Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I guess this is you wanting me to do a search of this thread with posts by geezerchess with CN in the posts and post all the drool, eh?
No, no, no... 15 said to not ban; the other 12 were divided between the option to ban or the option to contain. You can't take 6 from the contain option and add it to the not ban list, you angleshooter.
it was 21 to 6 against a ban. "squeaked by".I wrote "afaik" tongue in cheeck because cordie was very aware of that thread and that poll, given he wrote in it.I didn't claim 1a was being violated on reddit, read it in the thread. I claimed it was better when nazis and mysoginists were allowed to write there.Now that said there is the topic of section 230 which... if you want the
You might want to keep in mind that Land 'O Lakes is both dumb and dishonest.
I guess this is you wanting me to do a search of this thread with posts by geezerchess with CN in the posts and post all the drool, eh?
You guessed wrong. I openly and gladly admit that I have expressed my gratitude for CN letting me back in the sandbox countless times. It is sincere gratitude. I'm also not afraid to call her out, like I would any other poster, genuis.
You guessed wrong. I openly and gladly admit that I have expressed my gratitude for CN letting me back in the sandbox countless times. It is sincere gratitude. I'm also not afraid to call her out, like I would any other poster, genuis.
Sounds like someone doesn't want someone to quote "countless" bootlicks. It's cool, man - it's not me you have to gaslight.
I guess this is you wanting me to do a search of this thread with posts by geezerchess with CN in the posts and post all the drool, eh?
No, no, no... 15 said to not ban; the other 12 were divided between the option to ban or the option to contain. You can't take 6 from the contain option and add it to the not ban list, you angleshooter.
I can , containment is literally not a ban. So they were not in favour of a ban. Not hard logically and semantically.
Not that 15 isn't higher than 12 by itself.
Anyway you were wrong and there was an actual poll.
Sounds like someone doesn't want someone to quote "countless" bootlicks. It's cool, man - it's not me you have to gaslight.
Wrong again, dummy!
I would be thrilled and delighted for you to post every post of mine where I expressed my gratitude to CN.
In fact, I am looking forward to seeing each and every one of them!
Get to work, sport!!!
Luciom, I don’t know why you’re citing an informal poll when mods take no notice of posters views on bans.
Still I guess another post is another euro.
Luciom, I don’t know why you’re citing an informal poll when mods take no notice of posters views on bans.
Still I guess another post is another euro.
because cordie claimed there was backlash against moderation because i was unbanned; while we have data claiming the literal opposite from that poll, people here preferred not to ban me.
There was some backlash against your unbanning.
[QUOTE=jalfrezi;59063842]There was some backlash against your unbanning.[/QUOTE
by the left wing zealots
There was some backlash against his unbanning and some backlash against his banning
People just enjoy complaining
And its not lost on me that this current wave of whining about the moderation is seemingly in response to Luciom, the guy who has been on the permaban chopping block for a year and a half, getting unbanned
Luciom is unbanned because banning him resulted in a wave of whining as well, and frankly you all deserve him for that
Listen up, chief, coordi likely realizes my post was mocking all you fools and not specifically you - I just had to include the Spirt of the Age line because it's especially ******ed.
Shiit... you lay it on so thick with CN that if we didn't know you are a virgin scared of females, one would think you're trying to rizz to get into her pants and see if she can sing a quadruple C.
My C4 is good, my C6 is fantastic
I would assume zers has a previous account. It would be quite unusual for the 2p2 politics forum to pull new users. The list of reasons for new accounts is pretty small, especially these days.
I had an account around 2008-2009 but mostly used it for poker stuff. About a year ago I created 'Gregory Illinivich' and self banned after a few months because I was spending too much time on here (the reason I have no social media accounts) and found myself getting annoyed. Decided I wanted to come back, so I created this one. Just returned from a 90 day self temp ban, which is a nice option to have. I mentioned that I was Gregory on one of these threads shortly after creating this account.
I remember you
I can , containment is literally not a ban. So they were not in favour of a ban. Not hard logically and semantically.
People voting for containment don't want you running around loose on the forum like Lunchbox's dog. Being banned from the entire forum besides one thread is a ban to me and damn near everyone else. Had the only two choices had been ban or no ban, then those 6 would have picked ban.
In your angleshooting world, if you were me, you would claim that since it was not a poll that had any relevance at all to you being banned or not, then there wasn't really a poll.
How's your C8?
I think many posters have a misconceived notion of the moderation though. Many who whine don't seem to understand that they would just be banned if the politics forum ever shut down. Many are only here by the grace of the mod team, and I mean CN, King Spew, and others before me, not me.
If the rules were more lax, what reason would there be for it to get shut it down? I understand that the platform is privately owned and believe the owners should have the final say. My argument is that it would be better if there was more leeway, and given that this is the moderation thread, it seems like the right place to say that. I consider it a bad idea to censor any speech on debate forums with the exception of bots, spam and illegal content. I might be missing something, but nothing comes to mind. Some discretion is obviously needed for mods to steer derails in the right direction, but moderation should be as limited as possible. It's also an issue that extends far beyond 2p2, a place where the consequences of what gets said extends further than most people realize.
But we can address a couple things here:1. Eugenics is a banned topic. This is because we defer to the current scientific consensus that Eugenics is pseudoscience. People like Luciom aren't experts and thus have no voice on the subject especially because his opinion is also a common dog whistle for abject racism.2. Promotion specifically Nazi ideology is a banned topic. Thi
1. Eugenics is gross, but deferring to consensus in order to decide what is permissible is weak. If scientific research was treated the same way, it would hinder progress and a lot of breakthroughs never would have happened. It drives false ideas underground/into echo chambers, making them virtually impossible to refute, generally emboldening those who hold them (a psychological reaction) and squandering any chance to convince them otherwise. This relates to our disagreement the other day. A contributing factor to why vaccine conspiracies are so widespread is platforms censoring the conspiracy theorists.
2. I'll leave the Nazi thing alone other than to say that it's not a very convincing rationale.
If the rules were more lax, what reason would there be for it to get shut it down? I understand that the platform is privately owned and believe the owners should have the final say. My argument is that it would be better if there was more leeway, and given that this is the moderation thread, it seems like the right place to say that. I consider it a bad idea to censor any spee
Same reason why YouTube is heavy-handed. Advertising. Better to have the racists and homophobes leave than the advertisers.
1. Eugenics is gross, but deferring to consensus in order to decide what is permissible is weak. If scientific research was treated the same way, it would hinder progress and a lot of breakthroughs never would have happened.
Can I take a shiit in your living room - you know, for scientific research?
The left's 180 on liberal tolerance is bewildering.
At some point, a consensus formed on the left that political reality is about a power struggle over who gets to occupy the position of privilege.
In this frame, your desire to speak is entirely motivated by your scheme to claim the privileged position for yourself or your group.
So if you’re not an ally, your speech no matter the content is a threat to be neutralized, not a right to be protected.
It’s why a uniting national identity is repulsive to much of the left.
