CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Moderator guidelines for the Scotsman - World thread

Moderator guidelines for the Scotsman - World thread

Started by Bradley Scott2 · · 👁 4 views · 7 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Bradley Scott2Daniel Ward87
Bradley Scott2 Bradley Scott2 MemberOP
32 messages
joined Jul 2014
#1 ·
I got a strike for this:

Nick Anton already insulted me before:

I tried to respond politely to him and others in my posts (sorry, things got a little mixed up in the replies):

Basically, some people—who, frankly, are military strategy hacks—suggested the possibility of a retaliatory Iranian attack on Arab Gulf countries, which Kansas and I debunked with solid arguments.

But a lot of unserious users don't actually read the posts, so they keep pushing this idea about tank warfare in Iran, even though neither I nor any other serious commenters have mentioned that.
So, I constantly find myself having to defend against these straw man arguments:

Then Nick Anton goes ahead and insults me again, dismissing my points:

He keeps trying to pin that "tank warfare in Iran" nonsense on me, saying:

"What kind of damn desert terrain? Have you ever seen Iran in photos or been there, God forbid?"

So, this guy is insulting me for the second time. And for the second time, he's attributing something to me that I didn't say—something I've spent about ten posts explaining isn't true! I told him he was being unserious because he clearly missed the ten different posts where I explicitly or indirectly denied it.
And I get a 35-point penalty?

What kind of moderation is this?
Please look into everything I've laid out here.
Regarding the military side of the discussion, I'm one of the most serious commenters here—it just doesn't seem right that someone can insult me without any basis and have the moderators tolerate it.
Either I didn't deserve the strike, or at least five or six other users on this thread deserve a month-long ban.

Generally speaking, on the Scotsman threads, it seems like all sorts of people are allowed to write complete nonsense, just venting their own complexes and unrealistic views on global politics.
As for the Libya threads, I honestly lost interest because of all the garbage being tolerated there.

If this kind of trivializing of topics continues, serious commenters aren't going to participate anymore.
Is that really the goal of this forum?

Best regards
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#2 ·
Since we're talking Politics, I guess that’s kind of my lane 😁

Could you clarify what you mean by "insulting" or "planting ideas"? To me, this feels like a pretty interesting debate, and I haven't caught any disrespect or manipulation on my end. Sure, maybe that bit about the tanks was a stretch, but let's be real—you definitely gave me some fuel for that one.
Bradley Scott2 Bradley Scott2 MemberOP
32 messages
joined Jul 2014
#3 ·
How did I even give him an opening?
Isn't it just incredibly frustrating having to explain ten times that you didn't actually say something?
Basically, Anton is just making things up to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. That feels pretty insulting, doesn't it?
And if he's being intentional, it shows in his next post where he claims he read everything perfectly.
It’s not just that, though. Regarding my concise scenario of a potential attack (which is realistic!), he responds with:
"I love these internet generals.
Why haven't you joined NATO or a US MVP? I mean, they've been struggling with those Taliban guys over there for 10 years, yet you think you could wrap this all up in 2 or 3 days. It'd be a shame to let that talent go to waste."
So, he's being insulting and questioning my knowledge, even though he hasn't actually provided any arguments to prove my assessment is wrong.
Either that, or he pulls my points from other discussions just to mock them without any basis, or asks for details I've already explained, and so on.

Don't get me wrong—he isn't any worse than the rest. Plenty of people here act like experts despite having very little actual knowledge. You see forum users claiming Iran is going to launch 11,000 or even 300,000 ballistic missiles at their enemies.

But the guy is provoking me and attacking my expertise, and then when I defend myself, I'm the one who gets a warning.

Let's look at it through the lens of US legal principles regarding provocation.

If someone provokes or insults me, and I snap back, a court will either clear both of us or penalize both of us. Usually, however, the person who started the conflict ends up with the harsher penalty.
I don't see why Anton hasn't been banned since he's sitting at 100 points.

I really have no intention of arguing about warnings. I try to be a serious member of this forum.
If my opinion isn't valued, or if the standard is such that I deserve this kind of treatment, then I'll just hold back from posting in threads where the moderation is like this.
I'll leave the floor to those who mostly post unrealistic fantasies and nonsense.

