The light touch CA moderation experiment

On the same coin you are allowed call people child killers and racists. The majority wouldn't want to not be allowed do that. So its a free for all with abuse for both which is fair.

I agree ignore us very useful. But it's needs an extra feature, ignore quoted posts from people in your ignore list. Because if everyone quotes and replies to the troll the thread is detailed.

But there is so much trolling and spam it derails the thread. So regardless of ignoring it's impossible for the thread to function. About 70% of the posts are from one or two trolls and replies to them.

It was like this about cycling helmets and hi viz on the cycling forum. It was relentless. Every thread spammed. This is now happening on other sub forums with different subjects.

So while the thread seems busy it's really only a handful of people posting because no one else can get a word in.

You can see on other forums it drives the non trolls away. So discussion and different options fade away and all that's left are these massive monologues and rants from a few obsessives.

It has to be obvious from statistics. People with massive post counts in threads and massive successive posts.

People will vote with their wallet and feet.

Can I sincerely ask the AH mods, if, using the festering shitheap of the Hamas-Israel thread as an example, are they happy with the way things are going?

I mean, is that an example of what you expected, and wanted?

The decision to change moderation policy baffled me at the time, and it baffles me still.

And I don't get the connection people are making about putting posters on ignore lists - you could always do that and it's not connected to moderation.

And the argument that 'Well if I put all those people on ignore who talk endless shite, then the place isn't so bad' doesn't make much sense to me - surely those people who talk endless shite should be stopped from doing so?

If you want to make a specific accusation against me (i.e. "you and others" report my post on the thread. I won't derail the thread by getting into specifics of any particular post or poster (my understanding is that is against charter) other than to say - I reject that entirely.

Is merely labelling someone a supporter of a current politician an insult? Yet you consider it so? Strange framing.
And why would it concern posters who strongly declare themselves not to support X to be associated with such insulting terms being associated with X supporters?
TO make it a more general point - if someone repeatedly posts in defence of X, attacking their critics in far stronger language than whatever rare criticisms of X have to be dragged out of them - then it is entirely reasonable to draw the conclusion they are supporting X and to state that.

And I've seen supporters of public figures, as in visible types on social media labelled with some of those terms. That is not specific to any one side of the any discussion. Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Labour etc.

Now if someone makes a specific argument in favour of a e.g. a particular policy on immigration, then as racism is one possible motivation for a particular position on immigration, it is reasonable to bring that up with justification imo.

The type of tactic I am referring to is where there has been very recent discussion on the thread of a particular issue A, and posters have made argument about it, we shall call B. Then someone pops onto the thread and says anyone making argument B is a <insert insult here>. So plainly and obviously they are applying that insult to those posters.

If you have come across examples of where insults have been applied either in that manner, or anyone who supports X is a <insert insult here> well then I suggest you report it as it may advance the answer to the question.

Trump supporters haven't exactly ever been known for behaving well on such threads. And you know what, plenty of them have expressed incredibly bigoted views over the years. I'd actually say they've been given an incredible amount of leeway in terms of what they've been saying.

On a more serious note, the active court case rule seems to be actively being flouted ATM and it seems more like posters thinking that there are no rules or something. Moderators are handling it for the record but there seems to be intentional ignoring now.

"On a more serious note, the active court case rule seems to be actively being flouted ATM and it seems more like posters thinking that there are no rules or something. Moderators are handling it for the record but there seems to be intentional ignoring now."

There's also some extreme over reaction to this rule. I'm on my second three month CA ban, for talking about media coverage of active cases, not talking about the case itself.

I'm sure. We've definitely never had Trump supporters who have claimed dogs were being eaten by migrants or that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator or pushing the claim Kamala Harris had slept her way to the top or pushing the conspiracy that Paul Pelosi was attacked by his lover. Oh and there was smearing Trump's rape victim even after winning her civil case. That's some stuff off the top of my head from Trump supporters in those threads and it was frankly horrible. The Trump fan base on the site have a victim complex in spite of the fact that invariably that behave atrociously. 😂

The dishonesty is a problem. People can agree with 95% of anything Trump says yet still 100% not be a supporter of his.

Its like The Joker. They haven't a plan, they just want to complain about being censored/silenced. If they didn't spend 85% of their postings complaining about not being allowed post, they might actually say something with those posts.