The "Carding" vs. "No Carding" Debate on the NYT

I reported this post earlier today:

Calvin Harris said:To me, it’s just proof that sheer stupidity is finally becoming digitally literate.
Though, I doubt things will look quite so bright when the zombies start swarming after Sunday service...

A few of us were actually discussing this in the other thread, and frankly, I assumed there wasn't a moderator active—that they'd just step in and nuked the post whenever they felt like it. But then I notice someone else's much later comment gets flagged, yet this remains untouched. How does that even work? How does a sentence like that fly under the radar?

edit

Actually, looking closer, I see this post was the one that got flagged. Trolling? What kind of trolling is this? Meanwhile, that hate speech above... nothing happens, everything is just fine...😕

Or perhaps I should mention reading a complaint from a user who was slapped with a warning—the same old story—simply for questioning whether being "against" certain lifestyles while being "for" traditional family values is a contradiction.

Once again, Moderator Edge was quick to jump in and provide a prompt response.

It’s quite a sight to see a moderator so eager to lecture others on proper decorum; I suspect it’s the very same individual who previously lectured a user about not "insulting a cabinet member"—which is enough to make anyone's head spin—and warned against using certain terms, yet somehow finds absolutely nothing wrong with labeling people as "digitally illiterate zombies heading to the polls after Sunday service."

Look, you are more than welcome to run this as a liberal forum—call it "leftist" if you must, even if that isn't quite accurate—but at least have the integrity to admit you are merely a political mouthpiece. Just don't go claiming to be "America's premier forum," because once you start deleting posts and handing out sanctions, it stops looking like a genuine reflection of American opinion.
In the end, you can't be this brazen, pretending a post wasn't even reported while simultaneously rushing to punish much smaller infractions...

Harold Walker44 said:Or perhaps I should mention reading a complaint from a user who was slapped with a warning—the same old story—simply for questioning whether being "against" certain lifestyles while being "for" traditional family values is a contradiction.

Once again, Moderator Edge was quick to jump in and provide a prompt response.

It’s quite a sight to see a moderator so eager to lecture others on proper decorum; I suspect it’s the very same individual who previously lectured a user about not "insulting a cabinet member"—which is enough to make anyone's head spin—and warned against using certain terms, yet somehow finds absolutely nothing wrong with labeling people as "digitally illiterate zombies heading to the polls after Sunday service."

Look, you are more than welcome to run this as a liberal forum—call it "leftist" if you must, even if that isn't quite accurate—but at least have the integrity to admit you are merely a political mouthpiece. Just don't go claiming to be "America's premier forum," because once you start deleting posts and handing out sanctions, it stops looking like a genuine reflection of American opinion.
In the end, you can't be this brazen, pretending a post wasn't even reported while simultaneously rushing to punish much smaller infractions...

It isn't the forum's fault; he's likely the one responsible for his own actions. (I did have a quick chat with Nick about this via DM, but I'll post it here too just so everyone knows exactly who they're dealing with.)

He knows perfectly well that something like this is against the subforum rules and won't be tolerated in Politics at all—it’s exactly what others get warned about.

The rule:

The code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to the use of derogatory nicknames directed at both forum members and third parties. We will not tolerate the malicious distortion of names, such as Fran Harmon, Vladimir, or Ivo, nor will we permit the intentional misrepresentation of any user's handle.
To foster a healthy cultural dialogue, please refrain from using offensive language when discussing public figures. Posts containing such remarks will not be tolerated.The moderators also reserve the right to sanction any posts that are particularly uncivil.

post

Edge said:The Bishop has stepped down, having last compared the administration to Nazis. Anyway, the guy just proved he was a complete fool.

So, zero integrity. If even one person lacks it, the whole thing falls apart. I mean, who would actually be willing to hand out warnings or bans for something someone wrote themselves, knowing full well it clearly violates the rules?

Susan Price30 said:It isn't the forum's fault; he's likely the one responsible for his own actions. (I did have a quick chat with Nick about this via DM, but I'll post it here too just so everyone knows exactly who they're dealing with.)

He knows perfectly well that something like this is against the subforum rules and won't be tolerated in Politics at all—it’s exactly what others get warned about.

The rule:

The code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to the use of derogatory nicknames directed at both forum members and third parties. We will not tolerate the malicious distortion of names, such as Fran Harmon, Vladimir, or Ivo, nor will we permit the intentional misrepresentation of any user's handle.
To foster a healthy cultural dialogue, please refrain from using offensive language when discussing public figures. Posts containing such remarks will not be tolerated.The moderators also reserve the right to sanction any posts that are particularly uncivil.

post

So, zero integrity. If even one person lacks it, the whole thing falls apart. I mean, who would actually be willing to hand out warnings or bans for something someone wrote themselves, knowing full well it clearly violates the rules?

In this specific instance, my colleague was actually laying out a reasoned argument.

There’s no way he’d be getting a red card for an approach like that.

Sam Green73 said:In this specific instance, my colleague was actually laying out a reasoned argument.

There’s no way he’d be getting a red card for an approach like that.

Actually, no.

If someone disagrees with the Bishop (or anyone else who makes their views public), the criticism should be aimed at those specific stances and ideas—not, obviously, at belittling or insulting the individual themselves.

But thanks anyway; I think I'd much rather hear an official clarification from the moderator in charge of the Politics subforum.

I fail to see why one shouldn't call a public figure a fool—especially when their actions suggest they have nothing else to be called.

