Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Kidchameleon

The mods need to stop pretending they are impartial, they are not.

Call Me Jimmy

On it's own that would be acceptable, in fact I've asked people to use less of the 'trumptards' 'trump zealots' when referring to anyone they disagree with so attacks like that and nicknames like sleepy creepy joe can go too. I've also attacked trump people who post in Hannity style language.

It is interesting after years of name-calling towards trump or anyone who defends his actions that 'sleepy joe' has caused you to take action.
The reason I'm arguing about this not because I want to write Sleepy Joe a lot, it's because you've also said that questioning the mental status of either candidate requires medical evidence, which is the worst point I've ever heard from a moderator of a discussion forum. And makes me question whether to even bother with this place any more if this kind of illogical bull**** is guiding the parameters of discussion.

It's obviously a reaction to what you perceive as 'fake news' and 'conspiracy theories' - words everybody is now abusing. You can't control fake news and conspiracy theories because the medicine is worse than the disease. The cure is people making up their own minds and speaking their opinion, figuring things out instead of simply believing the first thing they read, but instead we have children asking parental journalists to do fact-checks for them telling them what is true, for news articles to be shut down and for discussion to stop completely.

If Donald Trump did collude with russia you wouldn't find out through journalistic investigation, by your logic you would be happy to see Washington Post kicked off Twitter for covering watergate, or users not posting about that story here if it happened today. The end result of your own crusade is less scrutiny of those in power and the definition of being a useful idiot.

If taken at face value then it means discussion of anything before it being categorically proven is a conspiracy theory and that someone can't draw their own conclusions from video evidence.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The mods need to stop pretending they are impartial, they are not.

Nobody can be remotely impartial on the issue though. In general they tend to exercise incredible patience and moderate based on the rules and attempt to maintain some level of sanity in the Trump threads.

Beasty

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The mods need to stop pretending they are impartial, they are not.

Did anyone ever claim we do not have political views? We can still act impartially even if we do

I'm a Man Utd Season ticket holder - that never stopped me being a Sports CMod

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody can be remotely impartial on the issue though. In general they tend to exercise incredible patience and moderate based on the rules and attempt to maintain some level of sanity in the Trump threads.

Depends who decides who are the sane ones and what is sanity, doesn't it. If it suits you, you agree. if it doesn't suit you, you disagree. Just like every other human being with an opinion.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Depends who decides who are the sane ones and what is sanity, doesn't it. If it suits you, you agree. if it doesn't suit you, you disagree. Just like every other human being with an opinion.

I'm referring to keeping discussions away from sniping and trolling and such. Both sides of the discussion have been subject to moderation btw.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm referring to keeping discussions away from sniping and trolling and such. Both sides of the discussion have been subject to moderation btw.

Okay. I am glad you agree patience is required with the insanity on both sides.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Okay. I am glad you agree patience is required with the insanity on both sides.

That's reading a little bit more into my words than what was meant. More from the perspective that discussions can get aggressive at times resulting in moderation. Not "insanity on both sides".

Kidchameleon

Beasty wrote: »

Did anyone ever claim we do not have political views? We can still act impartially even if we do

I'm a Man Utd Season ticket holder - that never stopped me being a Sports CMod

You know what I mean....

I dont care what their views are, they are not modding impartially

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

That's reading a little bit more into my words than what was meant. More from the perspective that discussions can get aggressive at times resulting in moderation. Not "insanity on both sides".

I thought so.
Ergo you can call people who disagree with you on the subject of the US elections insane and that is okay. Not aggressive at all.

Overheal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Medical evidence that the mental status of the next president is relevant to the election... this is what we're dealing with. It shouldn't take a genius to figure this out from either side of the debate.

I don't have special insight, neither do they so the idea that it can be conclusive that old age doesn't affect Biden, or that Trump is lacking empathy is beyond parody.

Trump is an 'idiot' per astrofool, and no we don't have the medical evidence confirming that

Idiocy is not a mental diagnoses.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

I thought so.
Ergo you can call people who disagree with you on the subject of the US elections insane and that is okay. Not aggressive at all.

It's in reference to certain posts or claims that certain posters push that tend to act as either propaganda or to derail discussions. That should legitimately be moderated.

Beasty

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You know what I mean....

I dont care what their views are, they are not modding impartially

Please provide an example where you consider I am not modding impartially

Kidchameleon

Beasty wrote: »

Please provide an example where you consider I am not modding impartially

Well I wasnt talking about you personally (you tend to lose your sh1t when mods are singled out) I was obviously talking in general terms. An example would be being banned from using the term "Sleepy Joe" whilst President Trump can be called every name under the sun with immunity.

ExMachina1000

Beasty wrote: »

Please provide an example where you consider I am not modding impartially

I have a completely different opinion of a topic of conversation or incident than another poster.

Poster is accusing me of trolling. If I respond in kind what happens?

Beasty

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well I wasnt talking about you personally (you tend to lose your sh1t when mods are singled out) I was obviously talking in general terms. An example would be being banned from using the term "Sleepy Joe" whilst President Trump can be called every name under the sun with immunity.

