Moderation issues regarding Hillary Clinton

The moderation in this thread is an absolute disaster.

It’s drowning in off-topic noise, where users pivot to everything except actual presidential policy.
These tangents eventually snowball into multi-page arguments, while the moderators fail to intervene—in fact, they often join in on the distractions themselves.

Furthermore, this particular thread has become a breeding ground for hate speech and insults that go largely unpunished. Usually, if a report is filed, the original offending post is deleted, but the subsequent replies—where users quote and dissect the vitriol without repeating the exact slurs (thereby dodging the filters)—are left untouched.

Certain users stand out for this behavior, most notably #kiss me, who continues to post without consequence despite her incredibly vulgar outbursts. When I take the time to report one of her posts, the content is simply wiped away, yet she remains active. It’s a strange sight to see people banned for much more benign infractions while she remains untouched; by any logical standard, she should have been permanently banned ages ago, yet her presence serves as a silent threat to those who actually follow the rules.

#kiss me said:...that fat moral monstrosity is nothing but a mindless idiot, incapable of anything besides lying, stealing, and padding her own pockets at our expense.

#kiss me said:What a primitive, uncultured, and ill-mannered hillbilly, it’s truly appalling... a total disgrace with zero shame or class—just some heavy-handed brute...

These are just a few glimpses into her style of expression, which the moderators tolerate completely unless someone happens to flag them. Even then, the intervention is superficial: the post vanishes, but the user and her cohort continue their crusade unabated.

It is quite clear that certain individuals enjoy a privileged status here. They receive nothing more than a reluctant, half-hearted reprimand for their toxicity, while others find themselves under the microscope for even the slightest perceived slight or "hidden meaning."

I have to admit, I still struggle with my own "addiction" to this site, but I am getting closer to the day when I finally commit digital suicide. Given what this forum has devolved into over the years, I’ll likely trigger a permanent ban through a deliberate outburst, since there isn't a way to simply delete one's account.

It’s not just that this kind of garbage gets tolerated—it’s that the second you actually call it out, you’re the one getting slapped with a ban. Like, seriously?

Some uneducated, low-class hillbilly... coming from someone whose entire presence on this board is basically just a non-stop stream of insults, gutter language, and pure, unadulterated Neanderthal behavior.

Brenda Taylor13 said:It’s not just that this kind of garbage gets tolerated—it’s that the second you actually call it out, you’re the one getting slapped with a ban. Like, seriously?

Some uneducated, low-class hillbilly... coming from someone whose entire presence on this board is basically just a non-stop stream of insults, gutter language, and pure, unadulterated Neanderthal behavior.

I will warn you just once: do not comment on your own warnings in other threads. We have already had that discussion, and I have no desire to repeat it.

The basic issue we keep running into is this: the tolerance threshold for insulting public figures on this forum seems much higher than the threshold for criticizing other users. One user's lack of manners shouldn't be grounds for sanctions, nor should it justify being insulted by others here.

northernsailor8 The user states:
The fundamental division we find ourselves endlessly debating—it’s right here on the forum. It is curious to observe how much more lenient we are when it comes to the verbal abuse and public targeting of high-profile figures compared to the standard we apply to fellow members right here on this board..

I haven't even noticed where exactly you all claim to be "constantly dulling" the point. Even if you were strictly adhering to the established posting guidelines on this forum, that still wouldn't be the case.

Your own set of guidelines—specifically those governing how we handle PDF uploads within the Politics section—state the following:

• Article 4.
Within this specific sub-forum, discussions regarding politics are strictly prohibited.
Any form of disparagement based on nationality, ethnicity, social standing, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, politics, or any other fundamental identity is strictly prohibited.

If you find yourselves operating with a high tolerance threshold for certain types of insults while maintaining an incredibly low one for others, then:

The moderation is being handled in total contradiction to their own established rules, which... They don't make any real difference at all. It essentially boils down to the question of whether we should permit or prohibit the targeting of specific groups of people with offensive rhetoric.
There is only one possible outcome for this. The moderation here seems to be guided by principles that are both arbitrary and inconsistent—which is really just a polite way of saying they’re discriminatory.It’s a pattern we see playing out in various arenas, though it becomes particularly glaringly obvious within the confines of this specific discussion.

