Moderating the immigration thread

I have to say, I’m really feeling frustrated with how the Immigration thread is being moderated lately—it feels more like a slaughter than actual moderation. Posts are just vanishing into thin air, and there are entire pages where more than half the users are grayed out. Ever since Bradley Sanders4 took over, you can't even skim through a page anymore without the fear of needing to refresh, which honestly scares me half to death. If you actually want to read something, I guess you have to do it immediately before it disappears. I haven't been posting much on threads managed by Bradley Sanders4 or ones that aren't this "volatile," so maybe I didn't notice it sooner. But now, I just don't feel like writing anything at all; I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, watching for what Bradley Sanders4 might do next. I've actually gone ahead and deleted a few of my own posts already, because I know if I don't take them down myself, Bradley Sanders4 certainly will. 🙄 😵

Count me in on the protest! Is it just me, or is this massive list of banned users getting totally weird? Are you guys planning on banning everyone who wants to stop immigration? Because if that's the plan, the whole thread will just be two random dudes and moderator Bradley Sanders4.

Maria Booth said:Count me in on the protest! Is it just me, or is this massive list of banned users getting totally weird? Are you guys planning on banning everyone who wants to stop immigration? Because if that's the plan, the whole thread will just be two random dudes and moderator Bradley Sanders4.

Look, a huge chunk of those bans are just clones of people who were already permabanned, popping up again and again. And just to save you the trouble of asking: the immigration thread is almost never the reason they get the axe.

Are you planning to ban everyone who supports restricting immigration?

That wasn't the reason for a single one of those bans.

By the way, I don't moderate the immigration stuff all by myself. 😉

I’m jumping on the bandwagon here—this shouldn't be called a complaint about the immigration thread; it should be a formal complaint regarding how Bradley Sanders4 is moderating it.

Honestly, I haven't seen political thread moderation this disastrous since I first joined this forum.

We’ve already got several solid, long-time members getting banned. Now, I'll leave it to the admins to decide if losing veteran users just because Bradley Sanders4 can't handle differing opinions or wants to play fast-and-loose with the rules is actually worth it.

The bottom line? It's a mess. Every decent discussion gets killed off by bans triggered by accusations of xenophobia or hate speech, along with constant post deletions and all that nonsense.

Can someone give me a quick lesson here?

1.
I wouldn't be asking this out loud/publicly if the person (Bradley Sanders4) who sent me that—honestly pretty surprising and confusing—follow-up message actually accepted private messages.
2.
By cutting off any chance to ask them a question (just for some clarity) about their follow-up, it’s almost like they think we forum users are just logs of oak wood—dead weight that by "default" can't and shouldn't have anything to say, let alone ask questions.
3.
Since I don't feel like a human being right now—and I certainly won't let myself be "treated" like a piece of timber—the education I'm being blocked from seeking via PM, I'm looking for it right here, publicly.

BIG heads-up! Everything I'm saying isn't meant to be part of a formal complaint, I just actually want some education and a precise explanation (and opinion) from the moderators (plurality).

For this post I got penalized, and the following message was attached to it:

This is totally against the subforum rules and you could easily slide into a ban.

European, euROPSKI, Europski, Europski... it's just one (satirical and not even a millimeter outside of that>) bit of wordplay—not different words, but all within one single word.

Where's the "wrong step" here that puts me in the "danger zone" of a ban? What's the what-how-why, what's the logic? Does that (really) carry enough negative "weight" to warrant those kinds of "warnings"?
So, look, I want a quality explanation (and some "dry" facts), and if it's actually strongly argued, I definitely won't write it in that satirical way again. But if there isn't a solid argument, I don't see any reason why that kind of satire should be banned—especially since we're all (living in the US) part of that whole American satirical tradition.

Drew Brooks8 said:I’m jumping on the bandwagon here—this shouldn't be called a complaint about the immigration thread; it should be a formal complaint regarding how Bradley Sanders4 is moderating it.

Honestly, I haven't seen political thread moderation this disastrous since I first joined this forum.

We’ve already got several solid, long-time members getting banned. Now, I'll leave it to the admins to decide if losing veteran users just because Bradley Sanders4 can't handle differing opinions or wants to play fast-and-loose with the rules is actually worth it.

The bottom line? It's a mess. Every decent discussion gets killed off by bans triggered by accusations of xenophobia or hate speech, along with constant post deletions and all that nonsense.

We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.

William Kim9, the answer is in these posts

Charles Fox10 said:We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.

William Kim9, the answer is in these posts

Boss, I think you missed my point—I was talking about how I typed the word (euROPSKI). I got hit with a warning and basically told I'm one step away from a ban just for that.
So, let me ask again: if I write euROPSKI or EUropski instead of European, is that really enough to get me banned?

Regarding those rules in the links you posted, yeah, I know them. But "euROPSKI" isn't some weird loanword or foreign term. It’s just a satirical way of writing a perfectly normal American English word. Not a single letter actually changed.

Charles Fox10 said:We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.

William Kim9, the answer is in these posts

Does this count as hate speech:

Maria Booth said:Those volunteers really ought to look at how the volunteers associated with Thanksgiving were treated.

So, I guess if Maria Booth makes one more comment like that, she'd get a permanent ban?

