A suggested rule to improve moderation

[BS Filter]

I am aware that moderators are members who are free to engage, just like any member, in a thread of interest.

The problem comes in when a moderator puts on her “member” hat to oppose or debate the OP (or any poster, really), and retains moderator capabilities to delete posts or move the entire thread to Badlands when it was originally started in a Zone 1 forum.

I suggest the following: any time a moderator is a participant on a thread - ESPECIALLY when debating the OP’s premise - she cannot simultaneously moderate that thread. The bias is obvious and she cannot objectively do to her “job.”

Bullseye. A few moderators won be translated. They because mods to gain advantage. Pretty immature.

 

[Lisa558]

Bullseye. A few moderators won be translated. They because mods to gain advantage. Pretty immature.

Thank you. The mod in question is on the thread she moved out of the polite Zone 1 forum, and is now calling me a racist constantly. That’s why she moved it. The secondary reason is that it frees up her fellow leftists to attack me as well.

This type of thing really should be stopped.

 

[MinTrut]

Thanks.

Why don’t you start a thread on the difference? I HAD been calling the crazies “liberals,” but then a poster corrected me and said they were leftists, not liberals. You are saying the opposite.

I think it could make for an interesting debate.

Done!

Democrats viscerally oppose the wishes of the left and The People; here's how to confirm this...

There's ENORMOUS confusion in conservative circles about the left, specifically involving the conflation of this small group with the enormous group consisting of liberals/progressives/Democrats - the largest voting block in the country. The actual left consists of about 3% of the voting...

www.usmessageboard.com

Liberals/Democrats play footsie with the left, but when it comes to core values, they're to the right of people on the right.

 

[MinTrut]

A liberal follows liberal ideology as espoused by the likes of John Stuart Mill or John Rawls.

Not in 2023.

Min has it TOTALLY backwards.

You do; (most) modern liberals are closeted, self-hating conservatives.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I am aware that moderators are members who are free to engage, just like any member, in a thread of interest.

The problem comes in when a moderator puts on her “member” hat to oppose or debate the OP (or any poster, really), and retains moderator capabilities to delete posts or move the entire thread to Badlands when it was originally started in a Zone 1 forum.

I suggest the following: any time a moderator is a participant on a thread - ESPECIALLY when debating the OP’s premise - she cannot simultaneously moderate that thread. The bias is obvious and she cannot objectively do to her “job.”

It's a great theory, but in practicality it doesn't work. We are volunteers; we aren't employees. We don't work certain shifts. We are here when we are here and we aren't when we aren't. Sometimes several of us are here at once; sometimes just one of us is here. If that one person participating in the thread is also the only moderator around the thread can get out of control really quick if that one moderator has to wait for another to sign on. Then some of you are going to be upset that your complaints aren't getting handled fast enough and it will also result in more threads simply being closed because by the time another moderator could sign on to deal with it you could have 20 pages of garbage to sort through and it's not worth the time.

 

[MinTrut]

So what’s liberal ideology as opposed to leftist ideology?

It's not about ideology, but behavior.

Liberal Democrats will talk leftist talk IF they think it gets them votes/money, but their actions are to the right of right.

Even their open border policies are just a scam to bring in voters to turn red states blue, as the plan (per Schumer) is to legalize them so they can vote (Democrat).

And how many true liberals are among the current crop of Democrats in Congress?

Zero true - or more properly, classical - liberals.

 

[MinTrut]

It's a great theory, but in practicality it doesn't work. We are volunteers; we aren't employees. We don't work certain shifts. We are here when we are here and we aren't when we aren't. Sometimes several of us are here at once; sometimes just one of us is here. If that one person participating in the thread is also the only moderator around the thread can get out of control really quick if that one moderator has to wait for another to sign on. Then some of you are going to be upset that your complaints aren't getting handled fast enough and it will also result in more threads simply being closed because by the time another moderator could sign on to deal with it you could have 20 pages of garbage to sort through and it's not worth the time.

^ Like.

Thank you for weighing in.

