If someone wants to commit suicide by mod, you should let them

Referring to this, but it should stand as a general principle: we’d all be better off if someone who *obviously *was just posting to stir up things just went away by their own doing.

Why keep farcical threads open?

If that was the reason given for the closing, you’d have a point. Also, you didn’t seem to think it was so farcical at the beginning.

The farce wasn’t the op.

Let’s peak behind the curtain a little bit.

Forums need eyeballs and participation in order to get money via subscriptions, donations, and advertising. You need some tension to drive debate/discussion. But when the membership is as lopsided as it is ideologically if you have a consistent set of standards you risk losing the majority. That’s a death sentence to a forum.

I disagree.

Oh, look, there’s that tension you were talking about.

We have occasionally had requests from posters specifically asking to be suspended or banned, for various reasons. And we generally honor those requests, quietly and behind the scenes. What usually gets described as “suicide by mod”, however, is much uglier, and something that we’d really prefer to avoid.

Well, you can’t.

So do the next best thing and cut if off early, by quickly banning anyone who tries it.

To me ( take that how you will) it seems silly to join a message board. Make a kind of friendship with other posters, ask advice, give advice, announce special happenings, and then purposely shoot yourself in the foot. If you don’t want to be here just go away. Why stir up a crap-load of bad feelings and hurtfulness for nothing? I don’t get it.

Agreed. And if the moderation remains as lopsided as it was in that thread and the one it is was discussing, they will run off the remaining five conservative posters and have their own left wing echo chamber that they seem to want. Inconsistent does not even describe it. We can have threads talking about whether Trump supporters should be “forgiven” but say something about Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton (we aren’t sure which one!) then moderation.

Then when there is a thread about that moderation, we warn the poster complaining and close the thread so that there are no more complaints.

The echo chamber is coming.

Can you point me toward the transphobic comments made about Trump supporters that went unmoderated? If not, I’m not sure what comparison you’re trying to draw here.

I, for one, hope we don’t lose any conservative posters, but if many continue to choose to emulate the president… well they’re not nearly so hard to impeach and remove.

This is my point. You are defining the rules so as to only apply to your side. That would be like me saying “Can you point to any accusations of Obama being called a Cheeto or a Nazi?”

btw, was “transphobia” added to the rules when I was sleeping? Not that that was what this was at all anyways.

Dude. Joking that M. Obama has a penis is not right wing or left wing. It’s asshole territory. There is no moderation bias except a bias against making assholic comments. If we need to allow that type of commentary for some feigned “balance” then forget it. Better an echo chamber than one that allows that type of crap. But here’s the thing - it’s a false dichotomy. We can have spirited debate of substance without resorting to the most base and unseemly commentary.

I could pass for a conservative on this board, and I’d much rather have the informed, substantive arguments from conservatives without resorting to only the bad arguments.

The poster wasn’t warned for complaining - it was a warning for insults. There were numerous other things that could have garnered a warning as well, such as the ignore list revelation, ignoring instructions, etc. ATMB is the place to discuss moderation among other things, but the rule against insults remains regardless.

Isn’t hate speech against the rules? Or do you not think transphobia is hate speech?

I understand that letting the poster suicide means hurting other people, and I can see why you wouldn’t want to do that. You’d want to stop them beforehand.

That said, I do think that “having mercy” on the poster may not have been the best call. Maybe letting him actually suicide is bad, but actually providing a punishment for would have been good, IMO. Warn him. If you think he’s out of control, give a short banning to cool down.

I think that a Warning would have a better deterrent effect than closing the thread.

And, UltraVires: your arguments are only weakening any actual claim of impropriety by ignoring the situation at hand: a poster who made a transphobic, sexist, and likely racist joke, and a poster who couldn’t discuss his disagreement with the mods without multiple rule violations.

If you always cry “echo chamber” when a conservative is punished, it’s like a black person who always cries “racism” every time something happens to them, to put it in language you’d likely understand. It become a card, not an actual defense.

(Note for other posters: I think that this claim about black people playing the race card is usually not legitimate. However, I can’t deny it does occasionally happen, like those guys who got the Chipotle employee fired for not helping them dine and dash, claiming it was racism.)

actually make it easy like a lot of discussions places have …. no discussing politics and the like at all …… because it seems its always the same 20-25 people rehashing the same ol same ol no matter of the intention of the thread …… and no one gets enlightened at all on anything

Since when is insulting a non-poster (Michelle Obama) against the rules?!?

I agree with you about informed and substantive arguments. Does that finally mean that about 60% of everything said about Trump on this board is now going to be moderated?

I’m not sure because the definition keeps changing. What year was transphobia deemed to be hate speech?

But, lets assume that the poster was making fun of Michelle Obama’s appearance and claiming that she looks like a man.

How is that transphobia? Michelle Obama does not claim to be a transsexual.

Racism? How? Because she is black? What does her blackness have to do with the insult?

Public figures are insulted all of the time on this board. And we don’t even know if the poster was talking about Michelle Obama!

I’m not sure if you are serious. Do you think that insulting Michelle Obama is against the rules? It’s not depending on the forum and context. Not all insults are the same.
Do you get that? How some insults towards non-posters are allowed, and others are not? Making an insult like the stupid bullshit that Alex Jones pushes that M. Obama has a penis is pretty much trolling in any context.

I’ve given warnings for it in the past, and if it comes up again I will in the future.

You expect an answer to that question? Seriously, the dancing around that question would put Baryshnikov to shame. I don’t think the mods could apply that standard fairly without losing a critical mass. Losing 1 or 2 right of center posters who feel compelled to push a point on principle vs losing a more numerous very vocal contingent of the ideological majority makes far more sense. Which is why the misdirection of posts not being 100% congruent is used.