Moderating the immigration thread, part two

Since the first thread got shut down, I’m moving here to vent about how the immigration discussion is being moderated.

First off, you’ve handed The New York Times section over to people who clearly have zero clue what they're doing. Personally, I’ve never seen anyone actually discussing politics there, yet somehow 80% of the site's content lives in that section.

Second, the bias is impossible to ignore. If ten different people—including long-time users—are all complaining about the same thing, shouldn't that tell you something?

Why are moderators treated like untouchable deities on this site? In my experience running various forums (I’ve been an admin and a mod on two major ones), you always have to listen to the will of the people. If a moderator is incompetent and everyone is constantly flagging them, you get rid of them. This is the only place I've ever seen where mods and their decisions are protected this fiercely.

It’s obvious you’re just protecting yourselves since you’re the ones who picked them, but it makes no sense. If a massive group of people is complaining, don't you think something is fundamentally broken?

Everyone is shouting that the ref is blind, but the ref keeps walking around the field handing out cards whenever he feels like it.

I got hit with three bans in a single day from lonebadger6. The second one was specifically for "commenting on moderation." I wasn't attacking the mods; I was commenting on the actual content of a link I posted, saying the text itself was the kind of stuff that usually triggers a hate speech warning.

Is there even any room for debate regarding moderator behavior here? Is there any actual dialogue with us regular users—people like me, who have been around for, what, a decade now?

Not to mention, this same moderator loves to lecture me about my ban count, while he hands out penalties to others for "generalizing"—which is exactly what he does to me.

Reminds me of that whole saga with that phantom user Writer1989 who appeared out of nowhere, wrecked The New York Times section, and then vanished. Who knows whose clone that was, but whatever.

Can we actually talk about this? And please, don't just lock this thread with some "not allowed" response. I've dealt with enough of those.

Thanks.

You’ve picked up three strikes in just three days. The first was for that suggestion about using force or conditional entry to control immigration flows. The second came from your direct shots at the mods, and then there's this yellow card—which is really the only slip-up on our end regarding procedure—for a post that skirted the line of hate speech, where you mocked the warm welcome refugees received in Germany by posting a video of Muslim extremists attacking women and trans people, essentially implying that's what all refugees are like.

That’s my take on it, though nothing else really warrants the breath...

lonebadger6 said:You got three strikes in three days.

And does that change what I'm talking about?

First one for suggesting we forcibly assimilate immigrants just to let them in.

Yeah, because that's exactly what Saudi Arabia demands if you want to become a citizen there. You have to convert to Islam to be an American citizen in their eyes. I drew that parallel with Germany. And now I get a strike for trolling.

Second one for openly critiquing the mods,

Critiquing moderation (at least that's how I see it) looks like this::

"Why did you give him a strike?"
"Hey mods, why are you deleting posts?"
"Why was my message edited?"

Critiquing moderation isn't::

"I won't include details from this link because I might get a hate speech strike."

The first case is directly questioning the modding.

The second case implies the link contains sensitive content.

Someone else please explain this differently.

Third yellow so you don't get banned (that's the only mod error here) for a post bordering on hate speech, since you're mocking the "warm welcome" refugees get in Germany by posting a video of Muslim fanatics attacking women/trans people, implying all refugees are like that.

I'm not mocking the "warm welcome" (which is just another phrase proving how biased you are in this debate), I'm mocking the narrow-mindedness of some guy waving a WELCOME sign at people from a culture that doesn't share his values.

Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. Is stating that hate speech? I don't get it.

That's all from me, nothing else worth mentioning.

Not worth mentioning because you've backed yourself into a corner with zero arguments.

I’m going to hold back from making some sweeping generalization about how this immigration thread is being moderated, since I already vented about that on the last political discussion thread, but one thing really sticks out to me here.

For the first time since I joined Reddit, whenever a user says something like, "I'd say what I really think, but I don't want to get banned," people immediately jump on them for "attacking the mods." Honestly, that's total nonsense. Pointing out your own self-censorship isn't an attack on management; it's just you acknowledging that you actually know the rules and how this place works.

Think of it this way: if I said, "I'd floor it at 120 mph, but I won't because the limit is 70 and I don't want a speeding ticket," that wouldn't be an insult to the police. It’s just a statement acknowledging that the law exists.

rustywalker42 said:It’s hardly worth bringing up, since you’re just sitting there in a corner, completely out of arguments...