A few people’s lack of manners on certain message boards shouldn't be used as a pretext for imposing sanctions.

I beg your pardon?

Even the most trivial matters shouldn't serve as an excuse for people to resort to insults here on the forum.

I could certainly agree in principle, though one might argue that while action typically triggers a reaction, we are facing the inverse here: a profound lack of reaction is what ultimately forces the hand toward action.
The harassment they face from other users is a direct consequence of a moderation team that has allowed unbridled vitriol to flourish for months, if not years. If the moderators actually enforced the rules, people would simply wait for an official response rather than feeling compelled to descend into retaliatory insults. Instead, the moderators effectively set the pace for the trolls and hate speech peddlers by validating their behavior through their own commentary.

northernsailor8 As stated by:
I am going to issue this warning only once: refrain from commenting on your own disciplinary actions within threads that don't belong to you. We have already had this discussion, and I have absolutely no intention of revisiting it.

Michelle Evans As stated by:
Brenda Taylor13, let's start things off by discussing those grievances regarding the cardboard packaging.

Regarding those other rude, provocative posts I’ve had to scrub—yours and your colleague's included—consider this a one-time grace period where no penalties were issued. If you decide to persist with that particular brand of behavior, however, expect an immediate strike, and a heavy one at that.

As far as I can tell, this thread is centered on the moderation regarding the Hillary Clinton topic—specifically concerning that comment made by Brenda Taylor13. I’ve illustrated the concept of "cardboarding" by using my own recent experience within this very discussion; given the specific post from Michelle Evans that I cited in my opening remarks, the example feels entirely appropriate and fits the topic perfectly. It feels remarkably petty to prohibit him from commenting on the moderation process, especially when those very guidelines serve as the structural foundation for my entire discussion.

I suppose you have the power—you hold the reins of authority, so you can certainly act however you please. You can choose to be unreasonably rigid, or perhaps insist with a certain mindless, bureaucratic formality that one simply cannot pivot to discussing cardboard packaging when the current topic is something else entirely, but... If this thread is fundamentally centered on moderation and the issuance of warnings, then I find it somewhat baffling that there is an attempt to prohibit discussions regarding those very penalties—even when referencing one's own experience.

I think we’re totally missing each other here. Look, I’m not even trying to appeal my warning—if I actually wanted to fight the ban, I would’ve jumped straight to the proper thread to do it. I was just pointing out the massive double standard happening right here in this thread (the one about Hillary Clinton, right?). It seems like people can toss insults around without getting flagged, yet the second I call out that exact same language, I get hit with a penalty. This isn't me whining about my strike; it's me calling out the inconsistent moderation. I didn't go after anyone personally in my post—I just pointed out some pretty trashy language being used. I'm not asking you to take the warning away.

redhawk76, are you actually suggesting that we should moderate politicians with the exact same rules we apply to regular forum users?
Or is it simply that you haven't grasped the fact that we maintain a much higher threshold of tolerance for public figures—especially politicians—here on Politics? By virtue of their roles, they automatically accept a significantly heavier dose of criticism. If this is merely a matter of confusion on your part, I find it quite surprising that it hasn't become clear to you during your ten years of browsing this forum.

Brenda Taylor13, you're more active here, so surely you understand that addressing an interlocutor directly is fundamentally different from commenting on a public figure. Therefore, I would ask that you refrain from further trolling.

William Bennett53 said:redhawk76, are you actually suggesting that we should moderate politicians with the exact same rules we apply to regular forum users?
Or is it simply that you haven't grasped the fact that we maintain a much higher threshold of tolerance for public figures—especially politicians—here on Politics? By virtue of their roles, they automatically accept a significantly heavier dose of criticism. If this is merely a matter of confusion on your part, I find it quite surprising that it hasn't become clear to you during your ten years of browsing this forum.

Brenda Taylor13, you're more active here, so surely you understand that addressing an interlocutor directly is fundamentally different from commenting on a public figure. Therefore, I would ask that you refrain from further trolling.

If I were fundamentally opposed to criticism, I wouldn't have chosen a life spent clicking through various threads on the Politics PDF.

