Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Yeah, it's quite hilarious how these previously protected posters are whining now that their shitty opinions can be challenged.
As for whining about getting banned for personal insults, my advice would be to grow a pair.
Imagine thinking anyone on this earth gives a **** about *checks notes* being ‘protected’ on an internet poker forum
I’ll happily go down with you. I just want the ability to laugh at you for your complete and total inflammatory bullshit
Imagine thinking anyone on this earth gives a **** about *checks notes* being ‘protected’ on an internet poker forum
I’ll happily go down with you. I just want the ability to laugh at you for your complete and total inflammatory bullshit
I mean not sure if that's your case but if you call laws that passed in many American states (like those making DEI illegal for public entities, or banning minor trans care) "total inflammatory bullshit" then maybe you should revisit your opinion of democracy
Wat
It feels like you guys should take these arguments about your pet causes to their respective threads.
It's the point of contention he's had with every moderator since his buddies were demodded and the former politics forum shut down.
the funniest part is he got what he wanted at UP where his buddies banned everyone to the left of Ikestoys (no, not a joke), stole personal information, and stole donations.
I dont get why he is here whining about it. he got his perfect fascist utopia already.
You can pretty much troll and post obvious lies and it's fine now. There used to be rules against obvious bad faith posting.
It’s untenable to expect moderators to be arbitrators of what is truthful and it’s subjective what is considered good and bad faith.
It’s very simple to pre-edit a post to say “[strike]You[/strike] Your lies are ****ing pathetic” and not get dinged for a personal insult, for example. The rules seem clearly delineated to me.
Anyway, carry on
It’s untenable to expect moderators to be arbitrators of what is truthful and it’s subjective what is considered good and bad faith.
It’s very simple to pre-edit a post to say “[strike]You[/strike] Your lies are ****ing pathetic” and not get dinged for a personal insult, for example. The rules seem clearly delineated to me.
Anyway, carry on
Incredibly, I agree with crossnerd
It’s untenable to expect moderators to be arbitrators of what is truthful and it’s subjective what is considered good and bad faith.
It’s very simple to pre-edit a post to say “[strike]You[/strike] Your lies are ****ing pathetic” and not get dinged for a personal insult, for example. The rules seem clearly delineated to me.
Anyway, carry on
Well yeah...... trolling and bad faith are subjective. But that's the point of having mods in the first place; someone, hopefully with decent read comprehension abilities, has to decide when a poster is trolling. That's still being done in the current regime, just very poorly.
I think that’s the point you and others are missing. Browser is imposing a non-subjective rule set. Everything that falls outside of that is open to his discretion, and to me at least, his discretion seems fairly lenient. If I have an opinion on that, I’ll PM him. A lot of this in the thread just seems like rabble.
And I’ve had posts of mine deleted. I just took that as simple inconsequential direction for what is acceptable. It’s not that deep.
I think that’s the point you and others are missing. Browser is imposing a non-subjective rule set. Everything that falls outside of that is open to his discretion, and to me at least, his discretion seems fairly lenient. If I have an opinion on that, I’ll PM him. A lot of this in the thread just seems like rabble.
despite his completely unfair banning of me and that he allows others to attack me to try to get a response, I agree with this. I have seen truly awful modding. got that thousand yard stare from the lib fascists previously running this place. browser is a lot better than those fools.
I very clearly said fine, I got bannedI’m now asking you to defend why lozen et al get a pass to be deliberately engaging in bad faith and provable lies when what you seem to be asking for of me in response to that is civil discourse that legitimizes them trolling the people they insist on lying aboutThe post that you banned me for was preceded by boba correctly calling lozen o
Imagine thinking anyone on this earth gives a **** about *checks notes* being ‘protected’ on an internet poker forum
I’ll happily go down with you. I just want the ability to laugh at you for your complete and total inflammatory bullshit
I typically agree with your positions more than lozen, in fact I think much of what lozen says is outright horrifying and your positions are much more normal. Having said that, do you understand how this level of toxicity over a very minor disagreement actually hurts discussion? I have a very unusual upbringing and views and they are very difficult to share, especially when they require nuance, and in general lazy thinking is bad and what typically happens to me is that people shout down my perspective and ideas way way before they even begin to try to understand what my views actually are.
Even if you’re right and lozen is wrong this isn’t the way to approach discussion.
I think that’s the point you and others are missing. Browser is imposing a non-subjective rule set. Everything that falls outside of that is open to his discretion, and to me at least, his discretion seems fairly lenient. If I have an opinion on that, I’ll PM him. A lot of this in the thread just seems like rabble.
I have no idea if that's what he wants to do, but a forum like that would be (is?) terrible.
I typically agree with your positions more than lozen, in fact I think much of what lozen says is outright horrifying and your positions are much more normal. Having said that, do you understand how this level of toxicity over a very minor disagreement actually hurts discussion? I have a very unusual upbringing and views and they are very difficult to share, especially when the
I mean look, I got banned for a week for responding to someone who said people are leaving california because of corruption, crime, blah blah blah whatever the **** else far right talking points that aren’t worth repeating (none of which any evidence was provided for of course) with calling the guy ****ing pathetic
ITT not 20 posts ago I’ve been implied to be a ‘libtard’ and a ‘liar’ by someone else because I called out the OG
Neither of those two get banned. I do though. Either everything should fly or nothing should. If I’m going to be the one who gets banned and you need to do some performative nonsense to justify the other two, predictably I’m not going to treat it with any respect cuz it deserves none