🤦 All you people who crown yourselves champions of the internet... you really are something else... 🙏

Look, it’s not about being "nice," it's about two simple things. First, leaking private messages is a total violation of privacy—besides, the people who actually need to see through the lies and distortions in your post already know what's up. Second, my job is strictly to address the issues regarding the credit cards, which I've already done... I'm not here to hold your hand or sit you down to explain every single thing you managed to misunderstand...

swiftstag66 said:For the first time since I joined Reddit, I’m seeing people claim that someone practicing self-censorship—you know, that whole "I'd say it, but I don't want to get banned" routine—is somehow an attack on the mods... which honestly feels like a massive stretch... It isn't even a critique of management, it's just someone acknowledging they actually understand how the rules work...

It’s not really accurate to say there wasn't moderation happening before, because this is just classic backseat driving regarding the mods... though I suppose context changes everything. You can believe that second part if you want, and that’s fine, but when things get heated on sensitive topics, there’s usually zero tolerance for nitpicking the rules, otherwise the whole thread descends into chaos once everyone starts crying about unfairness. Besides, saying "I’d say something, but I won't because I don't want a strike" isn't exactly a contribution worth keeping around... 😉
If you have something to say, just say it. But if you’re holding back because you think you shouldn't speak up, there's really no point in even posting here... 🙂

lonebadger6 said:🤦 You people who crown yourselves champions on the internet? You’re really something else. Seriously. Absolute legends. 🙏

So, I'm declaring myself the winner? Fine. Then answer my questions directly. Stop with the preachy, lecture-style posts. Wise enough, I guess?.

Look, it’s not about being "nice." It's about two things. First, leaking private messages is off-limits—period. The people who actually need to see through the lies and distortions in your post already know what's up. Second, my job is to address the stuff regarding the credit cards, which I've done. I'm not here to hold your hand or sit you down to explain every single thing you managed to misunderstand.

First off, don't call me "dear." Is this condescending tone supposed to be trolling? Because if so, nice try.
And another thing—what’s this nonsense about leaking private messages? What lies or distortions am I even telling? Go ahead, post it. I’d have done it myself if they hadn't already deleted it.
And there they go again, trolling with that "remote control" nonsense. Seriously?

Are we seriously just letting this slide? Is this actually acceptable?

It’s not like we weren't talking about moderation before. This *is* talking about moderation. Isn't that the point?

🙏🙏🙏

Do I even need to add anything else to this? I’d put it in my signature, but honestly, I can't be bothered to change it.

Sure, context is everything. That second point? Fair enough. You think that way, and that’s fine. But when it comes to moderation, zero tolerance is pretty standard—especially on sensitive topics. Why? Because if you don't nip it in the bud, things spiral into chaos immediately. You know the drill: "Wait, why was he banned?" Besides, "I’d say what I really think, but I won't because I'll get a strike" isn't exactly a meaningful contribution to the conversation, is it? 😉
Just say what you want to say. Period.Look, if you're holding back because you think you can't say it or shouldn't—then just don't bother posting. Why even write it? 🙂

What am I supposed to do? Post something that counts as hate speech just so I don't get banned? Seriously, do you even hear yourself right now? I honestly can't believe this.

What is this, thought control? Are they seriously going to start telling us what we can and can't type in a message now?

Basta said:It hasn't always been this way. This is currently the fifth or sixth admin crew. Usually, they swing between being hands-off and being total dictators. A change happens when the previous group finally loses the common people. When I was a moderator, I was part of a more laid-back crew, and I got absolutely crucified just because I "dared" to make a post using only emojis, even though it was technically against the rules.

Of course it hasn't.

The truth is, lonebadger6 and Klonka are completely unqualified to moderate a subreddit like The New York Times. How does it even happen? You give moderation duties to people who have never even stepped foot in that sub?

It’s like handing a scalpel to a German professor and telling him to perform surgery.

Even if these admin groups differed in their approach and how they dealt with users—whether they actually cared about what people wanted or not—they at least tried to do their jobs with some level of impartiality.

That is definitely not happening here, and I know I'm not the only one seeing it.

