Why was the Syria thread closed?

???

He got all worked up and just couldn't handle a real discussion, so he threatened us with harsh sanctions and shut the whole thread down. I guess you can just go find Churchill on the topic of the day over on ABC if you want an explanation. (I only caught the first few sentences, but apparently Aleppo fell back to the regime forces and won't be multicultural anymore). Just go watch the topic of the day and stop complaining here. ☕

It’s pretty obvious one moderator is trying to start their own Ministry of Truth here on this forum.

There’s really only one thing left to say:
You guys have officially crossed the line into total fanaticism. It’s honestly getting a bit inhuman.

I’m actually a little confused here... was there some kind of toxic meltdown or deleted comments that I missed?

Things went off the rails on this thread a while ago, but now that Aleppo has become the center of attention, things have shifted

America, where this site is based, is a member of both the European Union and the NATO alliance—entities that are being targeted daily by intense propaganda and baseless lies
For instance, you see Russian propaganda like Lavrov accusing the USA of letting Palmyra fall to ISIS, even though it was the Russian military and air force that were supposed to be defending it
They are simply trying to mask their own incompetence with fabrications

For too long, these kinds of lies and conspiracy theories have been allowed to slide through this thread without any pushback

I’m proposing an automatic ban for anyone trolling with blatant Russian or pro-Assad rhetoric, as well as any NATO or EU propaganda
The topic has exploded over the last few days, and the moderation team is going to have to work incredibly hard to keep this under control

Unfortunately, there aren't enough experienced moderators on Plotika who actually know how to distinguish propaganda from legitimate theory; judging by the discussions here, not a single one has put in the actual time required
Pzvo seems to be the most active, but even he isn't nearly enough

There are at least fifteen other forum members who are far more knowledgeable than him and could easily serve as authorities on these matters
And a moderator without authority is nothing

It is a massive failure on the part of the moderation team that none of them on Plotika have bothered to put any effort into a thread that has sat at the very top of this subforum for over a year now

Morgan Cook10 said:The bottom line is this:
You have all crossed every possible line with this fanatical inhumanity.>

I’m actually baffled here... were there some inappropriate comments that got scrubbed from the thread?

Look, I’m not going to get dragged into a debate over whether Assad’s forces are committing atrocities in the parts of Aleppo they’ve taken over. But trolling the thread by claiming not a single crime has been recorded—and then labeling anyone who suggests otherwise as a traitor, a fanatic, or an idiot—is just beneath contempt.
War crimes happen in every war, that's a certainty.

The critics also have a point when they mock the mainstream media for painting such a one-sided picture regarding the fate of rebels who were themselves committing disgusting acts.
But everything needs a sense of proportion.
Unfortunately, the pro-Assad crowd lost all credibility for her a long time ago. For instance, the insinuations that a well-known pro-rebel Twitter personality should now watch her back in Aleppo because she might get "violently assaulted" are disgraceful.

Insinuating sexual violence and calling for rape is something that exceeds any standard of civilized discourse. In my book, that’s a massive violation.

Gary Perez7 said:I feel like this thread went a little overboard a while ago, but since Aleppo has become such a central focus now, it’s actually pretty important

The US, where this site is based, is a member of both NATO and the EU, which means we're constantly being targeted by intense propaganda and just plain baseless lies every single day.
For instance, you see Russian propaganda—like when Lavrov tries to blame the USA for losing control of Palmyra to ISIS, even though the Russian military and air force were supposedly defending it.
They basically try to mask their own incompetence with these kinds of falsehoods.

It feels like these types of lies and conspiracy theories have been sliding through this thread without any pushback for way too long.

In my opinion, when someone posts something on here, the right move is to just say, "Hey, that isn't true," or "That person is lying," and then provide a link or a reliable source. I guess fighting propaganda should be about using the truth and having a solid discussion with real arguments, rather than just sanctioning users or shutting down threads entirely.

