General Moderation Topic


#476

Very unlikely.

PM me the topic in question and when you posted it, and we can discuss further. Far more likely the parent post you were replying to was deleted. That can happen if the parent was itself a response to a post that gets flagged for content.


#477

I have something to say in this regard, but I’d rather not derail the moderation thread further.

Please check your private messages.


#478

My unread count for that last thread was 57, and now it is down to 11 posts. That must have been quite the derail.


#479

@manatarms has been asked not to return. Their posts were almost universally rude, but the last several were direct attacks on other posters and had to be removed. Given their posting history, I sincerely doubt their “insight” will be missed.


#480

@longhui has been asked not to return. They have had a several-months-long pattern of whataboutism and false equivalency that I’ve been forced to remove.

So many of these arguments try to equate other groups with nazis while leaving out the obvious fact that none of the other groups equivocated with were advocating for bigotry or genocide. Such arguments are pathetically intellectually dishonest and grounds for expulsion if presented repeatedly.


#481

Apparently this is going to be a long day:

@asdasdetc has also been asked not to return. Being contrarian is one thing. Choosing to be contrarian while also suggesting how unfortunate it is that so many folks are choosing to be LGBTQ and not seeking help? Nope.


#482

User @utf8 has been suspended forever. User was aggressively continuing a rant about affiliate links on Boing Boing after having their first try cleaned up.


#483

User @Todd_Brown has been sent off into the ether for joining the BBS to apparently antagonize folks. His Zyclon-B canister user image made his intention completely clear.


#484

@anotherone has been given a brief timeout for utterly derailing a topic, repeatedly, by demanding they should have the right to diagnose the behaviour of an individual (out of ”compassion”).

Those actually living with mental illness are not well served by such armchair diagnosis, which often attributes violent or ”evil” behaviours to mental disease, when such acts are often in fact willful.

Please see this topic for a refresher on our community guidelines surrounding this issue.


Nightmare park attendant blocks driver, then falsely tells 911 she's being run over
#485

I know i’ve said it before, but thank you all for this change in the guidelines.


#486

Could we get some clarification on something? One can be acting in an incoherent manner, and not have it be the result of a recognized mental disorder: for example, motivated by extreme anger, too much alcohol, being Fred Trump’s son, whatever. There are terms for this kind of thing that (I think) are not technical terms: distraught, unhinged, deranged, berserk, etc. Are these acceptable? If not, or if some are and others not, what is the technical distinction?

ETA: In the park attendant thread, I was going to post “Just look at her!” but worried that the BB connotation of that phrase, however indirect, would be a violation of BB terms.


#487

We talked about this extensively in the topic on this change. Potentially relevant:

Basically, don’t label folks or infer behaviour due to illness unless that label has corroboration.

We do not want to shut down conversation on mental illness. That is important. But save that for topics about mental disease, not topics where one is inferring someone is suffering from something (or, start your own!).

HTH. Thanks for asking!


#488

Well, I followed the discussion on the change, but I think the term “label” remains vague. Is “narcissistic” a label or just an adjective? What about my examples here? “Berserk” is arguably a behavior so exempt, “distraught” a mental state so flaggable(?), but surely the latter is more innocent than the former?


#494

This covers things pretty succinctly.

Otherwise, I refer again to the original topic discussing this change.


#495

@WarrenTerra has been sent on permanent vacation for 1) failing to read the community guidelines for five years, then 2) railing against their fellow posters and the mod team because of their lack of understanding.


#497

Jordan Peterson thread closed because its just too much effort to sort through all the screaming brand new accounts being created.


#498

THANK YOU SO SO SO SO MUCH.


#499

NGL, I enjoy antagonizing Jorbabies, and I wish you hadn’t.

(Kinda.)


#500

You’re in the minority there, methinks; there has never been an official JP post on BB that did not need to be moderated and closed early because it turned into a shit show… not a single one.


#501

Thank you. Jordaddy’s fanbois start making new accounts here within minutes of the BB story hitting their news feeds and start sea lioning and trolling. You and the mods don’t need the headache.