Moderating on Politico

Hello everyone—back again after my second ban in a very short window.
I’d like to pose a few questions to the Politico moderators, and even those above them, just so I know where the lines are drawn... if they could actually clarify the criteria for me.

I was hit with a direct ban without a single warning or strike. Charles Fox10, who issued it, explained it like this:

I banned you directly because during a discussion with a colleague, you managed to compare him to Zakharov. I have no idea how you pulled that off, but you did, and that's not allowed—plus, I already had to delete several of your posts just yesterday, which definitely warranted sanctions.

Here is my explanation of the post, which went unanswered.

I was comparing the way he defends his position to the White House, and I mentioned Zakharov.
I honestly thought you were capable of reading and understanding.

Basically, Ego’s entire argument regarding why the social program isn't good—claiming any housewife isn't a role model for kids, or that the program is a budget drain, etc.—went so far that he accused the actual beneficiaries of being at fault for the lack of children...
It was so absurd, both mathematically and logically, that it reminded me of how the White House, while attacking and destroying something, blames the victim and claims they are actually attacking themselves.

I could have told some woman her haircut looks like Zakharov's... not like she'd be offended.

It never crossed my mind that you would ban me for that—not in a million years—while simultaneously letting his post about "mass-producing" children slide.
As for calling the program's users "parasites" (something moderator Oshric also does), I stopped expecting anyone to react... I guess that counts as free speech, just like calling someone a bureaucrat or unemployed.
Thanks for the response, and let the record show I am deeply surprised by these standards. I certainly don't consider my colleague Ego to be worth comparing to those lying killers.
I did mention to him earlier that his insistence on a specific lifestyle feels like those who would forbid people from living how they choose, whether supported by the state or not.

The question is... is a comparison regarding an argument style really worth a direct ban without warning?
Similarly, what about terms like "mass-producing" (children) or "parasites" (referring to program users)? Are we supposed to accept that as normal since moderators Ego and Oshric use those exact terms?

A few days pass, and then a new ban. I didn't realize why immediately, until I saw the reason... stated like this:

Continued war with moderation and publicly spreading falsehoods regarding (the lack of) privacy in private messages.

Again, no strikes, no warnings—just a direct ban from I don't even know which moderator.
To be fair, I wrote in a reply to a user that I can't say whatever I want because I'm on the losing side of the topic, in the minority, and might get banned... that's just commenting on the moderation. I didn't realize that critiquing the mods resulted in an immediate ban. And I have no idea what "war" they are talking about, since I haven't received a strike in probably a year. After asking why on the first day, I got my answer and moved on.

Regarding the "falsehoods" about private messages: the whole post was a joke where a user offered to have me send him a post via PM so he could publish it. I responded saying I don't really use private messages anymore since certain people have gone public with things we discussed privately. It serves neither the forum nor the mods, and I fail to see what "falsehood" I supposedly uttered.

One more question—this one touches on the massive debate over abortion and that whole Cavajd case currently blowing up...
On the very day the chaos started regarding this topic, someone sent this message to the moderator...

Anyone who brings up murder in the context of this discussion can kiss this forum goodbye.

Since that initial post, the thread has devolved into everything imaginable... fetuses, termination, death, killing... I’m genuinely curious about what actually triggers a ban, because in my experience, there haven't been any warnings. I honestly have no idea which specific word or sentence of mine might be the reason for getting banned.

I was wondering if it’s considered acceptable for a moderator to describe the potential child in the Cavajd case as a mere "blob" to be put in a jar (Oshric... I didn't notice if it was gray) or to claim that bringing such children into the world is a form of abuse and that dogs deserve better treatment.

Thanks for whatever answers you might have...

I honestly have no idea how anyone could help you here.

You go on and on about getting banned, claiming it happened because you were commenting on the moderators—even though you claim you didn't mean to, and that you didn't even realize it was against the rules. But somehow, you still managed to circle around the topic and critique the mods, which landed you the ban. Then, in the same breath, you appeal it by asking *why* you got banned, right after stating clearly that it was because you were criticizing the moderation team. I mean, if you didn't know the rules, sure, but you've been on this forum for fifteen years.

And then, to top it all off, what do you do at the end of your post? You comment on the moderators again. 🤷

Seriously, I have no clue how someone is supposed to help you. It’s a real head-scratcher.

You just got hit with a three-day ban from me for:
"The push to scrap parental rights laws in Washington, D.C."

No thanks. I already sat through a three-day ban once. Must be nice being on the "right side" of this forum where you can just ramble whatever you want while I can't.

I don't really trust private messages anymore after what happened here. After a few years, people just dig up stuff I said in PMs and throw it back in my face.
And it's always the liberals... honestly, give me a break.

Look, you got banned by a colleague, tried to make a scene in the general chat that nobody actually cared about, and then the second that ban lifted, you immediately jumped back in with this "right side" nonsense and those shady, vague comments about private messages that left everyone pretty confused.

Chuck explained everything regarding the previous ban, and honestly, this latest one was more than earned—if anything, it was overdue. That's all I've got to say.

"Victims"... "threats"... what an exhausting little melodrama. Is everything alright over there?

driftingtinker said:I’m handing you a three-day ban because of this:
"The removal of parental rights measures in Washington, D.C."

You got banned by a colleague, tried to make a scene on the forum—which didn't land, by the way—and then, the second the ban expired, you immediately pivoted to playing the victim with the "other side" and those shady, ambiguous claims about private messages that left everyone scratching their heads.

Charles Fox10 already cleared up everything regarding the previous ban; this latest one was more than earned... if not outright expected. That's all I have to say.