And that is exactly the issue I have dealt with today in this thread and the relevant CA threads

I am a forum mod - I can speak for my own actions. I'm not going to ask you to provide examples of others when you made a generic comment about moderators of the forum which I moderate. I asked the question precisely because I do not believe you could provide such an example

Beasty

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I have a completely different opinion of a topic of conversation or incident than another poster.

Poster is accusing me of trolling. If I respond in kind what happens?

I suspect you are referring to a situation where you provoked a poster into a reaction and then you followed up in kind. One of the 3 posts was carded (the instigator of the interaction) and if there was an issue with that card it could have been appealed

ExMachina1000

Beasty wrote: »

I suspect you are referring to a situation where you provoked a poster into a reaction and then you followed up in kind. One of the 3 posts was carded (the instigator of the interaction) and if there was an issue with that card it could have been appealed

No not at all. I gave my opinion on a topic. Poster didn't like it and accused me of trolling.
No need to assume I provoked any reaction. That's all on him.

Iv reported the post that insinuates I was trolling. About 20 minutes ago.

Ted_YNWA

The allegation of lack of impartiality comes down to the fact that the general public cannot see what has been actioned & the offending posts deleted. There is a hell of a lot of sanctions being issued across the site that the vast majority of readers are not aware of.

Whenever I card a post in AH, I would usually delete it as well.

I follow a couple of CA threads & find that impossible to read every post in them. As has been stated numerous times, Mods rely on reported posts to bring their attention.

Just because a few Sleepy Joe's/ Trump is a ... are on thread doesn't mean Mods aren't taking a side.

If it was feasible to run a query to see how many Anti-Biden v Anti-Trump posts were sanctioned, the results would comparible.

Call Me Jimmy

So can any mod in any way defend the rule not to question the mental status of either candidate or has it been lifted?

Kidchameleon

Beasty wrote: »

And that is exactly the issue I have dealt with today in this thread and the relevant CA threads

I am a forum mod - I can speak for my own actions. I'm not going to ask you to provide examples of others when you made a generic comment about moderators of the forum which I moderate. I asked the question precisely because I do not believe you could provide such an example

Your deflecting, I expect better from you Beasty. I provided you with an example... Again, "Sleepy Joe" is banned. It is an innocent term refering to a video of Joe Biden sleeping. The term has been in the public discourse for a very very long time. It is used by the POTUS and millions of people around the world. Some feigned excuse about lack of 'medical evidece' is being cited as the reason for it being banned. This is b0ll0cks. There is no medical evidence of Trump being impotent yet the term IMPOTUS is freely allowed.

I have suffered horrific personal abuse for supporting Trump and there appears to be no penalty for the offenders yet a Trump supporter says "boo" and they are banned. I personally have been mistakenly threadbanned twice. Spare me the excuses, deflections, it is blatantly obvious. The site has become an embaressment.

Outlaw Pete

The last time I gave Feedback on this thread the very next day I was threadbanned from the Trump thread my feedback concerned. Now today I log in and the Trump thread which my latest feedback given here concerns is now locked. Surprise surprise. A coincidence I'm sure.

This is retaliatory moderation and it goes on a lot. Giving negative feedback about moderation does not go unpunished.

I'm sure martyrdom and paranoia accusations will be along any minute.

Why do the left crave echo chambers so much? Will never understand it. The last thing I would want is for users I merely disagree with to be removed from those discussions, or threads those discussions are taking place on to be locked, but then I wouldn't have any issue with Trump being called Sleepy either.

Baggly wrote: »

To clarify, i told a poster to stop using that phrase because when it was being used, it was being used to rile up and troll the 'other side'. On that basis, happy to keep an eye out for similar phrases used to describe Trump.

And what do you think the objective of calling Trump IMPOTUS is? Pull the other one would you. If a user reported a post calling Trump 'Sleepy Donald' you'd laugh at them. Most likely you and your fellow mods would make some smart comments in response to those reports and don't tell me it doesn't go on, I'm well aware that it does. Stop with this pretense that you subject all users to the same standards of posting. You (collective you) do not.

Baggly

People only stay thread banned because they refuse to engage with moderators in good faith and accept the reasons the mods give for the threadban.

I've thread banned multiple users today and overturned the threadban after discussion with the users. It happens all the time. It's a function of modding that allows us to get users to take stock of their posting when there is an issue. I'm loath to get into that threadban with you Pete because thr last time I did it spanned 1000s of words of how I'm a bad biased mod and how you had done nothing wrong, without any admission that your posts in that thread could have been an issue at all.

Yet again here I'm being presented with questions which you pose and then tell me not to answer and supposition about how mods operate where, again, you discourage me from telling you the reality of the situation.

Its a funny auld site that we want an echo chamber yet you have been free to post in a duplicate thread concerning the election since the last issue you had. Funny auld site that there is a feedback forum where your grievances are not only aired but responded to by the mods you put down. Do you have an explanation for why an echo chamber would behave like this?