I believe my position is perfectly transparent to anyone paying attention (and I have stated it quite explicitly in another thread on this very PDF:

Criticism—always, even if it's biting! But what we have here isn't just blatant insult; it's hate speech that practically bleeds from every word of the quoted sentence.

Under our forum rules, I cannot tolerate vitriolic insults or hate speech. While you may personally—and I suspect only in certain instances😉—find such expressions understandable, that is your prerogative; however, it does not obligate me to accept a violation of the forum's established standards.

What goes for Andrew Cuomo, Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi also applies to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Robert Bork, or John Roberts. You can call any one of them a fat cow, a drunk, a disgusting creature, or a total loser. We don't permit attacks on voters, insults based on race or nationality, or any similar attempts at generalization. Furthermore, posts targeting politicians have been penalized when they become excessively repetitive, as that falls under trolling. To summarize: anything you can get away with saying about Todd Solondz, you can just as easily say about Hillary Clinton, but you certainly can't say it about forum member X.

William Bennett53 said:What goes for Andrew Cuomo, Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi also applies to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Robert Bork, or John Roberts. You can call any one of them a fat cow, a drunk, a disgusting creature, or a total loser. We don't permit attacks on voters, insults based on race or nationality, or any similar attempts at generalization. Furthermore, posts targeting politicians have been penalized when they become excessively repetitive, as that falls under trolling. To summarize: anything you can get away with saying about Todd Solondz, you can just as easily say about Hillary Clinton, but you certainly can't say it about forum member X.

First off—I find myself deeply skeptical of your claims, as I cannot recall a single post on any thread that was ever phrased with the kind of vulgar vitriol found in those posts by kiss me.

But perhaps I should test this theory.😉 Are you suggesting that if I were to write something truly vile—say, calling Nancy Pelosi a fat, arrogant, lying cow—on her own thread, I would remain unpunished and my posts wouldn't be deleted? Fine, let’s see how that plays out. (I still need to come up with something for Joe Biden, though I doubt that will prove difficult.😛)

1. If everything is supposedly permitted, why were those specific hateful and insulting posts on the Hillary Clinton thread only removed after I reported them?

Do you honestly believe I am such an influential figure on this forum that the moderators would delete posts—even polite ones—simply because I intervened?😲
I highly doubt it. It seems quite obvious that those posts were so egregious and unacceptable that they were only addressed once they were flagged, simply because the staff had to act to maintain even a shred of credibility. It is frankly pathetic that users have to constantly remind the administration to uphold their own standards instead of the staff doing their jobs proactively.

Your explanation is hollow and lacks substance; it results in nothing more than inconsistent, biased, and discriminatory moderation lacking any "measurable" criteria. It feels as though any moderator can decide to delete, punish, or warn users based solely on whatever doesn't "sit right" with them personally. Most of the moderators here seem to lean toward certain left-wing ideological preferences, which makes the outcome predictable: there is a clear distinction between what is tolerated and what is sanctioned immediately without a report or a plea. (The irony is that by practicing this kind of censorship, you are merely showcasing the lack of culture and coarseness inherent in the left, effectively forcing us "conservatives" to remain civil and polite just to avoid being silenced...😁)

2. And what about the off-topic discussions?
Why are endless tangents regarding Hillary Clinton's husband, her wardrobe, or her "putting her feet up on the furniture" allowed on her thread? (kiss me constantly posts nearly identical nonsense in the gossip threads, where it might actually belong, but on the Politics board, it is entirely inappropriate).

In short: this entire thread is subject to terribly biased and inconsistent moderation.

William Bennett53 said:What goes for Andrew Cuomo, Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi also applies to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Robert Bork, or John Roberts. You can call any one of them a fat cow, a drunk, a disgusting creature, or a total loser. We don't permit attacks on voters, insults based on race or nationality, or any similar attempts at generalization. Furthermore, posts targeting politicians have been penalized when they become excessively repetitive, as that falls under trolling. To summarize: anything you can get away with saying about Todd Solondz, you can just as easily say about Hillary Clinton, but you certainly can't say it about forum member X.

If that's really how it works, then why was this post deleted?