Best,

P.S.
Generally speaking, on these threads—especially in The Scotsman—people are allowed to write whatever they want, including blatantly false or totally exaggerated info.
They drop links to various disinformation sites that peddle the latest nonsense.
And nobody ever holds them accountable for it.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#4 ·
Bradley Scott2 said:How did I even give him reason to do that?
Isn't it just exhausting having to explain ten times that you didn't actually write something?
Basically, Anton is just twisting my words to make me look clueless. That’s pretty insulting, right?
And if he's being intentional, it shows up in his next post where he claims he read everything perfectly.
It doesn't stop there. To my concise scenario about a potential attack (which is realistic!), he responds with:
"Man, these internet generals are something else.
Why haven't you joined NATO or signed up as an MVP for the USA? I mean, they've been struggling with those Taliban guys for 10 years, yet you think you could wrap it all up in 2-3 days—it’s a shame to let that talent go to waste."
So, he's being disrespectful and questioning my knowledge, even though he hasn't actually argued why my assessment is wrong or anything.
Or he pulls arguments out of context from my chats with others just to mock me without any basis, or asks for details I've already laid out, etc.

Look, let's be clear—he isn't any worse than the rest, and plenty of people here act like experts while knowing next to nothing. You see folks on the forums claiming Iran is going to launch 11,000 or even 300,000 ballistic missiles at their enemies.

But this guy is provoking me and attacking my expertise, and then when I fire back, I'm the one who gets a warning.

Think of it like a legal analogy involving misdemeanor laws.

If someone provokes or insults me, and I snap back, the court will either let us both off or penalize us both. Usually, the one who started the fight ends up getting the heavier sentence.
I don't see Anton getting banned just because he hit 100 points.

I have zero intention of fighting over a warning. I'm a serious user here.
If my opinion isn't valued, or if the standard is such that I deserve a penalty for it, then I'll just stay away from threads where the moderation is like this.
The floor can stay with the people who mostly post unrealistic fantasies and nonsense.

Cheers

P.s.
Generally speaking, on these boards—especially The Scotsman—people get away with all sorts of things, including spreading blatant lies or totally exaggerated data.
They drop links to various disinformation sites that peddle pure garbage.
And nobody ever calls them out on it.

Fair enough. I'll go through the posts again and keep an eye on what you're saying.

Regarding your P.S.

Point taken. However, you have to realize that calling something a "disinformation site" is a pretty broad term, since what looks like fake news to one person might seem like facts to another. But thanks for the input regardless.
Bradley Scott2 Bradley Scott2 MemberOP
32 messages
joined Jul 2014
#5 ·
Daniel Ward87 said: You have to realize that calling something a "disinformation site" is a pretty broad label—what one person sees as fake news, someone else might just see as the truth. But hey, thanks for the input regardless.

Let me clarify.
When people start talking about Western mercenaries, special forces, or CIA agents being inserted into Libya, it’s all pretty unverified. Honestly, it just feels like part of the usual folklore you see on leftist, anti-American forums.

If a site claims there were about 2,000 American tanks piled up in Afghanistan, another 2,000 in Iraq, plus an extra 10,000 armored vehicles in the region due to an attack on Iran—all while simultaneously reporting that two atomic bombs exploded in US arsenals back on September 27th—isn't that just straight-up disinformation garbage? It’s full of stuff you could debunk in seconds.
I actually reported a link just like that one, but I didn't notice any mods stepping in.
So, that's the kind of link I was talking about.
Bradley Scott2 Bradley Scott2 MemberOP
32 messages
joined Jul 2014
#6 ·
Still waiting on a response.

Here's an update.
Regarding my fairly moderate post—one that didn't offend anyone but just suggested a bit of nuance regarding certain statements:

Anton responded again with an insulting tone:

It would be fair if I were allowed to respond in kind. Instead, I received three warnings for making three very reasonable replies to his insults.

Looking for an answer.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#7 ·
Sorry, but I don't see anything offensive here. It’s definitely a bit blunt, sure, but I wouldn't call it an insult.
Bradley Scott2 Bradley Scott2 MemberOP
32 messages
joined Jul 2014
#8 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry, but I don't see anything offensive here. The tone is a bit sharp, sure, but I wouldn't call it an insult.

I agree that what counts as offensive is pretty subjective..
But I've actually been flagged for things similar to this before—my replies were labeled as trolling, even though I was just responding to insults that I didn't start in the first place.

So, maybe the rule should just be that we're allowed to defend ourselves. On other American forums, mods let you push back against indirect insults, as long as it doesn't turn into an all-out shouting match.

I also think mods should pay closer attention to who's actually contributing to the discussion versus those who are just constantly tearing everyone else down.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads