webdiplomacy.net

peterlund wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 pm

Condescension wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:34 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:46 pm

We're deleting posts now? I may have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the politics thread was to be run with a more relaxed approach to moderation?

Yes, I posted a paragraph long post between Brad's last two posts where I implied he's brain damaged at the tail end, and the whole thing was deleted. Pretty cool!

I would very interested to read a moderator motivation for deleting that post that Condescension made!!

Who is the moderator that did this?

The email I got giving me a warning just said 'webidplomacy moderator'. I'll ask in the email.

I feel like, that post wasn't offensive enough to warrant a deletion. That's dramatic.

Finally justice!

I rescind my postings on Sweden.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/health/f ... index.html

NRA paid politicians are against gun control, but apparently this other industry isn't contributing enough to their campaigns. I don't have the statistics, but I'm sure users of their products cause fewer deaths than gun users.

peterlund wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 pm

I would very interested to read a moderator motivation for deleting that post that Condescension made!!

Who is the moderator that did this?

I emailed them and they said 'all of us', so they're not willing to reveal that. Pretty lame to stealthily nuke a post (most of which wasn't insulting) and not post a justification or take responsibility.

One of us!
One of us!
One of us!

Condescension wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:29 pm

peterlund wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 pm

I would very interested to read a moderator motivation for deleting that post that Condescension made!!

Who is the moderator that did this?

I emailed them and they said 'all of us', so they're not willing to reveal that. Pretty lame to stealthily nuke a post (most of which wasn't insulting) and not post a justification or take responsibility.

Yep, this sounds like the way to get a reply. Ignore every site policy on appeals and just bitch in the forum. I'm sure this will get you what you want.

*As always, personal opinion, not a mod.

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:07 am

Condescension wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:29 pm

peterlund wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 pm

I would very interested to read a moderator motivation for deleting that post that Condescension made!!

Who is the moderator that did this?

I emailed them and they said 'all of us', so they're not willing to reveal that. Pretty lame to stealthily nuke a post (most of which wasn't insulting) and not post a justification or take responsibility.

Yep, this sounds like the way to get a reply. Ignore every site policy on appeals and just bitch in the forum. I'm sure this will get you what you want.

*As always, personal opinion, not a mod.

What, precisely, do you think I want?

So the policy conclusions from all of this for Trump are, in summary:

- Anyone with a mental illness should be incarcerated.
- All schoolteachers should be armed.

Fucking great.

In more not-at-all fake news from today:

http://newsthump.com/2015/10/14/nra-dem ... -throwers/

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:34 am

So the policy conclusions from all of this for Trump are, in summary:

- Anyone with a mental illness should be incarcerated.
- All schoolteachers should be armed.

Fucking great.

Trump out to expand his arming people that work in possibly dangerous environments where the police aren't enough. Clearly from the recent ramming of the White House gates and the shooting of Congressmen at a softball practice the Secret Service and Capitol Hill police aren't enough. Therefore Trump
, White House staffers, and Congressmen should be armed at all times to defend democracy.

It ought to be more interesting when Trump fires his next person and with Congressional debates considering they already hit each other on the Floor.

Yes. Ronald Reagan would never have come so close to being assassinated if he had carried an assault rifle when making all public appearances.

Elementary school teachers should be required to be a member of their local gun club and keep 10 live hand grenades on their person at all times. That will make schools so much safer. Obvious!

Also, all public schools should be surrounded my landmines, in order to stop mentally unstable people from approaching. Safety first, America, come on! Do you WANT your children to die? Our schools need landmines, and they need them NOW!

Really arming teachers should solve all of this. No need to take away rights from people or anything like that. It's dumb to raise the minimum age to buy a firearm. I guess some more background checks is okay. But, arming teachers is all that is needed here I think.

ND wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:12 am

Really arming teachers should solve all of this. No need to take away rights from people or anything like that. It's dumb to raise the minimum age to buy a firearm. I guess some more background checks is okay. But, arming teachers is all that is needed here I think.

How does it solve all this, exactly? To those seeking to take advantage of a soft target to take part in a bit of mass murder, they will simply choose an alternative target. Be it a school that rejects the armed teacher philosophy, or a church or community centre.

To the crackpots who have lost all sense of reality and want to go out in a computer game style blaze of death and glory, a school complete with lightly armed teachers may be an even more attractive target.

I don't see any benefit to this policy whatsoever, and you get the significant negative of having firearms liberally scattered around a school. The idea is frankly idiotic.

ND wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:12 am

Really arming teachers should solve all of this. No need to take away rights from people or anything like that. It's dumb to raise the minimum age to buy a firearm. I guess some more background checks is okay. But, arming teachers is all that is needed here I think.

Imagine being an armed, black teacher in the midst of a school shooting as the police arrive.

Imagine being a poorly trained armed teacher and all you see is the gun and not the person holding it. Don't worry about the police as we saw 4 police officers couldn't do their jobs and enter the school.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics ... index.html

@ND: "Really arming teachers should solve all of this. No need to take away rights from people or anything like that. It's dumb to raise the minimum age to buy a firearm. I guess some more background checks is okay. But, arming teachers is all that is needed here I think."

Yes, the solution for you nutcases is always "more guns!"

Let's just assume for a moment that arming all schoolteachers, and making them responsible for defending their pupils in the event of a shooter entering the premises, is a sensible solution. (It's very clearly *not* a sensible solution, but let's humour you nutbags for a moment).

Currently schoolteachers are not required to be armed, and I'm fairly sure their job descriptions don't currently include providing armed security in their school. What you're proposing is a significant additional responsibility. It's entirely reasonable that teachers, if they are willing to take on this additional responsibility, should expect a commensurate increase in their salary.

How much do you think this will cost the US taxpayer, and are you happy for your taxes to be increased to fund a significant pay rise for all teachers?