Insults - CNN 2

Christian Howard2 said:Just because CNN allows for some colorful language and heated debates—and because moderation there can be a bit loose sometimes—doesn't mean we actually want people insulting each other or encouraging that kind of behavior.

Deciding what stays and what goes is always up to the moderators. It’s on the users to try and follow the forum rules and just use basic decency.

I think we can consider this matter closed.

Nothing is closed. I’m looking for straight answers, not a way to dodge the question.

Sure, deciding what passes is in the hands of the mods, but that doesn't answer my question. I didn't come here for a lecture on obvious logic I already understand. I have a problem, and I came here for a solution. As moderators, that’s your job; otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the role at all.

My question is: what is allowed and what isn't? If I don't know where the line is, how am I supposed to stay within the rules? Do you honestly expect users to just intuitively sense what's acceptable? How does this actually work? Sorry, but I'm not psychic. I can't guess which specific insult a moderator might subjectively perceive as a valid point and which one they'll decide is an attack.

And let’s be real: it's not that "colorful language" isn't allowed on CNN; it's that insults are permitted selectively. I'm asking for the criteria you use to differentiate between a permissible comment and an insult. I'm asking so I can navigate this myself and avoid getting banned for offending someone.

If you can't answer that, then logically, you aren't using criteria at all. You're just handing out bans based on how you feel in the moment. That's absurd. You might find something offensive that wouldn't bother the target, and then you ban me for it. Or, I could throw an insult that wouldn't bother you, but would offend the recipient, and you'd let it slide. That's not a functional system. You shouldn't be choosing who gets offended; moderation that relies on personal feelings instead of objectivity has no business being on a forum.

Furthermore, if users don't know what's permitted, how can you justify punishing them for breaking the rules? If murder weren't against the law, how could you convict someone for it? So, I'll ask again: what is your basis for distinguishing between allowed and disallowed insults? If there is an objective standard you use, share it with the community so everyone actually knows where the boundaries are.

I'm waiting for a direct response to all of this.

redbear2 said:Nothing is closed. I’m looking for straight answers, not a way to dodge the question.

Sure, deciding what passes is in the hands of the mods, but that doesn't answer my question. I didn't come here for a lecture on obvious logic I already understand. I have a problem, and I came here for a solution. As moderators, that’s your job; otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the role at all.

My question is: what is allowed and what isn't? If I don't know where the line is, how am I supposed to stay within the rules? Do you honestly expect users to just intuitively sense what's acceptable? How does this actually work? Sorry, but I'm not psychic. I can't guess which specific insult a moderator might subjectively perceive as a valid point and which one they'll decide is an attack.

And let’s be real: it's not that "colorful language" isn't allowed on CNN; it's that insults are permitted selectively. I'm asking for the criteria you use to differentiate between a permissible comment and an insult. I'm asking so I can navigate this myself and avoid getting banned for offending someone.

If you can't answer that, then logically, you aren't using criteria at all. You're just handing out bans based on how you feel in the moment. That's absurd. You might find something offensive that wouldn't bother the target, and then you ban me for it. Or, I could throw an insult that wouldn't bother you, but would offend the recipient, and you'd let it slide. That's not a functional system. You shouldn't be choosing who gets offended; moderation that relies on personal feelings instead of objectivity has no business being on a forum.

Furthermore, if users don't know what's permitted, how can you justify punishing them for breaking the rules? If murder weren't against the law, how could you convict someone for it? So, I'll ask again: what is your basis for distinguishing between allowed and disallowed insults? If there is an objective standard you use, share it with the community so everyone actually knows where the boundaries are.

I'm waiting for a direct response to all of this.

The easiest way is to just not insult anyone, then you won't have to worry about it.
All the rules are open to subjective interpretation by the mods.
There is no objective formula that covers every single nuance of an infraction—not in moderation, and honestly, not even in real life. We just have to rely on the moderators' judgment.

And no, profanity isn't allowed on CNN, but insults are selectively permitted. I'm asking you: what criteria are you using to differentiate between allowed and disallowed insults? I'm asking so I can navigate this myself and avoid getting a ban for insulting someone.

If you're going to make accusations like that, bring some concrete examples where people were selectively allowed to insult others while others weren't.

If you can't give me an answer to that, it logically follows that you aren't differentiating based on rules, but rather handing out bans based on your subjective feelings in the moment. It's absurd. You could be offended by something that wouldn't bother the person it was aimed at, and end up banning me for it. But if I throw an insult that wouldn't bother you, but would offend the target, you won't ban me. It simply can't function that way. You shouldn't be choosing who gets offended; such subjective moderation has no business being on a forum.

