Rules and Moderator information

[Hound of Heaven]

Over the last two months, I experienced a situation where a particular moderator removed five of my posts solely because he disagreed with my opinion. After I highlighted that this moderator's actions were not justified according to the rules, all five posts were reinstated in the original thread where I had posted them.

I'd like to pose a question to the board, specifically directed at the moderators, but no need to answer because I already know the answer. If one particular moderator is repeatedly exercising their powers in a biased way, which is apparent to all, how do their actions contribute to the board's goal of fostering free speech discussions?

[Whiskey]

Over the last two months, I experienced a situation where a particular moderator removed five of my posts solely because he disagreed with my opinion. After I highlighted that this moderator's actions were not justified according to the rules, all five posts were reinstated in the original thread where I had posted them.

I'd like to pose a question to the board, specifically directed at the moderators, but no need to answer because I already know the answer. If one particular moderator is repeatedly exercising their powers in a biased way, which is apparent to all, how do their actions contribute to the board's goal of fostering free speech discussions?

Moderators, when they are trolling or shitposting, are trolling or shitposting as a person, not as a moderator. Moderators are people too. Hope that helps.

[canpakes]

Over the last two months, I experienced a situation where a particular moderator removed five of my posts solely because he disagreed with my opinion. After I highlighted that this moderator's actions were not justified according to the rules, all five posts were reinstated in the original thread where I had posted them.

I'd like to pose a question to the board, specifically directed at the moderators, but no need to answer because I already know the answer. If one particular moderator is repeatedly exercising their powers in a biased way, which is apparent to all, how do their actions contribute to the board's goal of fostering free speech discussions?

I recall seeing that happen twice. If your writing posts that are always trying to test the rules, they will sometimes get pulled and then discussed between the mod team. And they may make the return back to their origin.

In this thread, you’ve complained many times about the posts of others, and it seems that you have been one of the two biggest advocates for booting those posts. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not.

[Hound of Heaven]

Over the last two months, I experienced a situation where a particular moderator removed five of my posts solely because he disagreed with my opinion. After I highlighted that this moderator's actions were not justified according to the rules, all five posts were reinstated in the original thread where I had posted them.

I'd like to pose a question to the board, specifically directed at the moderators, but no need to answer because I already know the answer. If one particular moderator is repeatedly exercising their powers in a biased way, which is apparent to all, how do their actions contribute to the board's goal of fostering free speech discussions?

I recall seeing that happen twice. If your writing posts that are always trying to test the rules, they will sometimes get pulled and then discussed between the mod team. And they may make the return back to their origin.

In this thread, you’ve complained many times about the posts of others, and it seems that you have been one of the two biggest advocates for booting those posts. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not.

You may have removed my post, but it's clear to me and everyone else reading this that your ability to be an impartial moderator is lacking. You seem to prioritize your friends' opinions over assisting the owner of the board in ensuring that this free speech platform operates effectively.

The five times you relocated my post, none of those instances involved discussion among the other moderators. My post have been returned by a different moderator each time. They were returned to the original thread because they did not break the rules. The previous occasion you relocated my post, you were aware that it did not violate any rules, yet you proceeded to do so regardless, revealing your bias as a board moderator.

Similar to other Marxist progressives, you seem prepared to ruin whatever you touch when you sense a loss of control. Recently, there has been an increase in conservatives posting to the the board, and you are seeking effective strategies to discourage further conservative contributions. One only needs to browse through the threads on this forum and the Terrestrial to observe that the99% of your red letter moderator decisions are directed towards conservative board members.

[canpakes]

I recall seeing that happen twice. If your writing posts that are always trying to test the rules, they will sometimes get pulled and then discussed between the mod team. And they may make the return back to their origin.

In this thread, you’ve complained many times about the posts of others, and it seems that you have been one of the two biggest advocates for booting those posts. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not.

You may have removed my post, but it's clear to me and everyone else reading this that your ability to be an impartial moderator is lacking.

If this is so clear, please provide examples that demonstrate this.

You seem to prioritize your friends' opinions over assisting the owner of the board in ensuring that this free speech platform operates effectively.

Again, please provide examples.

Otherwise, I can respond in kind: “You seem to prioritize your friends' opinions over assisting the owner of the board in ensuring that this free speech platform operates effectively.”

The five times you relocated my post, none of those instances involved discussion among the other moderators. My post have been returned by a different moderator each time.

That’s incorrect. I have personally moved several of your posts back into this thread after splitting a conversation off that seemed to be trying to redirect the thread’s purpose.

The previous occasion you relocated my post, you were aware that it did not violate any rules, yet you proceeded to do so regardless, revealing your bias as a board moderator.

