[r] Van hits 6 on London Bridge merged report thread

[Ishraqistan]

viewtopic.php?p=31870499#p31870499

[The Archregimancy]

Looking at it.

Please be patient as I'm only just catching up with the news and the thread.

Please also place all reports for the reported thread here; I'll rename the present thread to make this clearer.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hi Arch.

Vass made this moderation thread last night, I think she just mistitled it.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=414361

[The Archregimancy]

Hi Arch.

Vass made this moderation thread last night, I think she just mistitled it.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=414361

Thanks for the heads up - I'm still merging/sorting through the various report threads here.

Edit:

The above thread may lead me to reconsider some of my action, or rather lack of action, over some of the reports in this thread. Please bear with me; this requires a fair amount of sorting.

[The Archregimancy]

Alright, everything's merged. That makes it a little difficult to follow the chronological outline of some of the related reports that took place over multiple threads, but at least it's all in the same place. It's also been a little tricky to sort since one thread started by reporting comments in the UK Politics thread and ended up crossing over to the thread focused on the attack; I've merged that one here too.


Most of what's been reported isn't actionable, though it's entirely understandable that people are on edge, and it's likewise understandable that some of you are erring on the side of caution with what you're reporting.


I'm going to stand by my decision, at least for now, not to rule against any of the parties involved in the death toll argument over Aelex's plan for total war. Recognising that this is a potentially controversial decision on my part, I'm going to take a moment to outline why.

While I appreciate that Aelex's plan has raised a heated response, the initial argument doesn't advocate genocide. Advocating killing more civilians as a deliberate tactical response to the murder of civilians may perhaps be characterised as an extreme response, but it is not genocide (and for reference, I work for the Red Cross; so let's try not to lecture me on definitions of genocide, please). Nor is advocating death/killing automatically actionable. It depends on context. I think Aelex is treading very, very close to a line, but in the context of the thread and Aelex's broader argument that the situation is an active war, his argument remains legitimate (albeit obviously distasteful to many posters). I stress that I'm absolutely not condoning that argument, but I'm not going to intervene at this point - though I reserve the right of another member of the moderation team to revisit this. The subsequent exchanges between Aelex, Imperializt Russia, and Chessmistress are sometimes unedifying, and I would recommend that all parties take a deep breath before posting along these lines again, but not actionable.

And I would strongly urge the parties mentioned above not to continue the argument in this thread.

[Thyerata]

Sorry for intervening Mods, but could someone ominously loom in (or maybe even shut down) this thread? It's degenerating into totally insensitive and irrelevant rubbish... viewtopic.php?f=20&t=414360&start=150

Arch, I might be getting confused, given the extent of the material that's been reported, but did you ever do anything about this? I saw you warned one person, but I basically reported the entire thread as going off the rails...

[The Archregimancy]

Sorry for intervening Mods, but could someone ominously loom in (or maybe even shut down) this thread? It's degenerating into totally insensitive and irrelevant rubbish... viewtopic.php?f=20&t=414360&start=150

Arch, I might be getting confused, given the extent of the material that's been reported, but did you ever do anything about this? I saw you warned one person, but I basically reported the entire thread as going off the rails...

With regret, I'm not entirely clear on what you're reporting... Page 7 of a thread that's now 43 pages long? A specific post on that page? A series of posts on that page?

Regardless, I see nothing on page 7 that requires direct moderator action or is out of the ordinary for the immediate response to and speculation over ongoing reports to a recent terror attack.

[Imperializt Russia]

Arch, I might be getting confused, given the extent of the material that's been reported, but did you ever do anything about this? I saw you warned one person, but I basically reported the entire thread as going off the rails...

With regret, I'm not entirely clear on what you're reporting... Page 7 of a thread that's now 43 pages long? A specific post on that page? A series of posts on that page?

Regardless, I see nothing on page 7 that requires direct moderator action or is out of the ordinary for the immediate response to and speculation over ongoing reports to a recent terror attack.

He means "the thread in general has basically collapsed". I also made a post of that nature, after realised I'd let myself rise into a furious, meaningless tangent debate and the thread was being filled with the slurry of racialist rhetoric.

[Thyerata]

Arch, I might be getting confused, given the extent of the material that's been reported, but did you ever do anything about this? I saw you warned one person, but I basically reported the entire thread as going off the rails...

With regret, I'm not entirely clear on what you're reporting... Page 7 of a thread that's now 43 pages long? A specific post on that page? A series of posts on that page?

Regardless, I see nothing on page 7 that requires direct moderator action or is out of the ordinary for the immediate response to and speculation over ongoing reports to a recent terror attack.

Right, I see the problem. I initially reported it when it was 7 pages long, asking for a review of those 7 pages. Obviously it's expanded rapidly to 43 pages. They're not included in my report.

