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.
Thanks for sharing this second part; I’ve weighed in. As for the comments popping up on other news outlets, they don't bother me as long as they actually make sense. However, I do think the moderators should be the ones handling their own oversight.
1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Kimi Raikkonen 4. Daniel Ricciardo 5. Sebastian Vettel 6. Daniil Kvyat 7. Nico Hulkenberg 8. Felipe Massa 9. Sergio Perez 10. Max Verstappen
Thanks, but I’ll pass. If you ever decide that the moderators missed something that should have been flagged as racism, feel free to reach out via DM—either to them or just shoot me a private message. But let’s be clear: we aren't going to host a thread just because someone wants an excuse to vent racial animosity toward refugees under the guise of "discussion." We won't allow that kind of rhetoric here.
Let me start from the beginning... First off, this topic has already been closed, and there is a perfectly valid reason for that. We aren't going to use this space as a dumping ground for random vitriol. If anyone feels the need to lodge a grievance, they know the protocol: open a dedicated thread where you can clearly and concisely state exactly what was unfair about the moderation (and provide supporting links). Furthermore, if you are unhappy with a specific penalty you received, do not start a debate here; go directly to the appeals section.
The forum is meant to be a platform for the people, which means it allows for the expression of opinion. However, I will say it for the thousandth time: that does not grant everyone license to write whatever they please. We adhere to certain standards of civility and established forum rules. When someone violates those principles, it doesn't matter how many other people are doing the same thing; the moderator's job is to step in and stop it. The issue with moderators only arises when they deviate from the rules themselves, not when they enforce them—though, for various reasons, an increasing number of users seem unwilling to follow the guidelines.
To address the current situation specifically: the Politics moderators, myself as a Supermodel, and the Admin do not believe that moderators should attempt to "balance" views between people who would welcome fifteen immigrants into a studio apartment and people who want to establish death camps or send men overseas to fight ISIS. We don't need a false sense of balance there. What we do require is consistency in our criteria. If there is an imbalance in how the rules are applied, then we have a legitimate discussion regarding poor moderation. To be clear: hate speech and blatant trolling are hate speech and blatant trolling, regardless of which side of the aisle the perpetrator represents. Fascism will not be tolerated, and links to fascist websites peddling fake news must be removed and penalized. Does it matter if we delete one post or a hundred such posts? It doesn't to me.
Anthony, in your opening post, you mention receiving three penalties from the same moderator. Honestly, what difference does it make whether it's one, three, or thirty-three? If you believe a penalty was unjustified, head over to the appeals section and build your case based on why it was unfair (keeping in mind what I just stated). As for the specific instance where you suggested asylum seekers be required to convert to Christianity, I won't even dignify that with a response. Regarding the discussion of moderation within this thread, the Politics team has deliberated on this specific case and maintains its stance: such behavior cannot be tolerated because it invariably poisons the quality of the discussion. That third penalty you received was a yellow card, and that was indeed a moderator error, as it was at most a case of trolling.
Grace, I would ask you to provide specific examples. If anyone encounters treatment toward Christians similar to what is currently happening toward Muslims in that thread, please report it. If there is no response from the team, report it directly to me.
otompotom, I am interested in the criteria, and we can certainly discuss that. If you find a situation where one person is penalized for something while another is let off the hook for the exact same thing, feel free to reach out. My previous point stands: I don't care if you view this as unnecessary political correctness or whatever else you wish to call it, but we will not permit hate speech simply because a certain group wants it allowed. However, we *will* discuss whether penalties are being applied uniformly.
Vandrej, this has already been thoroughly addressed. The news item in question is a malicious fabrication by fascist agitators, and there is no need to revisit it. Naturally, content of that nature will be purged.
Taroth, quite by chance, I know a Catholic family in the States who recently had three adopted children taken away because they were using belts and metal rods for discipline. I know a married couple in America who adopted an orphan, only for the woman to literally starve the young girl until her ribs showed because she was too preoccupied with her failed modeling ambitions. I know a Catholic priest who left his monastery for parish work because he felt oppressed by the monastic gay lobby. I know cases of women being beaten by their husbands in seemingly peaceful suburban homes. Can I draw conclusions about Americans based on those instances? Or even Catholic Americans? Please. We will not permit these sweeping generalizations that disparage thousands of unknown people fleeing Islamist extremists. This is my stance, and it isn't Holy Scripture; I answer to the Admin, and she answers to the owner. If the moderation policy regarding these matters is to change, they only need to say so, and I will step aside. Until then, please refrain from this behavior.
If anyone is planning on starting a new thread, I would kindly ask you to take one more look at this conclusion, as well as the conclusion from the previous one. Complaints regarding an appeal of a red card belong in the Complaint for a Card section. We will not tolerate hate speech or racism here. Furthermore, if you believe there is an issue with moderation being unbalanced between the two sides, please provide specific links to substantiate those claims.
Users bear full responsibility for the content they share. There’s no need for unnecessary filler here; if someone insists on posting nonsense, they should be prepared to face the fact that such behavior simply won't be tolerated.
1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Sebastian Vettel 4. Nico Hulkenberg 5. Kimi Raikkonen 6. Sergio Perez 7. Romain Grosjean 8. Felipe Massa 9. Valtteri Bottas 10. Pastor Maldonado
The topic of immigration is perhaps the most difficult subject we currently face when it comes to moderation on this platform. It requires constant, conscientious oversight from several of our moderators. When dealing with such volatile discussions and a high demand for intervention, it’s easy to see the effort involved. It can happen—and indeed does happen—that something is overlooked and goes unaddressed, or conversely, that an overreaction occurs. We must evaluate these individual instances and take action whenever it's determined that a mistake was made.
Personal attacks against the mods won't be tolerated, just as attacks against Muslims, racism, malicious generalizations or comparisons, fabricated arguments, and similar behaviors should not be tolerated. Regardless of one's personal opinion, such conduct must be shut down swiftly, and the moderators have the full support of the administration to enforce penalties. As for the issue of clone accounts, there is really no need to dwell on it. I am not aware of any recent case where someone was banned as a clone when they weren't actually one. Therefore, if a large number of clones are being banned, it is simply a reflection of frequent attempts to violate the rules (and other tactics, such as trying to create the illusion of widespread consensus for certain views), rather than an issue with the moderators themselves.
And please, don't forget, my friend William Bennett53, that true rights are about people, not customs or ideologies. 👍
There have been some rather interesting reflections and compelling arguments posted here. And since there’s no real rush, why not let the moderators of the politics forum take their time to discuss them?
Let us attempt this once more... Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.
Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.
Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.
Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.
As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.
Well, thank you kindly, we’re finally done. It seems no one has any interest in writing about Nansi Tireli, and if you're looking for some grand conspiracy theory regarding miserable men—usually women, by and large—oppressing others, you'll have to find a different outlet.
I asked everyone to exercise a bit of patience. We aren't going to permit any more discussions regarding the political rights of men in America, as it has been proven time and again that such topics rapidly devolve into nothing more than blatant misogyny. If that was indeed your intention—which, judging by your last post, seems quite obvious—then we are done here, and the moderator acted correctly in issuing the clone ban. However, if your goal was actually to discuss a specific event, such as that foolish statement made by Nansi Tireli, and you wish to dissect that particular case or politician, then there is room for conversation.
Calling it "terror" might be a bit of an exaggeration, though I suppose it's the moderators' job to keep the discussions on track. In any case, I’m going to sit tight and touch base with the team regarding this matter. Please bear with me.
I have been following this thread since the very moment it was opened. I knew it was here, but given how dense and link-heavy it is, trying to untangle any of this on my phone felt like a losing battle, so I waited until I could sit down properly. In short, no matter how much you complain about the users or the mods, they feel the exact same way about you. You are blunt, you jump the gun, and you tend to provoke—all while being deeply irritated by everyone else behaving in that exact same manner. That said, I will concede that some of the points you raised regarding unpunished content are valid. Some posts were simply deleted because they are ancient history now, while others drew an actual response. I intend to review the entire situation once more to determine where further action is required. This thread is a labyrinth; most of us aren't fully briefed on every detail, and frankly, the level of discourse from the participants is incredibly low. It is a moderator's nightmare, which is why, unfortunately, occasional oversights are inevitable.
Regarding your habit of misinterpreting linked content or, in this specific instance, presenting outdated information as if it were current: you should expect continued, systematic disciplinary action. From our perspective, this pattern makes you a repeat offender. Anyone can slip up once, but when it becomes a regular occurrence, it warrants regular consequences.
Since this ordeal has been dragging on for over a week now (which is on me), and we have gathered enough "samples for analysis," I am going to lock this thread so the moderation team and I can deliberate in peace.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding here as well. I have been traveling. Most of these issues are already being resolved. While the subject matter remains incredibly heated and difficult, the moderation team is handling it with the utmost responsibility, and I am hopeful that things will eventually stabilize regarding this topic. A few of the examples mentioned will require further investigation; I actually received a private message about this and intend to look into it as soon as I am back at my desk—likely tomorrow.
graniteharbor502 said:This is how I’ve decided to structure it. We'll have two groups. The top three from each move on, and the final two quarterfinal spots will go to the competitors finishing below 3rd place who accumulated the highest number of tie-breaking points. The bracket matchups will be set as follows: 1. The group winner with the higher primary point total (if there's a tie, we look at tie-breaking points, then exact placement, etc.) will face the runner-up among those qualifying below 3rd place who holds fewer tie-breaking points than the other qualifier. 2. The group winner with the lower primary point total will face the runner-up among those qualifying below 3rd place who holds more tie-breaking points than the other qualifier. 3. A2 vs B3 4. A3 vs B2
Semifinals: 1. Matchup 1 vs Matchup 3 2. Matchup 2 vs Matchup 4