Susan Price30 said:It isn't the forum's fault; he's likely the one responsible for his own actions. (I did have a quick chat with Nick about this via DM, but I'll post it here too just so everyone knows exactly who they're dealing with.)

He knows perfectly well that something like this is against the subforum rules and won't be tolerated in Politics at all—it’s exactly what others get warned about.

The rule:

The code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to the use of derogatory nicknames directed at both forum members and third parties. We will not tolerate the malicious distortion of names, such as Fran Harmon, Vladimir, or Ivo, nor will we permit the intentional misrepresentation of any user's handle.
To foster a healthy cultural dialogue, please refrain from using offensive language when discussing public figures. Posts containing such remarks will not be tolerated.The moderators also reserve the right to sanction any posts that are particularly uncivil.

post

So, zero integrity. If even one person lacks it, the whole thing falls apart. I mean, who would actually be willing to hand out warnings or bans for something someone wrote themselves, knowing full well it clearly violates the rules?

I didn't write anything uncivilized according to the rules. I just said the guy is a stubborn idiot. And I backed it up. I still think he's a stubborn idiot. If I had called him a total piece of garbage (just using that as an example), then sure, he’d deserve a ban. But you, I'm certain, won't have any trouble finding a post where I've lashed out at a member just because I called a public figure an idiot. But if, heaven forbid, you can't find anything like that, then I'm equally sure you'll come back here and say sorry. Because your integrity is beyond reproach. Isn't it?

bluecyclist64 said:I fail to see why one shouldn't call a public figure a fool—especially when their actions suggest they have nothing else to be called.

Honestly, I’m with you there; if some public figure thinks their feelings are getting hurt,
well, they’re always free to file a lawsuit, but at the end of the day, everyone is responsible for what they put out there.
An excerpt from our "Terms of Service":

All posts represent the personal opinions of their authors.

The only exception would be if that public figure actually maintains their own account on this forum.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Forum users have a different social standing than public figures, so you aren't allowed to insult them under any circumstances. Because of that, you're getting a well-deserved penalty for this.

says some guy... actually, excuse me, someone who decides to punish people for using phrases like "backwoods politicians"...😁...

ps @breaker, looks like you were accidentally picked as the prime example here...

Or even better, check out this response (just saw the thread):

What kind of special status do forum users even have when it comes to being insulted? 🤣

Harold Nguyen6 said:says some guy... actually, excuse me, someone who decides to punish people for using phrases like "backwoods politicians"...😁...

ps @breaker, looks like you were accidentally picked as the prime example here...

Or even better, check out this response (just saw the thread):

What kind of special status do forum users even have when it comes to being insulted? 🤣

In the meantime, we’ve started handing out penalties on the soccer pitch too, just so you and Breaker are both in the loop. Next up on the list? The earring crowd.

Harold Nguyen6 said:says some guy... actually, excuse me, someone who decides to punish people for using phrases like "backwoods politicians"...😁...

ps @breaker, looks like you were accidentally picked as the prime example here...

Or even better, check out this response (just saw the thread):

What kind of special status do forum users even have when it comes to being insulted? 🤣

That's a completely different story.
Ryan Vaughn7 actually lays out his reasoning, whereas breaker just throws labels around like they're some kind of absolute truth everyone already agreed on.

So you're trying to tell me there's no way to back up the idea of being "politically reckless"? Give me a break—you can absolutely make an argument for it, and honestly, that’s exactly why he ended up getting red-carded in the first place...

Right back at ya 👋

Alright, I see the post has been deleted now, but I’m wondering if the user was actually banned? It seems a bit inconsistent, considering other posts that were much more benign have been handled with a simple moderation strike rather than a full ban.

What really bothers me here is the lack of equal treatment. Personally, I don't believe any of the aforementioned posts warranted a ban; that’s just someone's subjective opinion, and since nobody actually insulted their interlocutors, I fail to see why the administration feels the need to lecture users on how to discuss public figures, ideologies, or current events... The moderator loneraven25 made a valid point: if a public figure happens to feel "offended" by a comment, the responsibility lies solely with the author, and anything else is just pure censorship. This is a forum, a place where people should be able to write based on their own perceptions. We all know what isn't allowed, but labeling a public official as a thief, a fraud, a swindler, or even a corrupt operative doesn't violate the forum rules we all agreed to when we signed up... There’s no reason to arbitrarily expand the scope of prohibited speech, especially when the law itself provides no such protection against mere criticism...

It’s the iPhone 15 here for the vocabulary, giving a solid 10 out of 10 for the dismissive tone—if you can even call a simple response to a post "dismissive"—and of course, those repetitive prepositions used just to insult a user... basically, if you don't align with the prevailing political correctness, you aren't allowed to say a single word without being brushed aside like some nuisance...

the Edge;47511866]Political correctness is the rule of the land, and you always have the option to take your business elsewhere.

I am forced to conclude that this "political correctness" the moderator Edge keeps invoking is almost exclusively a tool used to trample over any opinion that deviates from his own. Because, if I may return to my opening post—which hasn't received a single direct answer to this day—bans are handed out for minor infractions, yet when someone calls citizens mindless zombies who blindly head to the polls after Sunday service, there isn't a single report filed, nor are there consequences for the several forum members who pointed out such behavior on the thread itself... and since there is still no actual response to my point, I can only wonder if such a post was quietly scrubbed behind the scenes...

It feels incredibly selective. Far too much so. One shouldn't be using moderator authority to suppress political dissent; if you actually intend to participate in a discussion as a fellow member, Edge, you should be doing so with arguments, not mandates...