I have a suggestion: let’s swap this poll out for a different one featuring only two options—both using standard English—and make the results public so everyone can see how others voted. As it stands, the current format carries a somewhat joking or even insulting undertone, and frankly, it leaves us guessing what the community actually thinks about Reiner's initiative.
Joseph Stewart38 said:we should probably just lock this thread, because I have a feeling that's where this is heading.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there. Your insistence on this, even after multiple explanations, perfectly illustrates why your proposal isn't feasible. It would demand far more moderator resources than we actually have, all for results that are highly questionable at best. Honestly, I get the impression that despite these clarifications, you remain relatively dissatisfied—and that if I didn't step in and close the thread now, you’d simply keep pushing the argument. One could almost expect a similar reaction regarding our reasoning for deleting posts, wouldn't one?
Look, you have three or four people here providing decent, well-reasoned arguments as to why what you’re asking for simply isn't feasible, yet you keep circling back to the exact same point you made at the start. We’ve already been through this same cycle regarding complaints about card warnings. If you apply that same logic to individual explanations for deleted posts, you’ll quickly realize we would need an army of moderators just to manage the politics forum.
Daniel Ward87 is easily one of the most capable people on this entire forum when it comes to handling an inquiry like this. In fact, he’s currently assisting over at Politics because we actually reached out and asked him for help.
To put it simply, the Politics section typically sees four-digit daily post counts and receives triple-digit reports; providing this kind of individualized attention just isn't feasible under those circumstances.
That level of scrutiny might work well on smaller niche boards. I used to spend a lot of time on small-scale motorcycle or high-end audio forums where moderators rarely need to step in, and deletions are infrequent and usually accompanied by an explanation. However, one should note that in those tiny communities, there is often very little patience for repeat offenders; the reason you see so few bans there is often due to the swift elimination of anyone who doesn't fit the mold. Our approach at Politics is quite the opposite—we don't believe in driving people away unless they are engaging in repeated hate speech or showing an incredibly stubborn pattern of trolling and insults.
Given those conditions, heavy moderation becomes a necessity.
I had previously flagged the controversial post, but after a quick consultation, I’ve decided to lift that restriction and expand the scope slightly. Generally speaking, there shouldn't be any sacred cows; everything is fair game for scrutiny. However, one must recognize that there is a profound distinction between legitimate critique and mere crude, vulgar insults.
Feel free to offer your commentary or critiques regarding the moderator decisions; this entire PDF serves as the foundation for that process. All that is required is that any criticism remains focused, documented, and properly argued. To be clear: we aren't looking for random links or baseless accusations—we want legitimate grievances. Allowing any complaint that lacks substance would be fundamentally unfair; if one can simply attack anyone without providing proof, then it ceases to be a grievance at all. It would be reminiscent of the old days under totalitarian rule. I am relieved we have clarified that the thread title is misleading. It is quite obvious the intention here isn't to debate political correctness, but rather to carve out a space to bypass the standard site rules and critique the moderation team.
In principle, "in principle" means exactly what it says. If we are talking about this specific forum, then it isn't really "in principle." This forum is merely a drop in the bucket compared to all the other forums out there, which are themselves just a tiny fraction of the vast ocean of online communication. Let me be perfectly clear: this thread will not be about the moderation of this forum. If you were hoping to start a discussion on that topic, the answer is no; such a thread cannot be opened. We have hosted similar discussions before, and they invariably devolve into nothing more than dumping grounds for baseless attempts to lynch the moderators or contest every single administrative decision that happens to rub someone the wrong way. No, thank you.
No, we aren't bending any rules here. If anyone attempts to exploit the general discussion on political correctness as a loophole to engage in behavior that is strictly prohibited elsewhere on this forum, neither that individual nor the thread itself will be tolerated. If one intends to engage in a principled debate regarding political correctness, then by all means, come prepared with actual knowledge and substantive arguments. However, if someone is merely attempting to use this topic as a veil to lecture others on religion, sexual orientation, or faith, they would be wise not to bother. In this thread, as in every other, the standard community guidelines remain fully in effect. Should it become clear that maintaining order is impossible, the thread will simply be closed.