More generally Arch, your approach as a Mod earned you a lot of respect in my book, because you actually take time to look at the facts, and give reasons which are generally fair and - most importantly, and the reason why I respect you so much - you take time to explain those rulings

[Wallenburg]

Alright, everything's merged. That makes it a little difficult to follow the chronological outline of some of the related reports that took place over multiple threads, but at least it's all in the same place. It's also been a little tricky to sort since one thread started by reporting comments in the UK Politics thread and ended up crossing over to the thread focused on the attack; I've merged that one here too.


Most of what's been reported isn't actionable, though it's entirely understandable that people are on edge, and it's likewise understandable that some of you are erring on the side of caution with what you're reporting.


I'm going to stand by my decision, at least for now, not to rule against any of the parties involved in the death toll argument over Aelex's plan for total war. Recognising that this is a potentially controversial decision on my part, I'm going to take a moment to outline why.

While I appreciate that Aelex's plan has raised a heated response, the initial argument doesn't advocate genocide. Advocating killing more civilians as a deliberate tactical response to the murder of civilians may perhaps be characterised as an extreme response, but it is not genocide (and for reference, I work for the Red Cross; so let's try not to lecture me on definitions of genocide, please). Nor is advocating death/killing automatically actionable. It depends on context. I think Aelex is treading very, very close to a line, but in the context of the thread and Aelex's broader argument that the situation is an active war, his argument remains legitimate (albeit obviously distasteful to many posters). I stress that I'm absolutely not condoning that argument, but I'm not going to intervene at this point - though I reserve the right of another member of the moderation team to revisit this. The subsequent exchanges between Aelex, Imperializt Russia, and Chessmistress are sometimes unedifying, and I would recommend that all parties take a deep breath before posting along these lines again, but not actionable.

And I would strongly urge the parties mentioned above not to continue the argument in this thread.

Could you explain under what circumstances it is not actionable to call for the murder of civilians?

[The Archregimancy]

Could you explain under what circumstances it is not actionable to call for the murder of civilians?

I judge every report on its own merits, and on the basis of the discussion taking place in a particular thread. In this particular thread, in the context of this specific discussion, I didn't consider it actionable.

'Advocating death' / 'advocating murder' is not inherently actionable. It's the manner and tone of that advocacy that's the issue. Some people consider the death penalty to be murder; we don't ban people for advocating for the death penalty in a death penalty thread. Some people consider abortion to be murder; we don't ban people for advocating for legal abortion in an abortion thread. In the context of a thread about a terrorist action, I don't consider it to be inherently actionable to argue that the response to terrorist action that could be construed as an act of war may include military action against supporters of the terrorists, in keeping with the presumed military nature of the conflict. As noted, that doesn't mean that I condone that opinion.

I won't comment further in this thread; if you want to contest that ruling, I would suggest that you either ask for a formal second opinion or open a discussion thread to discuss where the line should lie in advocating death/murder.

[Wallenburg]

Could you explain under what circumstances it is not actionable to call for the murder of civilians?

I judge every report on its own merits, and on the basis of the discussion taking place in a particular thread. In this particular thread, in the context of this specific discussion, I didn't consider it actionable.

'Advocating death' / 'advocating murder' is not inherently actionable. It's the manner and tone of that advocacy that's the issue. Some people consider the death penalty to be murder; we don't ban people for advocating for the death penalty in a death penalty thread. Some people consider abortion to be murder; we don't ban people for advocating for legal abortion in an abortion thread. In the context of a thread about a terrorist action, I don't consider it to be inherently actionable to argue that the response to terrorist action that could be construed as an act of war may include military action against supporters of the terrorists, in keeping with the presumed military nature of the conflict. As noted, that doesn't mean that I condone that opinion.

I won't comment further in this thread; if you want to contest that ruling, I would suggest that you either ask for a formal second opinion or open a discussion thread to discuss where the line should lie in advocating death/murder.

Very well, then. I request a second opinion. Advocating abortion, the death penalty, war, etc. are not considered actionable because, while forms of causing death--at least, in most circumstances--they aren't murder. They aren't inherently illegal. Targeting civilian populations and brutally slaughtering them for political motivations is considered terrorism and a crime against humanity. Those, last I checked, are not legal.

[Luna Amore]

I judge every report on its own merits, and on the basis of the discussion taking place in a particular thread. In this particular thread, in the context of this specific discussion, I didn't consider it actionable.

'Advocating death' / 'advocating murder' is not inherently actionable. It's the manner and tone of that advocacy that's the issue. Some people consider the death penalty to be murder; we don't ban people for advocating for the death penalty in a death penalty thread. Some people consider abortion to be murder; we don't ban people for advocating for legal abortion in an abortion thread. In the context of a thread about a terrorist action, I don't consider it to be inherently actionable to argue that the response to terrorist action that could be construed as an act of war may include military action against supporters of the terrorists, in keeping with the presumed military nature of the conflict. As noted, that doesn't mean that I condone that opinion.

I won't comment further in this thread; if you want to contest that ruling, I would suggest that you either ask for a formal second opinion or open a discussion thread to discuss where the line should lie in advocating death/murder.

