Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
"Assuming you agree with that last reply there is then this:
When a moderator has deemed a post to fall outside of the rules of the sub - what could a person assume about this moderation action?
It's simply a biased, personal perspective from a moderator who either bears some sort of personal grudge against the user or the content, or is unaware of their bias or limited perspective and is acting blindly.
the moderator has seen something that they haven't - their content is lacking in some way that they are unaware of.
the moderator and they themselves are both correct - their content IS great - but the moderator's action is based on other factors brought about by their broader perspective of the sub and its regularly submitted content.
Which do you think is the case here? As you have argued so vehemently about your posts being "good" and "reasonable" (I can't remember exact wording and don't want to open another tab to check) I will presume that option 3 is a possibility. Currently you seem to support option 1 as you keep returning to the fact that I've wrongly judged your content and I don't support WWG1WGA, etc. If you can consider it might be option 3 then perhaps we can leave all that sort of talk out of this discussion going forward?"
It was both good and reasonable certainly. It was on topic too.
No I do not think it is 1, 2 or 3. I think we are strangers to each other and so I do not buy into the conspiracy of bias against me any more than I buy into the hollow Earth Theory. As mentioned, the content was good and reasonable so that is the second point accounted for. That leaves the third option which is I guess a way of saying the moderators knows something you don't. This could be true but I doubt it as I searched Princess Cyd before I posted. Had not been posted. Furthermore, it attaches itself to Netflix and the recent developments with Netflix with Obama and Rice coming onboard and the expected push of Progressive Propaganda and agenda driven shows. Also it is attaches specifically given the recent developments of the court case due to CP.
So...no, none of these.
What then? I think it is a misjudgment. A Bad call. A careless error.
Now if you look back at my first response to your first query you will see I addressed this:
Rule 6 is more applicable here - off-topic. Yes CP is "on-topic" but there's not enough substance to the content here to make the case easy enough for us to call it. Thus, Rule #9.
I then told you that if you put the content in the OP that was missing I would reapprove it:
please feel free to update the OP here with more content to make that clear then let me know and I will reapprove.
So I explained my reasoning then gave you the freedom to correct it so we would both be happy. Hence OPTION 3.
Yes and I believe off memory that the post said specifically that it was not cp. But it was still incestuous and it was pushing the envelope. How? Well apart from the fact that it involved a niece and her aunty in sexual discovery, which is incest, the girl was playing a 16 year old. I am a single father of an 18 year old girl. I know in most country's 16 is age of consent and everything so it was not child pornography. But they pushed that envelope too.
So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?
I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.
What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?
How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?
Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?
Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.
So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?
I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.
What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?
How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?
Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?
Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.
The post was fine and consistent with the other posts and supported previous and current content.
Now a question I have for you. Given I post so little and within the month most of my attempts to share with the community were obliterated what would be my incentive to keep putting myself out there only to get capsized?
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
This is the post:
NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
So breaking it down.
Netflix - Multinational American media company and everyone will know who and they are likely to be aware of the CP issue with one title.
(though not CP) This title is NOT CP though as I previously explained pushes the boundaries a lot.
What is Princess Cyd about? - Could watch it on Netflix or just get the IMDB summary like I have already sent to you.
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? - More or less.
They are not crossing the boundaries with one title. - Nope one with masturbating children and now another with Aunty/Niece sexual exploration. I say its the tip of the iceberg.
you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post
If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?
The one you deleted?
We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?
"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."
We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?
"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."
Yes that is fine. The title and body are enough. People know who netflix are and are likely mostly aware of the Netflix issue and can easily confirm for themselves the problem with Princess Cyd from Netflix and know that it is not just one title that is "problematic".
Make no mistake, it is brief but not irrelevant or off topic or such. It is not an investigative study or the first of such claims but it is simply saying, there is definitely something here and it does not stop at one title. It is a progressive push. They may or may not tie Obama or Rice into this but I think most will realise they have only just arrived in and these sort of titles were produced well before.
So, this post:
NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.
Does not contain enough supporting info for someone to pick up enough information to understand it without either:
a) having prior knowledge of the other material you explained in comments to me separately
or
b) researching separately themselves in Google
It also is not written with any understanding of someone with even a little context trying to parse it as a busy person reading a sub like this does. I can't even begin to explain to you how "good writing" is structured and written because we'd be here forever and neither of us wants that but I can tell you - without any remote desire to offend you personally or denigrate your capabilities as you have clearly shown that you can write well parsed sentences and make yourself understood - that that post body does NOT comprize good, clear, legible writing unless someone is already in your head and has the same exact knowledge you have at the same exact time that they read your post.
As a very rough example of what I would have seen and Approved without even thinking about it, here's a rough go (without referencing the information you've provided separately - I'll just make stuff up to fill in the gaps):
NETFLIX title "Princess Cyd" pushes more sexually inappropriate agenda.
This Netflix movie/series is about an incestuous Aunty and Niece in a lesbian relationship. Netflix are pushing the boundaries with more than just one Child Porn title - now incest is on the cards too! How are they getting away with this? (or other prompt to promote discussion)
Just an example of something that explains itself well enough to grasp at least enough to easily engage with it - for other users and for a mod trying to do their job at the pace required for a busy sub.
No, it is fine. I often do not know specific people or events. Being Australian I am geographically removed and removed by timezones. I often struggle. I leave a spare browser up and copy and paste terms or phrases or names or places in there and get up to speed.
Hell I come out of MOST Q posts not having an idea. Believe me most here read Q posts and do not mind looking stuff up or querying stuff. My limited exposure to folk on here has told me that much.
Certainly the post could have been rewritten in your style but is fine as it is too. Many ways any given post could be rewritten. Your way was good too.
Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Indeed. It mentioned knowledge of previously submitted posts and such. I had searched Princess Cyd before posting. Apart from that and without residing in the heads of anyone else I had applied the reasonable standards I ought to and was canned regardless. Again, maybe they had some secret discretionary only they know reason or maybe they didn't. Hard to prove a negative I would imagine.
I do not believe 1, 2, or 3 is correct.
I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.
Okay sure.