Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
It's not conscious, it's just a thing women do. They then look at the man's shoes, apparently due to an inner conviction that smart shoes are an important status indicator.Lou Reed said that a quite weird number of women pestered him for an introduction to his friend Ernie after the Transformer album came out, because of Ernie's photo on the back of the sleeve. He had to tell t
Yeah, a quick glance at the crotch area could be an evolved artifact from evolutionary times before humans started wearing as much clothes. From a reproductive fitness perspective, external genitalia appearance would probably be some kind of honest indicator whether the man's reproductive system developed correctly and whether they were likely capable of successful procreation.
Growth is to the body as expansion is to the mind. The path is a narrow alley that allows passage only to the slender man. The man who eats not just his own fatted calf, but the fatted calf of his neighbor, and his neighbor's neighbor, surely will outgrow the path. But he cannot be said to have expanded beyond the path, for he can still see the path, even as he is unable to
I like Craig's posts but I might like these more
Rip karl
He was an informed and sophisticated poster, often misunderstood. His screen name "triggered nazis" and for that we should all be grateful
Rip karl
He was an informed and sophisticated poster, often misunderstood. His screen name "triggered nazis" and for that we should all be grateful
Karl is a bit of a conundrum. I actually enjoy reading his subtantive posts. He isn't a mindless screamer. But every now and then, he gets off the chain and is so over the top that it almost seems like he is trying to get banned. I sometimes wonder if it is his way of self-banning when he needs a break for whatever reason.
Karl is a bit of a conundrum. I actually enjoy reading his subtantive posts. He isn't a mindless screamer.
Do you have an example of one of his substantive posts? Because, honestly, all I've seen is him raving like a goddamn lunatic and telling users to commit suicide, which normally gets a snap-instaperma in just about every online forum I've frequented.
I sometimes wonder if it is his way of self-banning when he needs a break for whatever reason.
He's a toddler exploring his boundaries, it's not complicated.
He literally just came back from a temp I gave him in the I/P thread for the exact same thing, so I’m not sure how sustainable it will be to keep him here long term..
I’m just one opinion, but I don’t agree with perma bans. The longest ban should be a few days and if the person states in the affirmative that the person they attacked is capable of redemption, then they can return.
For instance in this case,
“Karl, is Lagtight capable of redemption in your eyes?”
Karl: “Yes.” -> Karl gets to return.
Then, if there is another issue in the future, you just quote this exchange. If that doesn’t work, then you repeat the process.
If things don’t improve, then give maybe a few weeks max, but no permas.
Haven’t we collectively figured out that rehabilitation is preferable over elimination?
Some people can’t be rehabbed despite overwhelming effort. I’ll refrain from listing specific examples.
Do you have an example of one of his substantive posts? Because, honestly, all I've seen is him raving like a goddamn lunatic and telling users to commit suicide, which normally gets a snap-instaperma in just about every online forum I've frequented.
I've had reasonable exchanges with him at various times. But yeah, telling people to kill themselves is an autoban, as it should be, and that is the sort of thing that he makes no effort to avoid. That's why I said it almost seemed like an intentional effort to get banned.
Some people can’t be rehabbed despite overwhelming effort. I’ll refrain from listing specific examples.
When you look at the success rates (low) of rehab across various domains, ‘some people can’t be rehabbed’ quickly becomes ‘most people can’t be rehabbed’.
And the implications of ‘most people can’t be rehabbed’ are very dark.
Even if the effort level on the rehab side may feel overwhelming, it’s better to stretch it to its absolute limit rather than live with the doom of ‘most people can’t be rehabbed’.
Craig, please allow me be the first to congratulate you on finally formulating an opinion in a coherent and understandable manner. It has taken 20 years or so, but none of us are in any rush here. Unfortunately, and most unsurprisingly, your opinion is complete dogshit, but don't let that discourage further efforts at rehabilitation.
Say what you will about Luciom, but he at least is honest about what it would mean to truly believe ‘most people can’t be rehabbed’.
If his views are abhorrent, then walk the walk.
Some people can’t be rehabbed despite overwhelming effort. I’ll refrain from listing specific examples.
Most can't. And it's morally horrific to even try with taxpayers money.
Private charity can try as much as it wants, families can waste their money as well for their bad apples, their choice.
You believe in the prodigal son bullshit you give your stuff to him, not mine.
We should just disregard them and get rid of them the first time they give us the opportunity to do so (attempting violence at property or people).
How do you think we should get rid of them?
Same as with any criminal en flagrante: lethal force should be the go to basic option everytime you get en flagrante violence toward people or property by law enforcement.
Encouraged and rewarded with monetary prizes.
Same for any private individual acting in self defense or defense of others of course.
Basic model is you see someone breaking into a car, you shoot him dead, the government gives you 5-10-20k.
All legal and encouraged by culture, politicians, and the law of course explicitly.
Like a civic duty, and a very moral set of actions, that makes you a stellar citizen.
If you get into personal risk to get rid of the violent criminal, extra bonus.
Shoot first when facing any form of violence should be the cultural, societal norm. With concealed carry being available of course for free and gun ownership encouraged (no VAT/sales tax in gun or shooting training).
No one should even think of acting violent in the presence of anyone else and be able to live.
Same as with any criminal en flagrante: lethal force should be the go to basic option everytime you get en flagrante violence toward people or property by law enforcement. Encouraged and rewarded with monetary prizes.Same for any private individual acting in self defense or defense of others of course.Basic model is you see someone breaking into a car, you shoot him dead, the g
Man, Luciomtopia sounds awesome. Also, if I don't like you, or I just had a bad month at the tables and could use an extra 10k, I can just put a couple in the back of your head and a crowbar in your cold dead hands and claim you were breaking into my car, sounds like a plan bro.
Roc, you reckon you could pull off some Luciom parodies, or does he just basically parody himself? Maybe some sort of Running Man type thing for jaywalkers and shoplifters?
On one side is Luciom. On the other side is me.
These are the only two options. You must choose one or the other.
