Clarity on new Current Affairs rules

I don't know how the back end works, but some reports aren't getting through. I reported a post a couple weeks ago, but it wasn't actioned, had to PM a mod they said they couldn't find any record of it being reported

I don't understand how you can take offence to being called cisgender.

Cisgender just means you're not transgender.

Cis and trans are the opposite of each other in Latin.

The only reason I could see how that would offend someone is if they don't believe transgender people exist.

If that's the case, the boards rule is very clear on that. On this site, transgender people exist ergo, cisgender people exist

A poster can have the belief that transgender people don't exist but respectfully call others how they prefer to be called.

If that poster says they do not want to be addressed by Cis then that should also be respected.

I don't see why anyone would not respect how a poster would prefer to be called.

If things are equal then anyone wishing to be addressed as female should be respected and people sanctioned who address anyone who they don't want to be addressed.

Cis-ters are doing it for themselves

That's "JAQing off" closely related to and a form of sealioning (or you could say sealioning is a form of JAQing off)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

JAQing off for the most part I would say is slightly different to sealioning though, eg. the type of rhetorical vitriol you see of people peddling conspiracy theories, such as satirized in this example, the questions are more loaded than those typical of sealioning:

Concern trolling is like, going into eg. the Russia thread and complaining that there are so many posts about the Ukraine war and why isn't nobody posting about some obscure conflict in south america etc. - while also not electing to start a thread about the lesser conflict, instead just trolling an unrelated thread to complain about it as a way to derail the first thread. 'well if you don't care about this conflict in south america how are you allowed to care about Ukraine' etc. or otherwise going on complete tangents about concerns which have no basis to the topic and can often be trivial in relevance to the topic, such as the example at the link:

Imagine being on fire, running up to a firefighter screaming for help, and they hook their hands in their pockets and say, "Actually, before we start, I think you should say you're violently oxidizing. Not all oxidization is bad. I mean, some of my cells are performing oxidation right now, and I think it would be better if we ...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

well, maybe my own understanding is off

If you keep going back a page at a time, you'll eventually find the latest posts.

Always mad that it's up to users like me to tell people that instead of a message from the management that they're "aware of the situation, and trying to fix it, but in the meantime, do this"

. just saw mod warning so deleted.

The thread that's currently active on the US presidential debate is a prime example of what a discussion forum should be trying to avoid.

1. It's almost entirely an echo chamber.
2. Anyone who deviates from the concensus is piled on by the usual suspects who seemingly operate with impunity outside the scope of the new rules.
3. Badgering of other users on the same insignificant issues, one poster in particular is doing this by asking the same question over and over for days now, and again, no visible action taken.

The ideas that were put forward in the recent feedback thread were intended to make rules easier to enforce and to give posters that run afowl of the rules the opportunity to change their posting. I see the same old issues relating to one poster today accrueing multiple warnings leading to a lengthy ban which runs contrary to what the intention was for the idea of an escalation procedure for warnings.

I'm personally posting less and not interacting with certain people because to do so with how things work currently would undoubtedly lead to a series of bans.

We're still seeing one group of posters being allowed an incredible amount of leeway not afforded to others. It's a two tier system and it's driving the site into the ground.

Sensible proposals were put forward in feedback and have been implemented in a manner that leaves users in no doubt that they are neither valued nor wanted on the platform.

This has been mucked up in some style. Either enforce rules in an equitable fashion or just give up the pretence of balance once and for all.

There are maybe 6-12 regular posters who cause most of the issues I described above. Everyone here knows who they are because the same stuff carries from thread to thread.

Hmmmm.

There are a number of thankers to your post that fit that bill beautifully.

😆

So do you now want rules to force people to not post of they happen to agree with the majority incase it offends the minority to discocer they are a minority?

The changes were made to appease the minority.