 

[MinTrut]

Liberalism is not an authoritarian ideology and is predicated on everybody being treated with the same protections. It stands with the weak against the strong and the powerless against the powerful.

RFK. JR. is about the only liberal left in the party.

Classical liberal, not modern liberal.

Those who don't understand the difference are only damaging conservative aspiration.

 

[MinTrut]

So true. The Dems in Congress are all extreme leftists.

Not a one.

All liberals, so called moderates, and conservatives.

AOC and a few others spout token leftist jargon, but when it's time to support the WarPigs - for instance - they all line up to vote in their favor.

 

[MinTrut]

The mere fact that they shut down small businesses to feather the nests of the technocrats proves they are not liberals.

Modern liberals, not classical.

Add to that forcing people to inject unproven substances into they bodies, collide with social media to censor speech as well as making decisions based entirely upon happenstance of birth, and you have a group that is anything BUT liberal

Modern liberal, not classical.

 

[Lisa558]

It's a great theory, but in practicality it doesn't work. We are volunteers; we aren't employees. We don't work certain shifts. We are here when we are here and we aren't when we aren't. Sometimes several of us are here at once; sometimes just one of us is here. If that one person participating in the thread is also the only moderator around the thread can get out of control really quick if that one moderator has to wait for another to sign on. Then some of you are going to be upset that your complaints aren't getting handled fast enough and it will also result in more threads simply being closed because by the time another moderator could sign on to deal with it you could have 20 pages of garbage to sort through and it's not worth the time.

Thank you for your response.

I can see your point, but it does let really biased mods with personal animus toward certain posters take very unfair advantage on threads in which they are participating as members. It is especially irritating when the moderator applies her “super-duper” powers unevenly, depending on her politics.

But again, I see your point and appreciate your getting back with me.

 

[MinTrut]

Yes, that’s what happens a lot. When a conservative makes such valid points that they can’t refute the, the leftists run to a leftist moderator.

There are only two leftists who post here - you mean liberal.

 

[MinTrut]

Thank you. The mod in question is on the thread she moved out of the polite Zone 1 forum, and is now calling me a racist constantly. That’s why she moved it. The secondary reason is that it frees up her fellow leftists to attack me as well.

This type of thing really should be stopped.

Liberals, not leftists.

There are only two leftist posters here.

 

[Lisa558]

There are only two leftists who post here - you mean liberal.

Who are the two leftists?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Thank you for your response.

I can see your point, but it does let really biased mods with personal animus toward certain posters take very unfair advantage on threads in which they are participating as members. It is especially irritating when the moderator applies her “super-duper” powers unevenly, depending on her politics.

But again, I see your point and appreciate your getting back with me.

A moderator calling you, a Jewish woman, "Princess" while modding you is tantamount to a moderator calling a black man "boy" while moderating him.

It is beyond the pale yet this place supports it.

 

[Lisa558]

A moderator calling you, a Jewish woman, "Princess" while modding you is tantamount to a moderator calling a black man "boy" while moderating him.

It is beyond the pale yet this place supports it.

Exactly. That was really bad, and as I recall, she doubled-down on it even after it was pointed out to her that it was antisemitic.

And your analogy is correct. Thanks.

 

[BS Filter]

Whoever admin is, you need to make sure the moderator can handle different points of view without using their power take advantage. That's cheating

 

[MinTrut]

Who are the two leftists?

Rigby5 and one other guy who actually proclaims that he's a communist in his name, but rarely posts.

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[Captain Caveman]

I am aware that moderators are members who are free to engage, just like any member, in a thread of interest.

The problem comes in when a moderator puts on her “member” hat to oppose or debate the OP (or any poster, really), and retains moderator capabilities to delete posts or move the entire thread to Badlands when it was originally started in a Zone 1 forum.

I suggest the following: any time a moderator is a participant on a thread - ESPECIALLY when debating the OP’s premise - she cannot simultaneously moderate that thread. The bias is obvious and she cannot objectively do to her “job.”

With recent interaction, I think one rule should be that no one should be a mod who's IQ is lower than their shoe size.