Very quiet in here

I appreciate the replies but between link dumping and now mass dumping, I'm confused, surely an article relating to the thread should be allowed with your thoughts on it

Maybe a charter update with clarity please on link source providing, what's acceptable and not

Thats absolutely the way things should be and tbh, Id opine that thats the way things actually are on the site. Simply put, you cannot make claims about something, say it is demonstrable and then fail to actually demonstrate. The lazy "im not doing your research for you" or "its there for all to see" should not (and probably) does not wash.

What is ruining threads and getting people banned is a handful of posters constantly demanding proof from others.

I feel it is either a tactic to try win an argument by hoping someone doesn't reply or to wind people up.

They never actually engage with the proof that someone takes the time to present to them.

I wouldn't click that link, move the goalposts or ignore, never actually honestly debate the content they asked someone to provide.

It is the height of bad faith posting.

They constantly ask for proof and they never have any intent in engaging in good faith after someone takes the time to engage.

The same people make claims and always ignore when someone asks of what they ask of others.

It is frustrating for people who debate in good faith and people end up getting baited into a warning.

What is ruining threads and getting people banned is a handful of posters constantly demanding proof from others.

It's incredibly unfortunate timing that the threads were merged just when this point was being made in this thread, and the point in the thread that was merged into it, is that this is the standard expected of posters who want to make a point about something they see as a sitewide issue!

That being said, the other thread was split off from this one because it was determined that it warranted a thread of it's own. I'm not attempting to speak for the poster who raised the point and has now lost the right of reply, but I don't think their intention was to have the thread go the way it did. I saw it as a one-off contribution to the thread that they felt warranted consideration, and the suggestion of using the word-censoring feature of the software was intended as just that - a suggestion, albeit not remotely feasible given the issue with the use of language and the application of the filter would immediately render it ineffective. I think the poster was quite likely referring to the way that people who are transgender are characterised as 'biological males', 'trans-identifying males', with arguments taking the form of suggesting that 'biological males' should not be permitted to share spaces with women, inferring that by virtue of being male, they are a threat to women and girls and so on.

I think the poster was suggesting more of a clampdown on that sort of language is necessary, and when asked to provide examples, they felt like they would have been painting a target on their backs, arguing from a minority position for a standard which would be applied across the site. That was always bound to be an unpopular position, and while they were invited to discuss the matter privately via PM, that has the disadvantage of a lack of transparency, so any posters raising a point from a minority position - they're at an immediate disadvantage regardless of which way they go. I genuinely think that's what may have caused the frustration and lashing out, it doesn't make it right, it still constitutes uncivil behaviour, but it does explain it.

I was marking the point at which the thread - inevitably - switched back from actual feedback into another endless discussion of trans issues. You just happened to be the poster who did it first.

@Dial Hard And thanks for taking the time to reply, not everyone does and the quality of the discussion suffers as a result.

If your entire argument is that X is ubiquitous and there are countless examples happening every day on the site, but you then refuse to provide a single example, then perhaps you don't have much of a point at all. Claiming, subsequently, that the reason you didn't post any examples was out of fear of getting banned, despite never having been told that or hinting that this is the reason, is the act of a coward, IMO.

There was a similar rift in the CT forum not long ago, where one side took great umbrage at not being allowed to post whatever sh1te they wanted, without backup or citation, and felt they should be allowed to claim any old nonsense without having to provide evidence of their claims. That is not persecution, nor is it unreasonable. If you submit something without evidence, do not be surprised when it is similarly dismissed without evidence.

Watch what happens next feedback thread when examples are cited by a poster. Im not talking specifically about the recent transgender one but any raising of what someone sees as misconduct that should be moderated.

They will cite examples. So what happens if the examples are challenged on the feedback thread. The only way the original poster can defend their position is to re-argue why it is misconduct with reference to and commentary on the core real world issue. Is that then going off topic?

And yes posters have been sanctioned on feedback threads for discussing the underlying issues.

Its a catch 22.

Totally different to a CT or CA thread where they are a forum for discussing the issues themselves.

Posters aren't banned for the original citing of examples. What happens is they get drawn into defending those examples, and that discussion ends up being more about the issue itself, and that gets sanctioned or else the thread gets shut down.

That's the Catch 22.

I'll give a hypothetical example because if I give a real example it'll just kick off discussion of that topic or if I give an example of moderation of feedback posts that seems dangerously close to discussing moderator action within its forum.

The example is an invented conspiracy theory about some new wonder weight loss drug. Let's assume for the sake of the example that mods do not clamp down on it. I start a feedback thread that I think this is medical misinformation, dangerous information, defamatory to the makers of the drug. I cite examples of some of these claims. These are challenged on the the thread. To refute the challenges and support my original claim, I then have to justify it, debating the topic itself.

At what point is that off topic for feedback and is instead commenting on the issue?

Ideally yeah but without some on thread guidance from mods \ admins along those lines, the discussion tends to continue on the feedback thread and get bogged down there. Posters instinctively reply to posts replying to theirs. Slippery slope.

So far, all you've done is deal with hypotheticals.

You won't even give an example of an example now, we're so far down the rabbit-hole, Alice. Either show us what you're talking about or stop talking about it. It's that simple.

Your concerns are a load of unfounded hogwash, IMO, and, again, are a coward's way out of having to provide proof of their claims.