nation, religion, or group of people—like asylum seekers—with one lunatic is basically a textbook definition of hate speech...
@Drew Brooks8 6,634 comments, yet there were only 230 today. A discussion completely suffocated... By the way, if you actually have grievances, you handle them by providing links and examples of what you consider "pointless and unfair," rather than just making sweeping, baseless claims—that’s how you follow the rules on this sub...
It’s perfectly fine to say there are "North American criminals" in Scandinavia because, frankly, there are...
But you aren't allowed to suggest that "certain people" are out there decapitating grandmas in grocery stores, because:
1. That specific thing didn't even happen; nobody is out there slicing up grandmas in shops. 2. There was one incident you were hinting at in Sweden, and in that case, nobody actually lost their head. 3. It wasn't even committed by the immigrants we're discussing here, but by a man from Eritrea.
And if you bother to do a quick Google search, you'll find plenty of murders in Sweden committed by North American gang members. Hell, a Mexican even killed a minister once.
If you dig just a little deeper, you'll find Americans who killed a sister's fiancé in Germany, some guy who bludgeoned a homeless person with a rock in Italy, or someone killing a Filipino chef on an American ship... and so on.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt German or Italian forums are filled with generalizations about Americans being killers or demands that we be banned from entering Germany or Italy.
Hopefully, it's clear now why your comment is nothing more than trolling...
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...
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...
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...