Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
He tried to claim Naziism is legal when its explicitly illegal in Italy so by his own world view philosophically getting put down was the only clear choice, right?
So called "lifetime achievement bans" are just ways for moderators to do whatever they want.
If someone can't point to a specific post that is violating rules or common decency then a person shouldn't be banned.
If in this case the post in question was what Rickroll quoted where Luciom is arguing for free speech then lol moderators.
I don't agree with this as a general principle. If someone is getting banned because he is an irredeemable and habitual line stepper, then focusing on the last few posts the person made before he was banned inevitably will make the moderation decision seem capricious.
visual representation of coordi after modship
When you responded with “not once have I heard men discard it” you dismissed my lived experiences. This is the standard issue with trying to talk to you guys about this stuff- you center yourselves, you don’t listen to us, you don’t believe us. You just want to argue and virtue signal that you’re one of the good ones.
The actual good ones don’t do that. Just fyi.
this is not what was doing nor was my intention and i feel like i explained it
it was not the greatest of phrasing and i apologize for that - but i think this has more to do with your dismissals of the experience of others as made up so you are quick to assume that others are going to be doing the same to you - it would be incredibly petty and hypocritical for me to do so given how much flak i've sent your way each time you accuse me of having made things up and i'd at least hope to believe that i'm above that
Serious question:
Why do folks find Luciom's posts to be more toxic than Victor's?
Is it just a matter of Lucy posting 50 long posts a day as oppposed to Victor posting 10 short posts a day?
Because most people don't even bother responding to Victor and every single thread doesn't get taken over by people dealing with his nonsense every single day.
Oh and Victor never said all leftists should be killed.
i'm against banning outside of harassment, scamming, or physical threats - feel like 99% of banned users were banned for their opinions not their behavior
also find the cheerleading about any bans to be pretty tasteless
if i had the wisdom to pay 7 figures for 2p2 i would probably unban majority of users
but i think even luc knew at some point he'd earn a ban
Well after around 100 temp bans, straws and camels with broken backs tend to come to mind, I guess. It's why I understand the ban anyway.
I don't agree with this as a general principle. If someone is getting banned because he is an irredeemable and habitual line stepper, then focusing on the last few posts the person made before he was banned inevitably will make the moderation decision seem capricious.
If line-stepping is so easy even a ESL speaker can do it dozens of times a day for years maybe the lines themselves need to be redrawn.
Honestly never seen a guy so excited to talk about executing a bunch of people. It’s usually a bad sign.
And still, if a woman were to tell men she was afraid to go hiking alone because a man might stab her in the face for no reason, the men would laugh her out of the room as if that isn’t a legitimate fear
That’s what really drives it home
I think you need to start hanging with a better class of men.
Wife and kids apparently.
I took the view that we were doing the real world and his family a big favour by letting him spend most of his time posting garbage here.
If line-stepping is so easy even a ESL speaker can do it dozens of times a day for years maybe the lines themselves need to be redrawn.
I wasn't commenting on specific bans or where the lines should be. I simply was objecting to a myopic focus on the most recent posts.
If I popped in exactly once per day to post "LOL" in response to a random post, and I never posted anything else, I assume that I would eventually be banned for non-substantive trolling. And it would be absurd to for someone to argue that I was banned because I responded to jalfrezi's most recent post with LOL.
I was trying to steel man to see if it would provoke any sort of response. If I really wanted to ban him I would have just done it and always tried to be very clear with him with what would and wouldn't get him banned. I don't see a ton of antisemitism from Vic, though he is anti Israel and anti Jewish institutions that support Israel which probably starts to ride that line.
You admit he makes antisemitic posts. I accidentally made what was one "antisemitic" post and was banned for a month. I had no intention behind my post. In fact I still don't know what made my post antisemitic. I got banned for ignorance but people are allowed to post here who know exactly what they are posting. This was back when Crossnerd was micro managing the forum.
Honestly never seen a guy so excited to talk about executing a bunch of people. It’s usually a bad sign.
Who exactly was this hurting? He had his opinions just like you do. Were people actually complaining about him? Isn't it good to here different opinions?
Also, why now? If he was so awful shouldn't he have been banned a long time ago?
I think we all know why now.
I don't agree with this as a general principle. If someone is getting banned because he is an irredeemable and habitual line stepper, then focusing on the last few posts the person made before he was banned inevitably will make the moderation decision seem capricious.
In Luciom's specific case mods could have just waited until there was a post calling or attempting to justify violence against some group (presumably leftists) and banned him then.
I assume he has made those posts and I think I've even read some of them.
Instead he was banned for arguing for.....free speech.
As a general principal though and to your point, the rules need to be written a little more in stone so that we can't have the sort of capriciousness where people are being banned for arguing for free speech.
You admit he makes antisemitic posts. I accidentally made what was one "antisemitic" post and was banned for a month. I had no intention behind my post. In fact I still don't know what made my post antisemitic. I got banned for ignorance but people are allowed to post here who know exactly what they are posting. This was back when Crossnerd was micro managing the forum.
I can't go back in time and relieve you from your perceived past injustices
In Luciom's specific case mods could have just waited until there was a post calling or attempting to justify violence against some group (presumably leftists) and banned him then.I assume he has made those posts and I think I've even read some of them.Instead he was banned for arguing for.....free speech.As a general principal though and to your point, the rules need to be wri
He was banned for being Luciom
the mods could have also banned him 12 months ago, or 18, or 6. It was recommended by the broader mod group that he get permabanned nearly a year ago