I will address only the final point, as everything else was covered in my previous response: you are a fellow forum member, and we have collectively decided to extend more courtesy to our peers than we do to public figures. It isn't that we are making an exception for the President; if anything, we are refusing to make one, despite the many fans who have attempted to demand such treatment. I believe we have made ourselves clear on this matter.
Gerald Rivera17, thanks for the help. An outburst directed at a regular user on the Forum would typically result in a sanction, but since this involves a public figure, the rules are applied differently—as they usually are. That being said, if it offers you any consolation, the Politics moderation team is currently engaged in an active debate regarding the criteria for protecting public figures versus upholding the principle of free speech. While we aren't penalizing these kinds of comments just yet, it is entirely possible that our policy will shift. Should that happen, the new standard will apply equally to everyone in the public and political arena. Until then, we won't be making any special exceptions for the President.
I have no intention of litigating someone else's criminal record... The fact that this is a new thread doesn't change the reality: we're looking at various people's priors discussed across different topics for all sorts of offenses, none of which have anything to do with you. So, no thank you.
Listen, folks, I realize how incredibly frustrating it can be when someone pours their heart into a post only to see it vanish into thin air. But let’s be realistic—we can't expect the moderators to personally track down every single user just to explain why a specific comment was removed. Most of the time, it’s either off-topic clutter or content that simply violates our community standards. If you feel like a deleted post contained something absolutely vital, your best bet is to reach out to a moderator via private message and ask them to send you the contents so you have a record. Or, more importantly, given how unstable servers can be lately, why not just save your longer essays to your own hard drive before hitting submit?
Listen, everyone, I get that there’s some frustration brewing here, but if we want this to actually lead anywhere, you all need to stop being vague. If you want your grievances heard, you have to provide specifics—links, clear examples of what works versus what doesn't, and actual, actionable suggestions. Otherwise, this thread will simply be closed.
Listen, everyone, I’m not here to file a formal complaint with the site admins. I completely get why people need to vent, but these kinds of broad, sweeping threads never actually go anywhere. They just immediately devolve into a mindless pile-on against the moderators. Look, not every mod is perfect—some are better than others—but if we're going to criticize them, let's at least be specific about it. Let's provide actual reasoning and documentation instead of just venting for the sake of it.
Good grief... I would appreciate it if you could refrain from starting such senseless threads in the future. The article linked here simply states that a teacher is permitted to present views that align with Church doctrine during religious studies classes. Thank you, and good day.
You reported this post just a minute before the thread was even officially opened. Furthermore, where would we actually be as a society if these kinds of actions were met with actual consequences? Locking this down.
As Matthew Anderson pointed out, the decision to launch a new PPDF rests solely with Anderlon. Neither the moderators nor the supermods have the authority—nor should they be allowed—to make such a call. While this wasn't our intended topic, since we're already discussing it, I might as well weigh in: you've all shared plenty of thoughts, so now we just wait to see what the admin has to say about it.
Gugenheim, we’ve had some pretty heavy discussions about this, and honestly, I’ve lost track of how many threads we’ve debated just to reach the same conclusion: it simply doesn't work. You might want to try your luck elsewhere, but on Politics, the answer remains no for the foreseeable future.
Ego hasn't been a supermodel for quite some time now... Are you referring to Edge? Hell, don't be ridiculous. I am speaking about myself, not anyone else. Others speak for themselves, not for me.
William Scott65 said:Ahem, this kind of rhetoric hasn't worked with the biased moderators over at ESPN for a long time, so you're just throwing out empty platitudes here... If you're looking for actual evidence, feel free to check my thread. You've already lurked there once before, but you won't find any room to peddle your cheap conspiracy theories.
I was writing on behalf of the PŽK, not ESPN. Soccer isn't my concern. Therefore, I suggest you take your paranoid nonsense elsewhere.