This latest group acts like they're on a mission to brainwash us all into the same mold, terrified of any thought that isn't politically correct. That’s why they try so hard to sabotage threads, limit discussions, or flat-out block debates on uncomfortable issues—all backed by incredibly creative excuses, I have to admit.

That's exactly how it looks. And yet, I see it doesn't stop Klonka from calling people fascists without getting a single warning.

Man, I even got hit with a bogus ban for the exact same thing—alleged "hate speech." 🙏

I'm done posting on this topic. Every single thought I have can be twisted into hate speech.

Where's the freedom on this site? Sure, a forum is inherently autocratic in terms of ownership and editorial control, but there has to be some level of freedom to write.

Is it really in the owner's interest to drive away users who have been writing here for ten years?

Yeah, yeah, "new people will come." But a whole segment of the community has left—people I haven't run into since, and I doubt they just made new accounts, because you can always recognize someone's writing style.

lonebadger6 said:You've picked up three strikes in just three days. The first was for suggesting we should forcibly assimilate immigrants just to let them in. The second was for openly criticizing the moderation team. The third was a yellow card to prevent an outright ban—which is honestly the only mistake the mods made here—for a post that dances right on the edge of hate speech, since you mocked the warm welcome refugees received in Germany by posting a video of Muslim fanatics attacking women and trans individuals, implying all refugees behave that way.

Regarding the moderation of hate speech, generalizations, or insults directed at Muslims as a religious group, the handling is correct and fair (given the topic), but I ask that the same or similar standards be applied to Catholics or the KKK. If there is gross or unnecessary disrespect regarding the KKK, those posts should at least be deleted...

In my view, it’s tasteless and looks like classic trolling, plus it's clearly off-topic since there is a dedicated thread about it on The New York Times. Some of those posts even border on actual hate speech, depending on their tone or intent.

That is all.

.

Klonka said:That’s why we picked up a few cats. 😁 😁 😁

Look, putting aside how someone with a blue badge would get slapped with a warning on a thread like this, can we at least try to maintain some basic standards of communication here?

I actually care about getting things resolved in a way that works for both the users and the mods. I'm seeing a really disturbing global trend online with clear totalitarian vibes—anyone following what's happening over on Reddit knows exactly what I mean. This site is one of the oldest platforms for open discussion on the web, and it's survived years of pressure from this "new world order" movement. I don't know what else to call this political correctness craze, but this place only stays relevant if moderation is handled responsibly and fairly, regardless of opinion. Honestly, because of its age and scale, this site has become a phenomenon, and it's a given that it'll outlast all those hipster newcomers like Reddit.

The massive issue with this immigration thread is that there aren't any consistent rules for moderation. Users with certain viewpoints are getting warnings or bans over technicalities, while mods are simultaneously locking threads. I even saw a moderator's notice being used as a direct reply to a post, which you're definitely not supposed to do. What kind of message does that send to the people trying to have a conversation? Can we do better?

I’m curious—which websites actually count as "legitimate" here on Reddit? Apparently, I broke the rules by posting this:

TheProvense says: Check out this post
Back in 2015
A school in Germany advised its female students to dress in accordance with Sharia law!
[/url]

lonebadger6 said:The post and the link were deleted, and we're asking you to stop reposting it. There's a reason you won't find this "news" on any reputable site—it's because it's fake.
Even in the completely fabricated versions circulating on obscure corners of the web (where this was picked up from Facebook), there isn't even a mention of "Sharia law," and in reality, the story has zero connection to anything being suggested.
The warning is long because people love to whine about censorship and "suppressing free speech." No—censorship here only applies to the nonsense posted in PDF Alternative, if even then. And honestly, those posts are more serious than the delusional blowhards staring at the sun who think they're 140 years old and feeling great, when all they're doing is spreading panic, fear, and hate based on pure lies.

