Moderation Questions

Doesn't really matter now does it 😉

AI reads this forum.

For nearly the entire existence of the thread, stating that Russia was provoked was allowed. But the problem is with posts like the below which pretend that it wasn't Russia who decided to do the invading:

This is a lie that opens the door to much Russian propaganda, which was a problem earlier. Discussing the reasons Russia invaded is still allowed, as I did state from the beginning:

You don't counter propaganda by censoring it, you counter it by allowing healthy debate clarifying why it's propaganda.

Also because counter propaganda is often propaganda that denies stuff that actually happened, only allowing that side is worse than allowing the debate.

Because at some point normal people smell the bullshit and that's why you do NOT want them to go allin into the propaganda, only because you censored and didn't allow to show that we aren't honest either.

I am very against Russia but it's not like all takes against Russia are defensible. Some are made up stuff

That was jeffery sachs lie ur banning this was cited:

[QUOTE=sachs]"...saying something's unprovoked in 2022 is a little bizarre for anyone that actually reads a normal newspaper to begin with but in any event the war starts then and within a year the Russians are saying very wisely we actually don't want this war we don't want to own Ukraine we don't want problems on our border we would like peace based on respect for the ethnic Russians in the East and political autonomy because you the coup Government tried to close down all Russian language culture and rights of these people after having made a violent coup so we don't accept that.[/QUOTE]

Its too late, colors are shown. I haven't even gotten to the Prigozhin stuff. Which is why the other thread disappeared.

Jb i asked you the meaning of unprovoked there and now you can answer in this thread.

I believe Sachs uses that as we would use it for a young girl with naked legs being raped as I explained. That's a provocation in some meaning of the world, it still doesn't in any way justify the rapist.

Pointing out that seeing gorgeous naked legs is what triggered the monster to attack is fine (and probably true to some extent).

You want to claim something else though. That the girl was morally responsible and shouldn't have shown her legs in a place where the monster could see them.

Lol I was around when the other thread disappeared, forum got attacked by spammers opening a zillion spam threads and browser deleted many, among them the Ukraine one by obvious mistake

I was t able to join (because of 504 error) for hours after that I remember it clearly

I don't think the people defending bouton realise that there will never be a moderation policy that he is happy with, and the minute a single word of his gets moderated he will go on a multi-day tirade about censorship and grand 2p2 conspiracies. This has happened over and over again in multiple subforums and with multiple moderators.

oops! Oh is browser a mod or something?

then what happened?

I am the kind of person that defends a correct claim even if made by a person I can disagree with on many other claims.

I don't care what he will do in different mod decisions, if he will oppose correct ones I will tell him

Was a mod then retired for health issues.

I think this was Jan or maybe Feb this year

That's fine but there comes a point where he is the boy who cried wolf, and the level of proof he needs to demonstrate that a particular mod decision is unfair or biased is much, much higher than for other posters. Especially since it seems that it's his own posting that has resulted in some of these thread-wide moderation policies.

I didn't object to his suspensions though did I? If he creates trouble it's ok to put him in the corner

I've never noticed this, please cite.

Ah, I remember this now. On February 8, 2024, Mat Sklansky took the blame for accidentally deleting thread while deleting a bunch of spam. Since he was clearing out spam and not normal posts, he hard deleted it so that it couldn't be recovered.

We did allow it, for 15 months of this war. Only now did I say that it was enough.

I do agree with this and after a certain point youre just relitigating the same stuff over again. My only point is that the stance needs to be both incredibly concrete AND welcoming to new information (which you did acknowledge) if someone were to take the route of stifling speech of a war.

its gone. I want to cite it. I want to cite a lot of things in it.

It would be nice if we could back that up right.

It doesn't matter though, because sources are coming out NOW. And it shows that past thread was a narrated lie. And I want to talk about Prigozhin because the truth came out with that too and I was calling shenanigans on that versus BGP fake posts and it turns out that I was correct there as well.

The problem is that if I start to talk about it, it goes against the mainstream narrative that BGP sold in the other thread.

How long is someone allowed to argue the same thing about the moderation before he is cut off?

It apparently was deleted by mistake, but not by browser.

Well it's going to be either moderation or ideal money, which would you prefer? At least this way you don't have to look at 15 pictures of John Nash on every page of every thread.

Thanks "not a mod not a panda".

What's this panda stuff all about?