Someone clearly got orders to shut this thread down because actual arguments are ruining the manufactured hysteria they’re pushing through all the democratic and free media outlets with those photos of dead children.

Linda King said:Look, if someone makes a claim, just leave a reply on the thread. If they're lying or spreading nonsense, drop a link or cite a source. You fight propaganda with the truth—through actual debate and solid arguments—not by banning users or shutting down threads.

That kind of propaganda deserves a red card. No one here should be wasting their breath trying to debunk it.
tocka

Patrick Taylor9 said:It seems someone received orders to shut this thread down, perhaps because reasoned arguments are starting to disrupt the carefully manufactured propaganda hysteria—you know, the kind fueled by images of deceased children being broadcast across all the mainstream democratic media outlets.

I truly hope you aren't right about that.
To be honest, this forum is one of the rare places—if not the only one—that actually permits perspectives differing from what the mainstream media tries to force upon us. I remember something quite similar happening during the last US presidential election; back then, this forum served as a genuine oasis for "freedom of thought," and I am personally quite grateful that it was.
In my view, threads shouldn't simply be closed; rather, they should be properly moderated whenever anyone—on either side, really—goes too far.

If I'm wrong, this thread will be reopened in no time, and honestly, whoever shut it down should lose their moderator privileges for acting like that.

Gary Perez7 said:Look, I’m not trying to start a fight over whether Assad's forces are committing atrocities in parts of Aleppo they've reclaimed. But trolling the thread by claiming there isn't a single recorded crime, or labeling anyone who points out the opposite as some kind of extremist or fanatic, just isn't okay.
war crimes happen in every conflict, that's a given.

The critics aren't wrong either when they mock the mainstream media for painting a picture of the rebels' fate—especially since those same rebels were out there committing their own disgusting acts.
but you still need some level of decency.
Unfortunately, the whole pro-Assad crowd lost all credibility for me a while ago. For instance, the subtle hints suggesting that some famous pro-rebel Twitter personality needs to watch her back in Aleppo because she might get "handled" roughly... yeah, that's where it's at.

Making insinuations about sexual violence is way beyond the pale of civilized discussion. In my book, that's an automatic disqualification.

But that's down to the individual... you just ban them and move on.😵

What does any of that have to do with closing the thread?

Gary Perez7 said:that kind of propaganda deserves a red card, and honestly, none of us on this forum should even bother wasting our breath trying to debunk it.
period.

We’re probably going to see a lot of new faces popping up on this thread over the next few days, so I guess it might be wise if everyone stayed a bit more level-headed. That goes for the longtime members here too—maybe some newcomers will drop in repeating things they read elsewhere that we consider propaganda, and I really wonder how that would play out if we started handing out bans immediately, since people often don't even realize they've said something controversial 🤣—and it definitely applies to the moderators. Maybe just take a breather? This thread has been locked for hours now just because someone isn't in the mood to deal with it.

This is straight-up censorship. It’s honestly pretty shameful!

I am formally requesting that the moderators reopen this thread!
While I will concede that certain individuals have certainly overstepped the bounds of good taste by gloating over the defeat of ISIS—leading to some rather distasteful commentary—shutting down the entire discussion is, quite frankly, the most heavy-handed and counterproductive move the moderation team could make.

To be perfectly clear, we should prohibit:
- Any calls for or justifications of potential war crimes (which, at this stage, remain unproven suspicions often used as propaganda tools)
- Crude behavior or uncouth expressions
- Personal insults directed at fellow forum members

However, we absolutely must permit:
- Questioning the veracity of specific news reports or incoming information
- Critiquing the politicians who are deeply entrenched in this conflict
- Challenging the way the mainstream media is framing this war
- Expressing viewpoints that diverge from official policy or the moderator's own stance, provided they remain within the boundaries of civilized discourse
- Sharing updates from alternative news sources
- Mocking extremists with proven ties to Al Qaeda ideology

I urge you to restore access to one of our most engaged and highly read discussions!

Thank you.

