|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no?
In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
If it's not too much trouble, can you guys link the post so I can see for myself?
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 07 2016 16:35 Seeker wrote: If it's not too much trouble, can you guys link the post so I can see for myself? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5956#119101
GH was arguing that an electoral college voter for Washington could potentially tip the election by being a faithless elector. Then when it was pointed out that he was being absurd, he specified that he was actually referring to only situations in which it wouldn't tip the election, despite first bringing it up to explain how it could and referring to that exact situation.
On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote: lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him.
He couldn't even keep track of his own basic premise, instead abandoning it and seeking more defensible ground and insisting that his argument was never actually his argument.
"Go home GH, you're drunk" was about right.
|
|
Yeah it's just part of the experience. It's a fun a thread.
|
I'll continue to never go into that thread thank you very much. :o
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 07 2016 16:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. Go home GH, you're drunk. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no? In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict. I dno, we've never been particularly harsh on people calling idiotic stuff out.
|
On November 07 2016 17:37 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 16:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. Go home GH, you're drunk. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no? In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict. I dno, we've never been particularly harsh on people calling idiotic stuff out. Isn't idiotic/reasonable very different for different people in us politics? Especially in this cycle I feel...
|
The word "idiot" describes a malicious or at least faulty context, furthermore it is very much subject to many different outlooks.. everyone is someone's "idjit" at one point or another,
|
On November 07 2016 17:34 Cascade wrote: I'll continue to never go into that thread thank you very much. :o
I used to go there, because I follow the topics a lot, but recently the volume has become insane and not being able to follow any conversation is a big deterrent - so recently I mostly read the related website feedback thread, there the volume is about right and the conversation not less fun. Moreover, the thread does all my anti-KwarK propaganda for me, so I have more time to shitpost elsewhere.
|
Us politics thread is basicaly a soap oprea. there are rules but they are useualy ignored and the whole thing is contained so people don't have to talk about it when its not on.
|
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On November 08 2016 00:07 Ansibled wrote: Vandalizing Liquipedia? Yup. It happens from time to time.
|
On November 07 2016 22:48 Sermokala wrote: Us politics thread is basicaly a soap oprea. there are rules but they are useualy ignored and the whole thing is contained so people don't have to talk about it when its not on.
we are all very nice* people outside of the thread.
*restrictions apply
|
On November 07 2016 16:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. Go home GH, you're drunk. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no? In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict. Basically everyone in that thread has been warned in the last five pages (I got two in a row for completely unsubstantial posting, can't really argue). Looks like rules have drastically changed in the last 24 hours.
My guess is that mods are simply bracing for impact.
|
On November 08 2016 03:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 16:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. Go home GH, you're drunk. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no? In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict. Basically everyone in that thread has been warned in the last five pages (I got two in a row for completely unsubstantial posting, can't really argue). Looks like rules have drastically changed in the last 24 hours. My guess is that mods are simply bracing for impact. Making US politics discussion great again!
|
On November 08 2016 03:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 16:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. Go home GH, you're drunk. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no? In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict. Basically everyone in that thread has been warned in the last five pages (I got two in a row for completely unsubstantial posting, can't really argue). Looks like rules have drastically changed in the last 24 hours. My guess is that mods are simply bracing for impact.
I'm counting mod actions on 3% of posts over the last few days. The weeks before that hovered around 0.25%. My prediction is that the thread can reach 5% in the aftermath of the election.
|
On November 08 2016 04:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 03:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2016 16:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 07 2016 16:13 Yoav wrote:I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. Go home GH, you're drunk. I mean, this is ordinarily actionable stuff, no? In a normal thread maybe, but in the US Politics Mega-thread probably not. The first might get a warning if a mod was feeling especially strict. Basically everyone in that thread has been warned in the last five pages (I got two in a row for completely unsubstantial posting, can't really argue). Looks like rules have drastically changed in the last 24 hours. My guess is that mods are simply bracing for impact. I'm counting mod actions on 3% of posts over the last few days. The weeks before that hovered around 0.25%. My prediction is that the thread can reach 5% in the aftermath of the election. Geez, that's some ban list science you are pulling here.
|
Johto4891 Posts
On November 08 2016 00:10 Seeker wrote:Yup. It happens from time to time. Tried to delete a couple pages (unsuccessfully), tried to vandalize the main page, and had a double account. Combining that with both accounts being less than 2 hours old, easy perm ^^
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I tried to change the word "deer" to "beer" on a Wikipedia page and only lasted about 30 minutes. Though they did undo one typo fix I made on some other page so it might have been just automated.
Also I have a friend who was a mod on Wikipedia and knew the system well enough to know how to fabricate stuff and get away with it. A very obscure made up story he made lasted about a week - the longest I've seen an act of Wikipedia vandalism survive.
|
|
|
|