Very well, then. I request a second opinion. Advocating abortion, the death penalty, war, etc. are not considered actionable because, while forms of causing death--at least, in most circumstances--they aren't murder. They aren't inherently illegal. Targeting civilian populations and brutally slaughtering them for political motivations is considered terrorism and a crime against humanity. Those, last I checked, are not legal.

For the ease of the next mod, can you link again to the posts you are contesting?

[Wallenburg]

Very well, then. I request a second opinion. Advocating abortion, the death penalty, war, etc. are not considered actionable because, while forms of causing death--at least, in most circumstances--they aren't murder. They aren't inherently illegal. Targeting civilian populations and brutally slaughtering them for political motivations is considered terrorism and a crime against humanity. Those, last I checked, are not legal.

For the ease of the next mod, can you link again to the posts you are contesting?

Of course:

So to stop them killing kaffirs, your plan would be to send a lot of karrifs into range of their actual good weapons rather than dealing with untrained bods with vans and kitchen knives here in the UK?

For every of our dead, we can kill from one to ten thousands of their men, women and children. They want a Total War. Let's give one to them.

[Audioslavia]

I'm inclined not to action the post for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he says 'can' rather than 'should'. Secondly, there's a massive amount of ill feeling in the thread and I don't think the linked post is the worst offender.

[Yortium Allanstan]

I'm inclined not to action the post for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he says 'can' rather than 'should'. Secondly, there's a massive amount of ill feeling in the thread and I don't think the linked post is the worst offender.

TIL calling for the deaths of women and children isn't a big deal.

[Luna Amore]

I'm inclined not to action the post for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he says 'can' rather than 'should'. Secondly, there's a massive amount of ill feeling in the thread and I don't think the linked post is the worst offender.

TIL calling for the deaths of women and children isn't a big deal.

Unofficial warning for spamming Moderation. Your commentary is unwelcome and unnecessary.

[Yortium Allanstan]

TIL calling for the deaths of women and children isn't a big deal.

Unofficial warning for spamming Moderation. Your commentary is unwelcome and unnecessary.

Just to be clear: are you agreeing or disagreeing that calling for women and children t to be killed is not actionable?

[Farnhamia]

Unofficial warning for spamming Moderation. Your commentary is unwelcome and unnecessary.

Just to be clear: are you agreeing or disagreeing that calling for women and children t to be killed is not actionable?

Luna's not venturing an opinion one way or the other but simply telling you that inject yourself into a report thread where you are not directly involved is spamming Moderation. Don't do it.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Just to be clear: are you agreeing or disagreeing that calling for women and children t to be killed is not actionable?

Luna's not venturing an opinion one way or the other but simply telling you that inject yourself into a report thread where you are not directly involved is spamming Moderation. Don't do it.

I would simply like a clarification on Moderations stance on calling for the deaths of women and children.

[Thyerata]

Luna's not venturing an opinion one way or the other but simply telling you that inject yourself into a report thread where you are not directly involved is spamming Moderation. Don't do it.

I would simply like a clarification on Moderations stance on calling for the deaths of women and children.

I think I know where this might be going. To cut it off before it goes any further, mods do not accept third party appeals (because I suspect that's what you'd do if moderation gave an answer you don't like).

Before this thread goes further off track, I'm requesting that it be locked, since it's effectively served its purpose

[Farnhamia]

I would simply like a clarification on Moderations stance on calling for the deaths of women and children.

I think I know where this might be going. To cut it off before it goes any further, mods do not accept third party appeals (because I suspect that's what you'd do if moderation gave an answer you don't like).

Before this thread goes further off track, I'm requesting that it be locked, since it's effectively served its purpose

It is true that we don't accept third-party appeals but as for locking this thread, no, I don't think so. Sometimes we prefer a single point of engagement for very active threads.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Do Moderators condone calls for women and children to be killed or not?

[Wallenburg]

I'm inclined not to action the post for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he says 'can' rather than 'should'.

"Let's give it to them" is pretty unambiguous, if you ask me.

Secondly, there's a massive amount of ill feeling in the thread and I don't think the linked post is the worst offender.

Since when was it Moderation's policy to not act on rulebreaking just because someone else apparently did it too?

[USS Monitor]

I'm inclined not to action the post for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he says 'can' rather than 'should'.

"Let's give it to them" is pretty unambiguous, if you ask me.

Secondly, there's a massive amount of ill feeling in the thread and I don't think the linked post is the worst offender.

Since when was it Moderation's policy to not act on rulebreaking just because someone else apparently did it too?

This is a report thread, and two different mods have ruled that post not actionable. I think the reasons Arch gave are more compelling, but since he and Audio both arrived at the same ruling, the differences in how they got there are not particularly important. Moderation isn't a hivemind, and we're always going to have these little differences in how we approach things.

Point it, it's a report thread, and that report has already been ruled on.

You are welcome to start a discussion thread about where we draw the line between advocating genocide and discussing military strategy. It just doesn't belong in this report.