I still view that last incident as a derail. The thread also had a request by the author to remove posts that were not related to the topic, and there was also a report filed on one post. Mods are empowered to act in those situations. And, if after all of that Shades believes that the post is OK, then I’m OK with that, too. But the idea is not to leave all possible mod action to Shades, so if you’re always trying to bend the rules, then a mod who is not Shades may step in when Shades is not available. : )

Similar to other Marxist progressives, you seem prepared to ruin whatever you touch when you sense a loss of control.

I don’t know any Marxist progressives, and I have no desire to control you. You seem very bent on trying to make yourself the center of all conflicts, though. I suspect that you are not honestly appraising the situation.

Recently, there has been an increase in conservatives posting to the the board, and you are seeking effective strategies to discourage further conservative contributions.

No, it’s the same two accounts, just re-imagining and rebranding themselves occasionally.

I actually wish that there were intellectually capable conservatives joining conversations here. My background is rock-solid conservative within a family of veterans. Conservative viewpoints are valuable in fairly and accurately discussing the challenges that we face as a Nation. Instead, though, all we have is one account that starts nearly every post trying to insult a half-dozen other folks before moving on to describe every problem as being caused by a ‘Marxist progressivism’ that he cannot describe or define, and another account that hides behind shallow equivocation.

Seriously, an honest conversation with an honest conservative would be very welcome. I hope that some join up someday.

One only needs to browse through the threads on this forum and the Terrestrial to observe that the99% of your red letter moderator decisions are directed towards conservative board members.

No. Most of them address a repeat rule-breaking account that claims to be a democrat, and many others concern the posting violations of someone who claims that Trump is an idiot and/or an arsehole.

[Hound of Heaven]

Can'tpakes, you may try to portray yourself as a fair and just moderator, but as I mentioned, anyone can simply look at the threads where you've utilized your moderator powers to write in red lettering, and they will notice that, more often than not, 99% of the time, it's conservatives to whom you choose to explain the rules.

Your actions seem unjust and biased. It appears that making a complaint about your decisions to other moderators results in those decisions being overturned, which has happened to me five times. This situation complicates the work of the other moderators, as they have to spend time addressing your biased rulings that do not adhere to the established rules, but rather reflect your personal feelings.

As this thread aims to explore methods for enhancing the board as a platform for free speech, I would like to offer you some guidance, even though I already know you lack the capacity to accept guidance from someone not in your Marxist group. Your conduct and demeanor on the board as a member have been entirely appropriate, and you are exercising your free speech as intended by the board's owner. Your bias and condescending attitude as a moderator are complicating the efforts of your fellow moderators, as your biased rulings create more issues than the individual you are trying to address. It’s somewhat unfortunate that many of your decisions have been reversed, as it seems you prioritize impressing your friends over maintaining an impartial stance as a moderator. Once more, you are generating additional tasks for the other moderators, fully aware that if I raise a concern, your choice will be reversed. I recommend that moving forward, you maintain a consistent approach on the board.

Your conduct as a moderator reflects poorly on the board, and those engaging with this discussion board are questioning why a moderator prioritizes personal feelings over the established board rules. Your approach as a moderator resembles the situation when a self-indulgent, narcissistic police officer arrives at a scene, causing tension among the other officers. They are already aware that this particular officer, being selfish and self-absorbed, will rely on his emotions to assess the situation rather than adhering to the law he vowed to uphold upon his hiring. There’s often that one police officer whom others hesitate to partner with, fearing that getting entangled in his delusions could lead to lawsuits or an internal affairs investigation due to a citizen's complaint. Can'tpakes, you embody the "narcissistic officer that everyone dislikes." Your actions have compromised the board's reputation. As a moderator, much like a police officer, your primary responsibility is to de-escalate the situation upon your arrival. Maintain a calm tone and demonstrate maturity in your actions. Your leadership establishes the atmosphere of the discussion. Currently, your actions as a moderator seem to exacerbate the situation with biased rulings, rather than effectively calming it down with a composed response.

I wish I could express that in our private messages, you come across as a different individual, showing more willingness to embrace your moderator responsibilities. Unfortunately, that is not the reality, your tone in private messages mirrors the vindictiveness displayed on the board. This means that you have become so emotionally invested in your role on the board that you struggle to separate your board persona from your responsibilities as a moderator.

[Hound of Heaven]

I still view that last incident as a derail.

Can'tpakes, here is a screenshot of the last post I made, which you removed within two minutes of it being posted to the board, so you're lying, there was no complaint within the two minutes of my posting.

This post is entirely focused on sharing my perspective regarding the initial post of the thread. It outlines the facts: there are 19,450 cities in America, and Trump has deployed troops to 8 of those cities. This demonstrates that Brian Schatz's post and Jersey Girl's opinion are driven by emotion rather than factual evidence. Additional details in the second paragraph when I explain to everyone how crime in DC has decreased since the deployment of troops to Washington DC. Once again demonstrating that American troops are not the villains that Jersey Girls seeks to depict them as. The central theme of the Jersey Girls thread suggests that deploying troops to crime-ridden cities is "fascist", and characterizing American troops as evil individuals reflects a white Marxist progressive viewpoint.

