Very quiet in here

I'm worried I'll get banned but I'll try.

The charter explicitly forbids any engagement (re. appealing warnings) between moderators and posters who got a warning.

Yet it appears there was communication happening anyway regarding appealing decisions. (I think it was actually yourself and Necro that admitted discussing warnings with posters)

So is appeal possible (ignore the charter) or not (follow the charter)?

Nevermind...

Yup and infact they don't want you even reporting users

 I think that it's not unfair to say that anyone with right leaning tendencies are treated a little more harshly than those who think the other way.

That may be because of the moderators personal opinions or it may be down to the fact that such opinions are reported more

They say that there's equal reporting going on from both sides, but I'm not so sure. Just had a read of the last few pages in the trump thread and came across a bit of name calling, which is specifically called out in the OP. If it was aimed at the 'left' I'm sure it would have been reported and actioned but since it was at Trump et al it went unreported (I presume).

I didn't report it because I don't want anyone banned for that and I don't post in that thread anyway so

Well see this is where I agree.

I have no issue with robust debate and sometimes heated debate on contentious subjects. I do find that there are "certain" posters who spam and purposely enflame to such an extent that results in bans or the conversation shut down. I rarely reported purely because I find that people who I would deem report-worthy only prove my point and I am more than happy to let them go on.

Never try to shut down people who are only further proving my point, no matter how egregious I feel their opinion is.

There are a few posters who, much to my chagrin, have baited me, which in turn resulted in me being banned/sanctioned. That's on me. 100%. I should have not risen to their obvious tactic but that is the nature of robust debate.

I do feel that contentious subjects should be subject to LESS rules than others. For example, I don't think the same rules should apply to Russia/Ukraine or Israel/Palestine that are enforced for WWE or Playstation. An emotive response to an opinion on the former should be taken into context as to how emotive the subject is. But getting heated towards another poster about what their favourite SNES game should be seen as intellectually bankrupt.

I am not sure I have had more than a cursory glance at the Trump thread because of how any post that doesn't contain the "correct" amount of vitriol is not accepted and is interpreted as tacit agreement of what the administration is doing. Orange man, cheeto small hand man etc is tolerated and accepted yet Sleepy Joe etc was sanctionable until the left imploded and handed Trump the victory.

Anyway, it's nice to see some agreement from opposing views.

Do you agree with the rule?

Do you believe that people should not be allowed to (what is the phrase again?)…… share their lived experience, because some people may have made something up.

I think the bigger problem is that certain people can make unfounded and demonstrably untrue statements on some topics, but it is forbidden on other topics.

Either allow people to use anecdotes, or don't. The context matters, the claim does not. Allow people to make outlandish claims that can easily be debunked.

I do agree. Although I can't post in there, I can see people are, for the want of a better word, "stealing" the ability for people to have an actual conversation.

Just because you don't like someone's posts, does not make them spam.

There was a tonne of made up **** being spread on a constant basis in relation to refugees, guessing it was preferable to the thread becoming outright propaganda. Also I think it's a tad petty to take jabs at Ukrainians who's homeland was very much so invaded while you appear to be being sarcastic about them being refugees... And yep, I think it's pretty fair to ban unverifiable posts like your own which seems to be more about pushing hatred of a group that have had to flee their country.

Im not telling you anything. I didn't reply to you.

If they are that influenced by anecdotes, let them have the conversation in the real world.
They probably won't pay any heed to what someone online says.

We have all seen the type, posts weak on facts, logic but yet they always know someone somewhere unverifiable who they cite which cannot be refuted by anyone on boards. Bonus points if they happen to throw in vague reference to their own qualifications.

It would be better if the modding could be more targeted, focused on rumours, the 'type' above - but that's a difficult ask for the mods without them following the threads \ building up a picture of a poster's overall history.

People can’t seriously be trying to frame the users looking for others to back up their wild, and often unfounded, claims as “problem posters”. Not with a straight face anyway.

It should be clear to everyone that “problem posters” are the ones who take up an inordinate amount of moderator time with warnings, disingenuous appeals in the “Dispute Resolution” forum and having to wear the “prison bars” on their avatar.

The “problem” label isn’t attached to users that other users don’t like because they get called out by them, it’s attached to time sinks that are, continually, coming to the attention of the mods, and admins.

I disagree.

If you want to just talk about peddling lies, then please be consistent. The issue of transgenderism is one such topic.

People get banned for NOT peddling lies. And any challenge to those lies result in bans.

An anecdote is an experience. Unproveable and pretty much irrefutable. But should be acknowledged and weighed up for what it is. But I guess "lived experience" only matters when it suits.