Bait threads

[GandD 5,966]

smoke didn't report the thread. smoke asked for the deleted comment to be made visible.

My mistake sir.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I followed the link back (thanks) and he didn't in any way imply that what the state of Israel is doing in Gaza today is as evil as what Hitler did in the Holocaust.

Had he said that or even indirectly hinted at it, I would agree with you about his statements being anti-Semitic.

your following skills need sharpening. same thread

Doing what's necessary for the sake of necessity. That sure sounds familiar

Have you considered growing a mustache?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I followed the link back (thanks) and he didn't in any way imply that what the state of Israel is doing in Gaza today is as evil as what Hitler did in the Holocaust.

Had he said that or even indirectly hinted at it, I would agree with you about his statements being anti-Semitic.

Incidentally, the poster I was responding to had previously referred to the Palestinians as cockroaches and has repeatedly tried to rationalise that Palestinian civilian casualties are the responsibility of the other side and that Israel has no moral responsibility there whatsoever .

Anyone concerned with antisemitism should probably be concerned by that. Unless what is being said is that antisemitism is reserved for the right semitic people.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread of course.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

The post about cockroaches was rightly removed by Kathryn. A similar post was removed by Kathryn as well that day, calling zionists savages. Kathryn gave both posters warnings about further hate speech, and cited BOTH the anti hate speech part of the TOS, and the impeding other's users enjoyment of the forums part of the TOS. She explained that VJ does not support such speech against broad groups of people.

A subsequent post declaring that jews hate all modern Israelis, a slightly sanitized version of the savages comment, from the same poster, was initially removed by Ryan, who did not have the teeth to say it was hate speech, even though it said hate, or "can't stand" and it was against an entire nationality. Instead he said it was not relevant to the topic. I reported his action and said that his explanation was lacking, because Kathryn had dealt with this same issue from the same poster the day before, and had given warnings about further similar posts. The thread was closed for hours to have a meeting, and it was deemed that that post was not only not hate speech, but also relevant to the topic at hand and returned! The thread was closed for "baiting" from the OP.

It also took the mods all day to remove a post that said "nuke Israel." They were online, and could not decide what to do about it for many hours.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Was the thread baiting though? I'm genuinely interested in how the thread I posted differs content wise from the other threads on the same topic.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Was the thread baiting though? I'm genuinely interested in how the thread I posted differs content wise from the other threads on the same topic.

I don't think so; I think its closure was covering up for the other issue. While I don't like that article, I thought it was a good opportunity to discuss how people get elected in Israel (and therefore how not seriously you can take them), and we were starting to have that fruitful discussion.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think so; I think its closure was covering up for the other issue. While I don't like that article, I thought it was a good opportunity to discuss how people get elected in Israel (and therefore how not seriously you can take them), and we were starting to have that fruitful discussion.

Oh I agree. And the thread was closed with only a handful a comments made, compare that with some of the other threads (including the Boots on the Ground one) which are now full of extreme comments and rhetoric from both sides.

The thing was, even without the discussion you were suggesting, the thread would have likely died off anyway. However, the forums aren't any better for having closed my thread.

What we are left with is a very confused message that makes me think that either only certain people are allowed to post threads on a controversial topic or there is no logical consistency in moderation decisions from one day to the next.

[mota bhai 2,675]

It also took the mods all day to remove a post that said "nuke Israel." They were online, and could not decide what to do about it for many hours.

What about "Nuke China" during a Chinese invasion of Vietnam? Allowed? Not allowed?

That's just typical wartime talk. I don't think it counts as "hate speech".

FWIW a cursory google search shows "nuke southern lebanon" and "nuke india" in a single thread from 2006. I am betting there's a lot more if I keep looking.

ETA: And now I've found a "nuke north korea" and a discussion of how it would be unwise to nuke canada because they share a landmass with us.

Edited July 23, 2014 by mota bhai

[SMOKE 1,426]

try asking discreetly.

Are you asking me to review or asking why the original mod made that decision? It sounds like Kathryn already PM'd you. Have you asked the original mod via PM?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

What about "Nuke China" during a Chinese invasion of Vietnam? Allowed? Not allowed?

That's just typical wartime talk. I don't think it counts as "hate speech".

FWIW a cursory google search shows "nuke southern lebanon" and "nuke india" in a single thread from 2006. I am betting there's a lot more if I keep looking.

ETA: And now I've found a "nuke north korea" and a discussion of how it would be unwise to nuke canada because they share a landmass with us.

I don't want anyone to be nuked, and I do think that writing it in the form of a command should not be tolerated. There are real people there.

To discuss the war tactics of strikes is (like how smart or dumb it would be to nuke Canada), however odious, is somewhat different.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I don't want anyone to be nuked, and I do think that writing it in the form of a command should not be tolerated. There are real people there.

We disagree again. I would allow that kind of talk in the context of military conflict. People are allowed to take sides.

Edited July 23, 2014 by mota bhai

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't want anyone to be nuked, and I do think that writing it in the form of a command should not be tolerated. There are real people there.

To discuss the war tactics of strikes is (like how smart or dumb it would be to nuke Canada), however odious, is somewhat different.

Statements like that can be viewed as idle talk, but I agree with you that they shouldn't be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

try asking discreetly.

Why?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Why?

The mod team does not enjoy watching posters make a spectacle of their incompetence.

[GandD 5,966]

We disagree again. I would allow that kind of talk in the context of military conflict. People are allowed to take sides.

If a nuclear nation was involved in a war with another nuclear nation, or was losing to a non-nuclear nation, you better believe nuclear bombing would be discussed by commanders. Why couldn't we talk about it?