Kiss said:I see people are already bringing up her throwing her legs up in the air like that

Every time I think she couldn't possibly sink lower, she proves me wrong.
Just such a primitive, uncultured, and ill-mannered hillbilly—it's honestly terrifying... a total beast with zero shame or class—just lounging on chairs like that.

Just to be clear—I'm not against deleting posts like that.
In fact, we should be banning people for it (this isn't some dive bar, after all), and the habit of hurling epithets like "fat cow, drunk, disgusting creature," etc., at public figures needs to end—whether it's directed at Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or whoever else.

Why was my post deleted when I didn't insult anyone or drift off-topic?

I simply compared a portion of Hillary Clinton's expenses to the budget allocated for our most beloved and vulnerable citizens. That was all. 👎

Plus, it was literally just one sentence.

William Bennett53 said:What goes for Andrew Cuomo, Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi also applies to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Robert Bork, or John Roberts. You can call any one of them a fat cow, a drunk, a disgusting creature, or a total loser. We don't permit attacks on voters, insults based on race or nationality, or any similar attempts at generalization. Furthermore, posts targeting politicians have been penalized when they become excessively repetitive, as that falls under trolling. To summarize: anything you can get away with saying about Todd Solondz, you can just as easily say about Hillary Clinton, but you certainly can't say it about forum member X.

Funny how there’s always a mountain of insults aimed at conservative voters too—maybe pay attention to that? Also, when does the constant bashing of people from rural towns and the Midwest end? Especially since Hillary Clinton loves leading the charge on that. It's honestly gross to read. Thanks.

crimsonjackal63 said:If that's really how it works, then why was this post deleted?

Just to be clear—I'm not against deleting posts like that.
In fact, we should be banning people for it (this isn't some dive bar, after all), and the habit of hurling epithets like "fat cow, drunk, disgusting creature," etc., at public figures needs to end—whether it's directed at Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or whoever else.

Most people get a pass for insulting politicians because it acts as a sort of pressure valve... the kind of things you mentioned usually get scrubbed because they cross the line, though they don't always result in a ban.

When it comes to politicians, we typically issue bans for anyone spreading medical diagnoses—not just calling someone "crazy," but actually labeling them with mental illnesses—as well as more malicious slurs that carry much heavier consequences, like saying "Joe Biden is a traitor" or "Newt Gingrich wishes he could reopen Auschwitz."

lonebadger6 said:Most people get a pass for insulting politicians because it acts as a sort of pressure valve... the kind of things you mentioned usually get scrubbed because they cross the line, though they don't always result in a ban.

When it comes to politicians, we typically issue bans for anyone spreading medical diagnoses—not just calling someone "crazy," but actually labeling them with mental illnesses—as well as more malicious slurs that carry much heavier consequences, like saying "Joe Biden is a traitor" or "Newt Gingrich wishes he could reopen Auschwitz."

How exactly do you interpret this, given the circumstances?

Guidelines regarding PDF submissions for the Politics section.As they say:

• Article 4.
On the politics sub-forum, the following is prohibited:
• To insult is a simple thing, yet rarely is it done with any true elegance or purpose. Whether we are discussing nationality, ethnicity, social standing, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, or political affiliation. ...or any other basis whatsoever..

In these matters... Regarding our community guidelines. I don't see any instance where anyone's insults toward others are being tolerated by anyone.
If that is indeed the case, then any decision to tolerate offensive behavior becomes nothing more than a matter of arbitrary whim for individual moderators—a level of inconsistency that simply cannot be tolerated on a forum of this caliber.

Society generally tends to turn a blind eye when it comes to people insulting politicians. It’s nothing more than an exhaust valve.

If one considers the fundamental nature of any proposition...It seems we have reached a stage where every possible target is being insulted without distinction.The rules are explicitly clear, which means there’s absolutely no room for "discretion," leniency, or a soft touch—regardless of who is involved, even if we're dealing with someone prone to histrionic outbursts and thin skin.

Otherwise, those who find themselves irritated by certain users on this forum could just as easily demand the same privilege—standing there with the exact same logic and justification. On what grounds are we denying them their own "safety valve"?

lonebadger6 said:Most people get a pass for insulting politicians because it acts as a sort of pressure valve... the kind of things you mentioned usually get scrubbed because they cross the line, though they don't always result in a ban.