The fact of the matter is you don't have the full picture of how the forum is moderated, and the only ones that do are the forum mods. So by all means dismiss our responses before we make them, but you would be much better served, in my opinion, if you would post more in good faith and take our responses on board.

i think its only fair to treat different things differently

trump is not an ordinary political leader of a modern democracy. if his behaviours and deeds tend to present him as a corrupt, dangerous, racist or fascist leader then that is going to be valid comment imo

tho i have to say, this level of no-tolerance of personal or dubious or low-quality attacks on political figures would be a very welcome move across the site.

there's four or five full-time posters to irish political threads who wouldnt see a week under such an approach

and a very good thing that would be, too

Baggly

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your deflecting, I expect better from you Beasty. I provided you with an example... Again, "Sleepy Joe" is banned. It is an innocent term refering to a video of Joe Biden sleeping. The term has been in the public discourse for a very very long time. It is used by the POTUS and millions of people around the world. Some feigned excuse about lack of 'medical evidece' is being cited as the reason for it being banned. This is b0ll0cks. There is no medical evidence of Trump being impotent yet the term IMPOTUS is freely allowed.

I have suffered horrific personal abuse for supporting Trump and there appears to be no penalty for the offenders yet a Trump supporter says "boo" and they are banned. I personally have been mistakenly threadbanned twice. Spare me the excuses, deflections, it is blatantly obvious. The site has become an embaressment.

This has been addressed in this thread but in case you didn't see it, I have not banned any phrase. I told one user not to use it, because it was being used to troll.

I have also said that I agree with what beasty posted here and on the election thread... That the insults aimed to troll that are anti trump have to stop too.

I have also said to another user to keep an eye out for any reports in this light.

So I don't know what else to say to clarify what's actually going on, because this has all been said in this thread and yet your post ignores it.

osarusan

Baggly wrote: »

I have not banned any phrase.

I'm all for it.
Even better would be for threadbans for the posters using them.


Sleepy Joe, Impotus, TDS, Trumptard...


If that's the level you are at, the thread is better off without you tbh.

Kidchameleon

Baggly wrote: »

This has been addressed in this thread but in case you didn't see it, I have not banned any phrase. I told one user not to use it, because it was being used to troll.

I have also said that I agree with what beasty posted here and on the election thread... That the insults aimed to troll that are anti trump have to stop too.

I have also said to another user to keep an eye out for any reports in this light.

So I don't know what else to say to clarify what's actually going on, because this has all been said in this thread and yet your post ignores it.

Can I share a pm YOU sent me yesterday that completely cintradicts this?

Call Me Jimmy

Deleted User wrote: »

i think its only fair to treat different things differently

trump is not an ordinary political leader of a modern democracy. if his behaviours and deeds tend to present him as a corrupt, dangerous, racist or fascist leader then that is going to be valid comment imo

tho i have to say, this level of no-tolerance of personal or dubious or low-quality attacks on political figures would be a very welcome move across the site.

there's four or five full-time posters to irish political threads who wouldnt see a week under such an approach

and a very good thing that would be, too

Of course, Trump's behaviour is corrupt, but not that man who's family is currently under investigation from the FBI for money laundering. Real unique to Trump. Many years of family profiting from deals exclusively in the places Biden was tasked with heading the diplomatic effort. Biden is at least as racist as Trump, and Trump the fascist hasn't used his power illegally and not even a single journalist is afraid of his wrath, in fact there's more negative stories true and untrue about Trump than any other leader.

The idea that your being objective is ludicrous.

This is it

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

The allegation of lack of impartiality comes down to the fact that the general public cannot see what has been actioned & the offending posts deleted. There is a hell of a lot of sanctions being issued across the site that the vast majority of readers are not aware of.

Whenever I card a post in AH, I would usually delete it as well.

I follow a couple of CA threads & find that impossible to read every post in them. As has been stated numerous times, Mods rely on reported posts to bring their attention.

Just because a few Sleepy Joe's/ Trump is a ... are on thread doesn't mean Mods aren't taking a side.

If it was feasible to run a query to see how many Anti-Biden v Anti-Trump posts were sanctioned, the results would comparible.

Bad practice in my opinion. Let other users know where the line is, not just the offending poster.

Baggly

osarusan wrote: »

I'm all for it.



Even better, I'm for threadbans for the posters using them.


Sleepy Joe, Impotus, TDS, Trumptard...


If that's the level you are at, the thread is better off without you tbh.

Well to be clear and honest (and i think ive said it previously in this thread), im not here to police opinions. The phrase was used to troll a thread, so a user was pulled up on it. I am here to police rule and charter breaches.

I have had users from both sides of almost every divide (US politics, Irish politics, abortion, gay marriage, general left vs right politics, gender equality, racism etc etc etc) tell me that im biased towards the other side - usually when someone has stepped over the line of civility, backseat modded or was trolling a thread. Apparently im just using these rule breaches as a smoke screen to punish their side.

Lads.....i have better things to do with my time. Im here to help moderate discussion on the site because i believe its important in a society to have decent discussion and because i believe this site actually allows for decent discussion (although it doesnt always happen) more than other forms of social media which truly are echo chambers, imo.

Thats it. Im largely apolitical and i especially dont have a horse in US politics.
You will just have to take me at my word on that, but its the truth.