Gary Perez7 said:America, which is a full member of both NATO and the European Union, finds itself caught in a constant whirlwind of intense propaganda and baseless lies.
It’s the kind of stuff you see with Russian spin—take Lavrov, for instance. He’ll go out there and try to pin the fall of Palmyra to ISIS on the USA, even though it was actually the Russian military and air force that were supposed to be defending it.
They're basically just using lies to cover up their own incompetence.

For way too long, these kinds of conspiracy theories have been floating around here without anyone calling them out.

So what, you want to ban Lavrov from speaking... or stop people on this forum from quoting him? Is that where we're at?

The thread is open, but please, read this one more time.

Pizvo said:The thread is locked until further notice. I’ll be consulting with the other moderators on next steps, but consider this a warning: heavy sanctions are coming. You’ve all crossed the line with this toxic fan behavior.

No one gave an order. There is no censorship here. The only reason this thread is temporarily closed is because of the content in the colleague's post where he locked it. Honestly, some of you should probably thank him for sparing you a mountain of warnings and potential bans.

This might stay under lock and key.

Morgan Cook10 said:but that's just down to the individual... you just ban them or wipe the post and move on.😵

What does that have to do with locking the thread?

Exactly.
The real headache starts when someone who usually keeps a close eye on this topic gets tied up with work or family stuff for a few days, and suddenly there are 50 posts like this, plus another 50 that are even worse, and maybe 50 more that aren't quite as bad but are still totally out of line...

The thread is just temporarily locked so we can clean things up; it won't stay closed forever.

edit: And there goes Charles Fox10, making a grand entrance... 😁

The issue here is that my colleague isn't actually digging into the details; he’s just getting his info from mainstream outlets like
CNN
.
For a thread like this, you’d be much better off having seasoned forum regulars handling the moderation to ensure high-quality debate. I’m talking about people like Richard Sanders7 and David Richardson67. They support the Russian intervention and a unified Syria purged of rebels, yet they still manage to maintain a critical, realistic perspective on the situation
. Most importantly, they live and breathe this topic every single day and track all the primary sources
.

If there were a way to partially delegate moderation—say, through an informal agreement where you’re given control over a subforum provided you stick strictly to certain topics—this kind of specialized discussion would really flourish
. When fifteen different forum members hold more actual authority on a subject than the moderator does, the whole concept of moderation becomes meaningless
. How can he possibly moderate them when he knows less about the nuances than the people responsible for 99% of the posts in the thread?
How is he supposed to police anyone?

I'll say it again: the moderation on the World Be Obvious subforum is lazy. If you’re going to take on the job, you need to actually invest time into a thread that has sat at the top of the list for over a year now
. That requires active engagement and real dialogue with fellow members, rather than just appearing out of thin air whenever you feel like stepping in with an intervention
.

I had some obligations this afternoon, so I wasn't involved in cleaning up the thread.

Once again, many people are posting based solely on their own convictions, not to mention they seem to fundamentally misunderstand what moderation actually entails. It isn't my job to judge the truthfulness of information, unless it's being used for trolling, insults, or intentionally twisting a specific discussion. I believe you've noticed that posts aren't usually deleted frequently and that discussions—even those involving rather coarse labels for certain groups—are permitted. Feel free to research wherever you like and write about it (provided it isn't from extremist sites); frankly, I don't care.

We draw the line when things go too far, particularly when there's an excess of generalized denial or support of crimes and the harassment of those with differing views. I don't need to look elsewhere to see that; it's obvious. It should also be obvious to you that you are testing boundaries yet again, acting as if you own the thread regarding Syria. Our authority has nothing to do with the rules of civil discourse. We spent years trying to handle things politely in every way possible, but it never worked and the debates always spiraled out of control. Now, our authority stems from the banning mechanism. That isn't because of us, but because of those who stubbornly refuse to listen while constantly demanding to be heard.

I suggest you exercise some self-control; we won't be so lenient next time. This concludes the discussion on this matter.