When it comes to politicians, we typically issue bans for anyone spreading medical diagnoses—not just calling someone "crazy," but actually labeling them with mental illnesses—as well as more malicious slurs that carry much heavier consequences, like saying "Joe Biden is a traitor" or "Newt Gingrich wishes he could reopen Auschwitz."

But you just said this:
- Stuff like this usually gets deleted:

some primitive, uncultured, ill-mannered hillbilly—it's just awful... a total pig with zero shame or class—all that loud, obnoxious behavior at the tables

And Jay Gatsby said earlier:
- That you can say basically anything about any public figure:

"a fat cow, a drunkard, a disgusting creature, a loser"

Look, I’m not trying to play the genius here—really, I'm not—but with every single post, you guys are proving that Unknown is absolutely right.
Actually, it doesn't even matter who's right.
- The main thing is to stop turning this Forum into a damn dive bar.

So, the bottom line here is that we really ought to hold their politicians and public figures to the exact same standard 😉>
...

I’m not really sure what to tell you, but moderators exist to draw those lines. It isn't because we're some kind of geniuses, it's just because someone has to step up and do it. Maybe in six months you'll be running the show while Dorian and I move on... setting boundaries is always a mess.

I see a clear distinction between these two things, even if you don't, though I'm not claiming I'm definitely right about it. But to me, there is a difference. If I stumble upon that first type of post, I'm deleting it immediately, but the second one? Not necessarily—unless it's part of a sustained rant, because if someone just drops a "fat cow" and moves on, I probably won't bother.

Context and frequency matter too, which is a point Dorian makes as well. If someone loses their cool over a politician and calls them a "fat cow" or an "idiot," that's one thing—but if they make it their whole personality and just won't stop, that's a different story entirely.

And honestly, I get why this is such a headache; trying to make a call that satisfies everyone is nearly impossible, mostly because finding that line is so difficult. I don't know, if I were a public figure or a politician, I don't think I'd care much if some random person on a forum called me a "loser" or a "fat pig"... I mean, who cares. What would actually get under my skin is if people started calling me a thief.

To me, that's the real insult. But if we start banning anything negative about politicians, then that falls under the umbrella too. If we weren't allowed to say that Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians are thieves, we wouldn't have one single thread here, we'd have ten.

Sure, some things are unpleasant to read (and often get wiped), but at the end of the day, who cares if XYZ writes that Hillary Clinton is a fat cow? Meanwhile, nobody ever seems to complain when people claim Joe Biden or Mike Pence or the Libertarian Party are thieves. Which, by the way, is actually legal defamation. Not that any sane person is going to file a lawsuit against every random XYZ who calls them a crook.

KLCCLK As stated by redhawk76:
...

Look, my friend... I didn't start this thread just because someone in an otherwise "normal" post decided to call Hillary Clinton "fat" or a "cow," or whatever other insults they threw at her in a row.
I opened it because of those posts I mentioned—whose was it? The sheer volume of insults being hurled here has long since moved past a momentary outburst or a single misplaced word born of frustration; we have entered a territory of sustained hostility that far exceeds a simple lapse in judgment.It is quite telling that none of the moderators stepped in to remove those posts—even after seeing them and engaging directly with the author—nor did anyone bother to issue a warning or, heaven forbid, impose any actual sanctions, until I finally took it upon myself to report them.

So, there's really no need to drag that into the conversation. Individualized. Those subtle, almost impudent little remarks that slip through the cracks—you know exactly what I mean. It’s never truly about the words themselves. If I were actually paying attention to every minor slight, I’d spend my entire day just clicking through endless reports.

We are seeing a continuous stream of lengthy, crude, and frankly hateful outbursts—posts that are nothing more than pure vitriol—yet the moderators seem content to sit idly by, offering zero intervention unless a user eventually takes the initiative to file a formal report.

We seem to be drifting off-topic again, yet strangely, nobody is stepping in to comment. Is this kind of tangential wandering actually permitted here, or is this thread somehow an exclusive playground for such diversions?