Hopefully, these sites meet your standards for being "serious":

http://www.europeanguardian.com/86-u...sharia-conform

http://www.rt.com/news/270214-bavari...chool-clothes/

Klonka said:That’s why we picked up a few cats. 😁 😁 😁

Is this really the level of debate we're seeing on the US Politics board? Are you seriously unaware that this kind of behavior gets people banned—and wouldn't you be the first one handing out bans for messages exactly like yours?

babas said:The moderation on this immigration thread is catastrophically, extremely liberal. Klonka gave me more than a few warnings, and her last move was hitting me with a 500-point hate speech penalty. All because I brought up the facts: Swedes work hard, and the government taxes them heavily just to funnel that money toward immigrants who are mostly unemployed. On top of that, these same African and Middle Eastern immigrants are committing mass assaults on women and children; rape rates have surged by 900% over the last 20 years. In Stockholm, a third of the victims are children under 15.
And no, I don't hate Muslims at all; anyone can look at my history to see I've always defended Canadian Muslims. I have plenty of Muslim friends, but when it comes to Arabs and Africans, there are simply facts happening in the countries that take them in en masse. Why is it "hate speech" to Klonka, and who even let her moderate The New York Times section?

There. See? Why do you even feel the need to justify yourself now? Who you choose to like or dislike is your business, as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

I’m curious too—who allowed someone like Klonka, or even lonebadger6, to moderate the Politics sub-forum?

People who have absolutely nothing to do with it.

swiftstag66 said:Setting aside the fact that a user with a blue badge would get banned for a post like this on this specific topic, can we at least maintain some standard of communication here?

I'll second that.

I care about getting things resolved positively for both the users and the mods, because I'm seeing a deeply concerning global trend online toward blatant totalitarianism. Anyone following what's happening on Reddit knows exactly what I mean. This forum, as one of the oldest platforms for open discussion on the web, has survived for years against those "New World Order" influences—I don't know what else to call this political correctness movement—but it only works if moderation is responsible and treats every opinion equally. This site has become a phenomenon due to its age and scale, and it's definitely going to outlast all those hipster newcomers like Reddit. That much is certain.

Honestly, I couldn't have phrased it better myself. That little summary you wrote? It’s basically a perfect intro for a scientific paper. And no, I'm being dead serious.

Exactly. It sounds backwards, I know, but it's true. Even though forums are inherently autocratic media, they’re becoming the last bastions of free thought in the digital wilderness. Forget sites like Reddit and whatever else—as swiftstag66 pointed out. Those platforms are going to cave to all those new regulations being cooked up, just like every other social media giant.

lonebadger6 said:No, they aren't. Just look a few posts down on this thread; it tells you what actually happened.

So RT isn't a serious site?

rt isn't just spewing nonsense or spreading the kind of lies that get links banned in the first place. Even if he did mix up a few details himself in this specific instance... though that's a separate issue entirely (it seems someone couldn't be bothered to read the full piece carefully and ended up conflating two different points from the DW report) and he definitely leaned into the sensationalism a bit—using "warn" here feels pretty inaccurate and out of place—at least the core of it is rooted in truth.

lonebadger6 said:You've picked up three warnings in three days. The first was for suggesting we should forcibly assimilate immigrants just to let them in. The second was for openly attacking the mods. Then you got a yellow card—just to keep you from getting banned, which is honestly the only mistake the mods made here—for a post that skirts the line of hate speech. You were mocking the "warm welcome" refugees get in Germany by posting a video of Muslim fanatics attacking women and trans people, basically implying that all refugees act like that.

That's it from me. Anything else isn't worth the breath.

Just to weigh in on this:

1) When it comes to people heading toward Canada, Greece, or Germany, we aren't talking about refugees; we're talking about migrants.
According to the UN definition, a refugee is someone fleeing war or a natural disaster into their nearest neighboring country.
That person can then apply for asylum in a third country from there.
But the moment they move on to a third country on their own? They’re just migrants.

2) Under the Schengen Agreement, every single refugee and migrant is supposed to register in the first country they enter. So, sure, they might be refugees in Greece or Italy where they have to sign in and get status, but once they move further along, they're just people crossing borders illegally, staying without rights, and lacking any real documentation.

3) Regarding the part about how these "refugees" treat women or trans people... look, some of us actually know that part of the world (the Middle East). We know what those people think about human rights, Christians, women, gay people, and trans folks. We also know what their work ethic and culture are like.

Because of that, any negative comment might just be coming from FACTS learned through firsthand experience with people from those regions.
If we're going to insist that anyone can only say nice things about these people (whatever you want to call them—Syrians, refugees, migrants), then we're basically just talking about censorship.
All these people aren't just arriving as individuals; they bring an entire cultural package with them that doesn't just disappear because they left Syria or wherever else.

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.