Charles Fox10 said:We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.

William Kim9, the answer is in these posts

Personally, I don't have an issue with you, nor with unknown, rowdytiger13, or DJTcro. No problem there. You guys need to moderate hate speech—absolutely. The problem is that Bradley Sanders4 just can't seem to recognize what actually counts.

William Kim9 said:Boss, I think you missed my point—I was talking about how I typed the word (euROPSKI). I got hit with a warning and basically told I'm one step away from a ban just for that.
So, let me ask again: if I write euROPSKI or EUropski instead of European, is that really enough to get me banned?

Regarding those rules in the links you posted, yeah, I know them. But "euROPSKI" isn't some weird loanword or foreign term. It’s just a satirical way of writing a perfectly normal American English word. Not a single letter actually changed.

I get what you're saying. If Bradley Sanders4 hadn't stepped in, I might have handed you a warning myself. Just drop the "euROPSKI" and similar trolling styles. You're right that you could face a ban, though—with your current points, one more strike would do it.

Bradley White73, you aren't Maria Booth, so don't expect an answer.

Drew Brooks8, you're entitled to your opinion, but personally, I think you're wrong.

Since I'm already here, ladies and gentlemen, please—read your posts carefully before hitting send. On sensitive topics like this, every single word, even a bit of bold text, matters. Our goal isn't to hand out warnings or bans, or to shut down discussions, but sometimes we simply don't have any other choice.

No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

Charles Fox10 said:I get what you're saying. If Bradley Sanders4 hadn't stepped in, I might have handed you a warning myself. Just drop the "euROPSKI" and similar trolling styles. You're right that you could face a ban, though—with your current points, one more strike would do it.

Bradley White73, you aren't Maria Booth, so don't expect an answer.

Drew Brooks8, you're entitled to your opinion, but personally, I think you're wrong.

Since I'm already here, ladies and gentlemen, please—read your posts carefully before hitting send. On sensitive topics like this, every single word, even a bit of bold text, matters. Our goal isn't to hand out warnings or bans, or to shut down discussions, but sometimes we simply don't have any other choice.

Ugh, I've been waiting on a reply for two whole weeks now! I filed appeals in all the right places, but still nothing. Total silence.

I'll address the claim that different opinions—specifically those opposing immigration—aren't allowed here... that’s definitely not true.
Most posts on this thread follow that line of thinking, but unfortunately, there have been plenty of highly problematic comments too. I get that this topic is incredibly heated, but let's try a little self-control.

Why did I get an infraction just because I posted a link regarding today's stabbing of a police officer in Darmstadt, Germany, under a thread about immigrants? They even slapped me with a "trolling" charge, which is total nonsense... a news link has absolutely nothing to do with trolling.

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

If that’s the case, why did YOU specifically give me a penalty just for posting a link? And you used "trolling" as the reason? You couldn't find any other reason to click, so you chose the one that sounds the least inaccurate because you won't tolerate a different perspective?

That link of yours isn't an opinion; it’s just a blatant violation of the moderator warning posted only a few threads ago, especially since even some users who are, to put it bluntly, "anti-immigrant" have actually called for people to stop posting links to nonsense that just dilutes the discussion.

But I can spell it out for you if you need. What's the actual point of that link? What are you trying to prove? That every single asylum seeker is violent? You really think that's the only crime story coming out of Germany today... as if there hasn't been a single German, white, Christian committing a murder, a rape, or a stabbing there yesterday or today...

So, yeah, that link is just trolling. For both reasons...

When we talk about trolling, there’s really only one other way to categorize this kind of post: hate speech (and I already laid out why singling people out just to send a certain "message" falls squarely into that category)... so if you're looking to bump that 30 up to 500 points, just let me know.

By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...

Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged

Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once

Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name

lonebadger6 said:That link of yours isn't an opinion; it’s just a blatant violation of the moderator warning posted only a few threads ago, especially since even some users who are, to put it bluntly, "anti-immigrant" have actually called for people to stop posting links to nonsense that just dilutes the discussion.

But I can spell it out for you if you need. What's the actual point of that link? What are you trying to prove? That every single asylum seeker is violent? You really think that's the only crime story coming out of Germany today... as if there hasn't been a single German, white, Christian committing a murder, a rape, or a stabbing there yesterday or today...

So, yeah, that link is just trolling. For both reasons...

I don't think you get why people post links about crimes committed by immigrants or terrorist attacks—I can tell from that one sentence I pulled out.

We can't stop a crime committed by an American citizen through any kind of immigration policy, so there's zero point debating those kinds of crimes in a thread about immigration.

But, a crime committed by an immigrant could have been prevented if we had stricter immigration policies in place. To put it simply: if that immigrant hadn't been in America, that specific crime wouldn't have happened.

That’s why I feel like pointing out these crimes is a valid argument. It doesn't mean ALL immigrants are criminals, but it shows that SOME are, and those crimes actually *could* be prevented.

Honestly, I think the moderators should let readers weigh out ALL the consequences of immigration.

lonebadger6 said:By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...

Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged

Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once

Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name

Man, because of that one totally unfair ban, I was locked out for a whole week. And of all times, it happened right during my vacation! Super annoying, seriously.