Moderation Questions

Lol @PW. That complaint is dumb and delusional on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

P&S denizens...... we have asked in the past to not discuss (and especially trash) banned users. Please attempt to comply.

^ Yes. Let’s have some positive vibes in here for a bit, friends 😀

good decision. ofc this did not apply to me where you allowed users to spew lies for weeks on end.

Careful or "someone" will yet again accuse you of victimhood despite the veracity of what you've said.

The veracity is questionable at best, and those things are not mutually exclusive.

Love, someone.

No.

The exception is only available for Trolley, our favorite pet.

I concur. Something of a goalpost shift from your post to which I originally replied, though, which was regarding a certain poster telling half truths and playing victim all the time.

ya the only person lying here is you.

we can make a bet on it if you want.

You guys are like super angry all the time. From an outsiders pov that reads most threads here without posting, I have to say, that in my opinion most of you regs seem like somewhat intelligent people, but at the same time behave like idiots. Calm the **** down, dumbasses!

As usual, you've made your claim sufficiently ambiguous that there's nothing to disprove. So, to be more specific:

Were people talking about you after your ban? Yes.
Did the mods eventually put a stop to it? Yes.
Does bringing this up now when nobody was talking about you and making every conversation about how you've been wronged by the big bad posters and mods here smack of perpetual victimhood? Yes.

Which of these would you like bet on?

you are the one who questioned the veracity of my statement. seems like you are, as the kids say, copping deuces. I accept your forfeit.

Not copping ****, boss. I said they stopped it eventually. So, your statement is ambiguous enough to be correct in that they allowed it to go on for some nonzero amount of time. That could be 10 seconds or 10 days. As I said, sufficiently ambiguous that there's nothing to disprove. Or, as I put it before, a half truth.

Mods have a fine line to tread. If we want to be able to discuss and dispute bans, then by necessity, that involves discussing and debating the behaviour of the banned poster, or at least the behaviour that led to the ban. The alternative is a blanket prohibition on discussing/disputing bans, which will of course lead to accusations of authoritarianism. Not sure that's what anyone wants, so be careful what you wish for.

I said "weeks on end". seems fairly specific despite the idiomatic phrase.

Sorry, I missed that. In which case it's demonstrably not true. You also said they were allowed to "spew lies" about you. Opinions can't be lies.

Wow things have changed around these parts. And for the better

Even arguing that banned poster shouldn't be atatcked used to be responded to with outrage. The idea of a right to reply was nonsense.

Dear lord get over yourself.

i am curious have you ever been banned ? in the last month ?

I've been banned plenty, lost count of how many temp bans I've had. I was also 1 point away from getting a perma last election cycle. Not too many bans recently, guess I learnt my lesson. Why?

would think that making fun of the "temp-banned" should be encouraged if the point is to effectively shame/embarrass/virtually bludgeon the banned into not posting so bad upon their return.

unless the point is that your SN had to be the right color to mete out any of the approved sort of venom. then ofc, carry on.

Did Browser ever ban you?

A couple of times IIRC, yeah.

Luciom isn't one of your alter egos?