Furthermore, if users don't know what's permitted, how can you possibly punish them for breaking the rules? If murder wasn't illegal under U.S. law, how could you convict someone for it? So I'm asking again: what is the basis for differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable insults? If you actually have an objective framework for doing this, then share it here with all the users so we can actually recognize what's allowed and what's not.

I expect a direct answer to all of this.

The rules state what is and isn't allowed, and users should follow those.

Let’s start over. I asked for straight answers. Save this canned "moderator wisdom" for someone else.

Christian Howard2 said:The easiest way is to just not insult anyone, then you won't have to worry about it.
All the rules are open to subjective interpretation by the mods.
There is no objective formula that covers every single nuance of an infraction—not in moderation, and honestly, not even in real life. We just have to rely on the moderators' judgment.

And no, profanity isn't allowed on CNN, but insults are selectively permitted. I'm asking you: what criteria are you using to differentiate between allowed and disallowed insults? I'm asking so I can navigate this myself and avoid getting a ban for insulting someone.

If you're going to make accusations like that, bring some concrete examples where people were selectively allowed to insult others while others weren't.

If you can't give me an answer to that, it logically follows that you aren't differentiating based on rules, but rather handing out bans based on your subjective feelings in the moment. It's absurd. You could be offended by something that wouldn't bother the person it was aimed at, and end up banning me for it. But if I throw an insult that wouldn't bother you, but would offend the target, you won't ban me. It simply can't function that way. You shouldn't be choosing who gets offended; such subjective moderation has no business being on a forum.

Furthermore, if users don't know what's permitted, how can you possibly punish them for breaking the rules? If murder wasn't illegal under U.S. law, how could you convict someone for it? So I'm asking again: what is the basis for differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable insults? If you actually have an objective framework for doing this, then share it here with all the users so we can actually recognize what's allowed and what's not.

I expect a direct answer to all of this.

The rules state what is and isn't allowed, and users should follow those.

No, it isn't. Offense is being allowed selectively. So, apparently, I can be insulting, but I don't know what criteria are used to decide which insults fly and which ones get flagged. Tell me: how do you differentiate between insults? How do you pick which ones to punish and which ones to let slide? Honestly, telling someone "it's easier if you just don't apply for jobs so you won't get rejected" is terrible advice. It's useless.

Shouldn't moderators aim for objectivity when making calls?

I am asking for the objective framework you use to distinguish between permitted insults and prohibited ones. Explain your logic to me so that I might follow the same standard.

If you're going to make accusations like that, bring specific examples where certain people were allowed to insult others while others weren't.

In my last thread, Amelia told me calling someone a "mare" is fine (we also know that mocking someone's intelligence is allowed), but calling them a "bucket of sperm" is not. They are all insults, yet they aren't treated equally—it's selective. Now, explain the objective difference here. Why is one slur considered worse than calling someone stupid?

The rules state what is allowed and what isn't; users should just follow those.

The rules are essentially nonsense, if you'll excuse the language. The rules say "insults are allowed, provided they are polite." We already established long ago that "polite" is a loose term and anything goes.

What I want to know is how we determine what is actually allowed. If a moderator can tell the difference between insults, there has to be a pattern. That pattern needs to be objective and logically consistent for any punishment to be justified. If such a pattern exists, share it with the rest of us so we can follow the same rules. If it doesn't exist, then maybe it's time to rewrite the rulebook.

P.S. — You need to update the rules regardless because of the bolded part. Otherwise, we're just creating more problems.

Oh, sure, let's just change all the rules because you decided that’s what works best... give me a break 🤣

CNN is just how it is. Those of us who post here pretty regularly actually went through the ringer 😢 back in the day before we finally agreed that this style of moderation was the way to go. We did a trial run, things worked out, the PDFs are running smoothly, the mods have settled into the rhythm, and most of the regulars are happy with how everything flows. You can either get used to it or go find a different PDF that matches your vibe better 🤷

And just to add one more thing—you clearly don't have a clue what actual insults look like if you haven't spent any time venting in the threads about CNN 🤣
Those of us who survived can tell you how it is 😬

hollowmason64 said:Oh, sure, let's just change all the rules because you decided that’s what works best... give me a break 🤣

CNN is just how it is. Those of us who post here pretty regularly actually went through the ringer 😢 back in the day before we finally agreed that this style of moderation was the way to go. We did a trial run, things worked out, the PDFs are running smoothly, the mods have settled into the rhythm, and most of the regulars are happy with how everything flows. You can either get used to it or go find a different PDF that matches your vibe better 🤷

And just to add one more thing—you clearly don't have a clue what actual insults look like if you haven't spent any time venting in the threads about CNN 🤣
Those of us who survived can tell you how it is 😬

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think.

The moderators gave me their answer by staying silent. I asked perfectly reasonable questions that challenged whether quality moderation is even possible under these "rules," and I got nothing back. That silence tells me everything I need to know about CNN and its leadership.