I am not making a scene. And what "shady claims" about private messages? Who exactly am I supposed to be framing?
I simply stated the fact that I avoid PMs because I've been burned before.
Fine, so according to you, commenting on moderation or being perceived as "framing" someone results in an immediate ban—no warnings, no strikes, just straight to the exit. Thanks.

That is a response to only one of the questions asked. I posed them politely and followed the rules.
I'm still waiting for answers.

Kate, when people ask about the ban or the recent thread deletion, I give them a short, direct answer and leave it at that. As for you, I’ve already explained my reasoning, and since those posts were removed, you've received a warning.

Certain expressions used within specific threads don't sit well with me, certainly. But if we sterilized everything to that degree, moderation would just be another word for censorship. We aren't interested in censorship; our goal remains a polite, civilized debate. We also recognize that certain topics are inherently volatile and carry their own unique friction.

Furthermore, under U.S. law, legal abortions are not considered murder, nor are doctors or women involved. If we somehow missed that distinction, my apologies—just send me a link to any posts suggesting otherwise via DM.

Thanks, Charles Fox10👍

I just wanted to point out—since I forgot to mention it yesterday—that simply citing the specific terms and claims I used in my questions isn't enough to justify a deletion under censorship rules. Yet, apparently, my comparison of someone else's arguments needs to be scrubbed from the public record, topped off with a multi-day ban for me.

Anyway, I assume you know exactly what you're doing, Charles Fox10... and exactly which standards you're applying.

It appears someone saw fit to scrub my legitimate contribution from the discussion regarding abortion—specifically, my suggestion that instead of opting for an abortion, children could simply be placed into state care or with foster families. I am somewhat perplexed as to why my post was removed, and I would be most grateful if someone could enlighten me as to the reasoning behind such a deletion.

The reason is right there in the part you "accidentally" decided to leave out.

driftingtinker said:The reasoning follows immediately after, which you "accidentally" neglected to mention.

I am somewhat unsure what you are referring to, as the original post has been deleted, and I certainly don't have the capacity to recall specific details beyond the general sentiment of the message; if you wouldn't mind clarifying, it would be most appreciated.

I mean, what kind of damage would we actually be doing to society or the government if the state just took in those kids—you know, the ones lost to abortion—and put them in foster care to be raised properly? If they were fed, educated, and given a real shot, maybe they could end up serving the state or their foster families. I guess there are plenty of cases where, with the right upbringing and actual resources, a person could grow up to be someone who more than pays back everything the government or a foster parent poured into them.

Anyway, I’m calling it here. I gotta run before I get teleported straight into the 21st century.

driftingtinker said:I think I'll wrap up my part of this debate here; I’m practically rushing toward a time machine to skip straight to the 22nd century.

We might conclude our little back-and-forth, yet I remain quite puzzled as to what exactly is being contested; I have simply presented a legitimate perspective that, if properly developed, could actually save lives.
The core concept itself holds merit, provided one takes the time to flesh it out.
If by "the 22nd century" you are implying a future defined by servitude and the slaughter of innocent—or even guilty—souls, then I fear you are indicting your own humanity and ideological standing.

To hell with women and the fact that they might not even want to carry a child for nine months, enduring hours or even days of agony during labor. Who asked them? They aren't here to have opinions or feelings; they are simply here to give birth whenever they decide to spread their legs.
As for orphans, everyone knows the deal—they’re just blooming with anticipation, and it’s only a matter of time before some wonderful family comes along to adopt them.

Let's just pull the plug on the internet and drag us all back to the Middle Ages alongside those lecherous old hags!!!1!
If you ask me, I’d strip them of the right to vote entirely. For God's sake, who ever decided a woman should have the audacity to speak up or act on her own whims!

Casey Bennett said:forget women and the fact they might not even want to carry a child for nine months, enduring hours or even days of labor. who asks them, right? they aren't here to think or feel; they are simply there to give birth since they clearly know how to spread their legs.
and in orphanages, as everyone knows, children are just blooming with anticipation, and it is merely a matter of time before a wonderful family adopts them.

let's just shut down the internet and head back to the Middle Ages with those lustful old hags!!!1!
if you ask me, I would strip them of their right to vote too. goodness knows who decided women should have anything to say or do on their own accord!

By that logic, one could justify absolutely anything, given that everyone acts as their own absolute truth;
a child is not merely an extension of the mother's body, but a distinct entity—a separate living being that, by definition, ought to possess its own rights. furthermore, the role of the state should be the care of children as an investment in our collective future. the fact that our government feels disorganized or chaotic is a failure of leadership, which in no way diminishes the core ideology or the stance I have laid out here.

The pregnant woman also deserves state protection, and there really shouldn't be much debate regarding that point.
the notion you expressed about someone "not wanting to carry" is quite selfish and, frankly, pathological, unless we are discussing extreme cases like sexual assault or serious medical necessity. however, even in those instances, society and the state should provide enough support to maintain a decent standard of living for both the child and the mother.

A child is born when they actually enter the world; until then, you're just talking about a fetus.
And thank you so much for that second half of your last sentence. Honestly, how incredibly generous of you—acting like some moral authority while you judge everyone else's private medical decisions from your high horse.

So what’s the plan? Let’s just sedate a victim with heavy tranquilizers until she gives birth just so she stays "calm," and then we can act like she doesn't matter. Just like that child (who is a person once they're born, since you insisted it was just a fetus before then), who would probably be better off being kept on antipsychotics for their entire stay in an American foster care facility. Because clearly, whether they get adopted or receive actual decent care is irrelevant to people like you. All that matters is that you get to chirp away without doing a single second of thinking or having any grasp on reality.

I’ve already given you my take on how the moderation should work, so there's your answer there. As for everything else, you can just scroll through the rest of the forum to find what you're looking for.