In contrast, the minorities residing in these cities are largely pleased to see the troops, as they desire the ability to walk the streets in peace, much like Jersey Girl. You disagreed with what I said in my post, so you took it down. Your assertion was incorrect, which is why my post was relocated to the thread, as it was offering an opinion relevant to the topic discussed there.

Your decision was biased, while the moderator who reinstated my post acted without bias. Could you please explain how I derailed the thread and made a personal attack? It seems that the reason for moving this post below has been taken away, as you indicated.

[Whiskey]

I still view that last incident as a derail.

Can'tpakes, here is a screenshot of the last post I made, which you removed within two minutes of it being posted to the board, so you're lying, there was no complaint within the two minutes of my posting.

This post is entirely focused on sharing my perspective regarding the initial post of the thread. It outlines the facts: there are 19,450 cities in America, and Trump has deployed troops to 8 of those cities. This demonstrates that Brian Schatz's post and Jersey Girl's opinion are driven by emotion rather than factual evidence. Additional details in the second paragraph when I explain to everyone how crime in DC has decreased since the deployment of troops to Washington DC. Once again demonstrating that American troops are not the villains that Jersey Girls seeks to depict them as. The central theme of the Jersey Girls thread suggests that deploying troops to crime-ridden cities is "fascist", and characterizing American troops as evil individuals reflects a white Marxist progressive viewpoint.

In contrast, the minorities residing in these cities are largely pleased to see the troops, as they desire the ability to walk the streets in peace, much like Jersey Girl. You disagreed with what I said in my post, so you took it down. Your assertion was incorrect, which is why my post was relocated to the thread, as it was offering an opinion relevant to the topic discussed there.

Your decision was biased, while the moderator who reinstated my post acted without bias. Could you please explain how I derailed the thread and made a personal attack? It seems that the reason for moving this post below has been taken away, as you indicated.

Hound, not sure if you were around when this all went down. My suggestion would be to reduce your expectations, embrace the suck and accept the conditions.

If you want to be a moderator, you must have a strong track record of keeping your cool and avoiding, for the most part, knock-out, drag-down conflicts with other members. Disagreements here and there are fine, but if you have a reputation for constantly antagonizing one or more people, then you probably won't be selected.

The foundation for moderation was obliterated some time ago.

[canpakes]

One only needs to browse through the threads on this forum and the Terrestrial to observe that the99% of your red letter moderator decisions are directed towards conservative board members.

No. Most of them address a repeat rule-breaking account that claims to be a democrat, and many others concern the posting violations of someone who claims that Trump is an idiot and/or an arsehole.

Can'tpakes, you may try to portray yourself as a fair and just moderator, but as I mentioned, anyone can simply look at the threads where you've utilized your moderator powers to write in red lettering, and they will notice that, more often than not, 99% of the time, it's conservatives to whom you choose to explain the rules.

You’re complaining that I moderate you unfairly. And you’ve asserted many times that you’re a Democrat. You’ll have to give some examples of my unfair moderation of ‘conservatives’ to make this make sense.

I wish I could express that in our private messages, you come across as a different individual, showing more willingness to embrace your moderator responsibilities. Unfortunately, that is not the reality, your tone in private messages mirrors the vindictiveness displayed on the board. This means that you have become so emotionally invested in your role on the board that you struggle to separate your board persona from your responsibilities as a moderator.

I think we’ve exchanged one PM each. I am happy to screenshot and display the exchange here, if you consent, and if Shades is OK with it. All that you need do is give the word.

[Whiskey]

No. Most of them address a repeat rule-breaking account that claims to be a democrat, and many others concern the posting violations of someone who claims that Trump is an idiot and/or an arsehole.

Can'tpakes, you may try to portray yourself as a fair and just moderator, but as I mentioned, anyone can simply look at the threads where you've utilized your moderator powers to write in red lettering, and they will notice that, more often than not, 99% of the time, it's conservatives to whom you choose to explain the rules.

You’re complaining that I moderate you unfairly. And you’ve asserted many times that you’re a Democrat. You’ll have to give some examples of my unfair moderation of ‘conservatives’ to make this make sense.

I wish I could express that in our private messages, you come across as a different individual, showing more willingness to embrace your moderator responsibilities. Unfortunately, that is not the reality, your tone in private messages mirrors the vindictiveness displayed on the board. This means that you have become so emotionally invested in your role on the board that you struggle to separate your board persona from your responsibilities as a moderator.

I think we’ve exchanged one PM each. I am happy to screenshot and display the exchange here, if you consent, and if Shades is OK with it. All that you need do is give the word.

for what it's worth, and nobody asked. I don't have an issue with how you moderate. I have an issue that you moderate. And yes, this post is about you in the proper thread.