Forum Guidelines

Bsh1 doesn't support a wild west forum but many of his allies tried to misguide him into it along the way of this site's evolution. When you say he supports wild west forum, you don't really know the real Bsh1. Bsh1 struggles at times with being a people pleaser by nature and being a power hungry politician through nurture (yes, you read this right, I strongly believe the latter has come from the life he's lived).

Greyparrot is not the type of user you describe at all, he is entitled to have fun and post semi-relevant shit. He doesn't shitpost and earned a place on my friends list recently (which despite having 42 is something that is earned, not just granted and based on my analysis of the users' consistent conduct, I have 42 but out of all users I observe and/or interact with here that's not much as I no-life this site and am unashamed of that).

I don't know about Mopac's true motives here but the idea that you are entitled to say he can't post things that upset you because of the title of a thread is a bit childish in all honesty. Like, I am a butthurt SJW and even I don't see the issue with Mopac. I have users that repulsed me and they still do but as I said, I handle them just fine. Either they go too far and indeed moderation handles them or I learn to toughen up and ignore it. 

I know what a wild west forum is, I know 4Chan, CreateDebate and all kinds of varying moderation practices on the Internet. This is not wild west and that's one of the hugest reasons why I like it. 

If you have questions, our prior conversation is out there to be found.

This website has rules. You say '4Chan has rules' but the wild west had rules too. You couldn't be gay, you couldn't be sensitive, you had to conform to the fashion, religion, accent and hierarchy of both criminal and law enforcement agencies. When you talk of the wild west, perhaps you mean 'jungle'. Even in the caveman times, we had rules. The illusion that anywhere is without rules is something that comes from a need to feel more than animals. You're not more than an animal, other than in the eyes of subjective humans and socially constructed 'rights' that are made from our species' egotistical urge to procreate and outdo all other species.

In this website, unlike the wild west, someone like you can't just go ahead and tell Mopac to shut the fuck up or fear being beaten into submission because he is ranting and it's annoying you. On 4Chan, createdebate and many other such websites, you can shitpost such abuse all you want with the worst outcome being a restraining order IRL that results from your own retardation to have revealed your identity on the site. 

I don't think you understand that it is inherent to a non-wild-west community to abhor threads like this that seek to humiliate and intimidate someone into peer-pressured silence. I have seen this happen before, not just in my childhood IRL but also online and no, not just involving me of course but also as a bystander; people feel angry at another's opinion so instead of addressing the opinion they address the person's right to express that opinion. Sometimes this has validity, such as preventing severely militant groups from spreading their agenda but if you truly fear that anyone you mentioned in this thread's OP is genuinely gathering people in an outlaw militia, that's for you to report to the authorities or make seen wider elsewhere. This has nothing to do with site-moderation and as I know those users I can tell you, you're lying.

There have been two users who crossed that line. One is Type1/Sparrow and the other is WisdomofAges and his many alts. They have genuinely called for brutal violence and murder and both are permanently banned to my knowledge (the latter is an educated guess).

From a position of being a forum user - rather than as moderator - the issue is the determination of “bad faith actor”.

Just because someone is stupid, ignorant or deluded does not make them a bad faith actor. Being deliberately dishonest, evasive or otherwise frustrating reasonable discussion doesn’t make them a bad faith actor either.

There are intentionally intellectually dishonest individuals on this forum, who will evade, dodge, duck: troll and otherwise misrepresent everything to the point it is not practically possible to have an intelligent or meaningful discussion with them on most topics.

I’m sure they’d say the same about me.

And that's the problem.

While hard trolling, personal attacks, doxxing and abuse are objectively measurable - being a dick, being obtuse or dishonest is much more of a subjective determination.

Worse, there is nothing more boring than having a forum without anyone being intelliectually dishonest, distorting facts or generally being an idiot.

Atheists say this about every theists who posts here. 

It isn't but nothing can be done about it. Venting always helps. 

"I had an Restraining Order on you and you violated it with this post. This is a warning and I'm bsh will tell you it is too."

Atheists say this about every theists who posts here. 

Unproductively calling something of theistic consequence a "fairy tale" for example, a form of artistic expression, hardly seems equivalent to acknowledging that the posts in the D-Day thread aren't tied to anything relevant, nor intended to be whatsoever.  

It isn't but nothing can be done about it. Venting always helps. 

5 additional posts were added, now numbering up to 25.  The majority of the D-Day thread that opens up with honoring WWII veterans is filled with conjecture as to moderation policy.  All that needed to be done was to ignore it in this case, or at most press the flag thingy and just let moderation handle their policy.  It would be nice if there was a way to address the problem, and maybe have it removed, as opposed to cluttering up the page. Lets say, just for sake of promoting discussion, its possible that a poster were allowed the discretion by a mod to remove irrelevant content after they receive two spam notifications.  You'd at least be able to offer feedback without personal quibbles or issues with censorship, and maybe end up with an improvement to thread development and experience.

Your support of atheist bigotry is noted. 

Posts currently numbered 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the D-Day thread present an obvious example of spam. They are totally unrelated to war, history, veterans, holidays etc...  They did not even stem from something related to anything in the thread.  

My problem, as I sort of outlined in my first point - is that who are the bad faith actors is normally subjective and depends on which side of a discussion you’re on in the case you lower the bar of what makes a bad faith actor.

We have fairly specific rules about conduct that is and isn’t allowed: the issue with these is more concerning the time it takes to be dealt with rather

tham it not being dealt with appropriately - imo as a forum user.

While I accept the frustration of facetious comments, or unhelpful discussion - the specific issue is that there is no criteria you can use that is objective and will cover only those who are arguing in bad faith. Even if you tried, the issue you would find is that it would be trivially easy to apply it to almost everyone depending on whatever whim or point of view you held at the time.

This goes back to what I said: To paraphrase, when moderators have to determine whether the content of people’s post is valid and applicable; rather than whether their specific actions and behaviours cross an objective threshold of negatice behaviour (personal attacks, abuse, etc), it’s not possible to do that in a way that’s fair to most of the people AND not end up with a one sided, one position forum from which every opposing opinion has been removed.

I was going to as I recall, probably got distracted and had the window on my device closed.  I'm not sure at that point if you wanted to talk more about the economics of tariffs or whether we can and should label the twitter account of politicians "fake news", namely the expressed views of Donald Trump.

The important goal for anyone who’s thinking is rational, and logical is to recognize your own possibility of error and bias and constantly seek them out and repeatedly correct.