|
On May 17 2017 11:04 Sermokala wrote:
So to throw a softball out there can we have a rule where there's a limit to how much you can direct quote from another article? Like 2 or 3 paragraphs or a word count? It's annoying to scroll down some pages
The issue I have is that I always feel like I'm editorializing and introducing extra bias with my selection so I generally try and avoid it. Granted, I'll still do it if an article is exceptionally long or only 1-2 paragraphs of it are new or important.
Plus some long articles people post are from behind paywalls (though that's less frequent)
|
On May 17 2017 11:04 LegalLord wrote:
the thread took a nosedive the moment Kwark (among others) made their return.
Regardless of the merits in this particular case, the above is absolutely true.
|
So let's take a look at Kwark's posting. First, I defy a TL mod to argue that the tone and snark of the posts below are acceptable according to TL guidelines:
On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse.
On May 17 2017 09:11 KwarK wrote:
They probably just didn't get around to firing him between when they were told and the leaks. Probably wasn't a pressing concern for them. They were going to fire him on that day anyway and the leaks didn't change anything. That's why they made those public statements expressing confidence in him right before they fired him.
xDaunt has completely lost the plot at this point. He's gone full Spicey. These inauguration crowds were the biggest in history. RIP those killed in the Bowling Green Massacre. No puppet, you're a puppet!
On May 17 2017 09:20 KwarK wrote:
So your proposed timeline is as follows
Trump is told that his National Security Adviser is a foreign agent.
Trump continues to let his compromised National Security Adviser serve as National Security Adviser.
Trump decides to fire his National Security Adviser but doesn't actually fire him yet.
Trump continues to let his foreign agent National Security Adviser sit in national security briefings.
Trump publicly backs his National Security Adviser (foreign agent) and expresses his full confidence in him.
It is leaked that the National Security Adviser is a foreign agent.
Trump fires his National Security Adviser the way he always planned to do whether or not the leaks happened.
As an individual who claims to be a lawyer on the internet and might even pretend to be one in real life, how well do you think that narrative would go with a jury?
On May 17 2017 10:14 KwarK wrote:
Careful, if you keep this up he'll start whining about you in website feedback.
On May 17 2017 10:39 KwarK wrote:
We've now reached the point where Trump endorsing his National Security Adviser and expressing confidence in them is being used as evidence that Trump always meant to fire his National Security Adviser and that subsequent events didn't change that.
xDaunt clearly angling for that White House job.
Liberal media: But doesn't the fact that he expressed support for Flynn right up until the leaks imply he didn't plan to fire him until the leaks?
Spicey 2.0: Classic liberal media always spinning the facts. Everyone knows that when Trump expresses support for a member of his team it has always meant he's committed to firing that person for being a foreign agent. If Trump only decided to fire him after the leaks then how come Trump expressed support before the leaks even came out?
On May 17 2017 10:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Ah. So then, Trump shouldn't have fired him (or at least did not accomplish anything by doing so) and only did so for optics. Gotcha. Least you agree it was pure ego for Trump rather than stated reasons. But this whole thing started because of this Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. you make shit up. How are we now here?
I think a charitable description for these posts is that "while they are probably just within non-actionable bounds, there's still a general aggressive tone/baiting that might be considered for holistic action that as a staff member [Kwark] is immune to." I'm all ears if the mod staff has an alternative view point, but I doubt that it will be very compelling for reasons that tofu mentioned, which are related to why most of the previous sentence is in quotes.
Aside from the tone, the other, problem with Kwark's posting is that he relentlessly miscontrues and misrepresents the posts of others. I'm not going to bore everyone with the details, but you can see very clear examples both in the posts from above (especially that last one which he ridiculously edited down for his own purposes such that everything was taken out of context) and in his recent posts in this thread. Hell, he even routinely makes up shit that I and other didn't even say just to serve his narrative, of which we can see a great example of this with he did with the first and last quotes above, which serves the basis for his ranting in response to my initial post. This isn't accidental on his part (this is a simple question of stupid or liar, and Kwark isn't stupid), and it happens all of the time. Just to be clear, I don't think that this issue is particularly actionable on its own, but in combination with the snark/tone as discussed above, it makes Kwark a uniquely toxic poster in the thread.
I would appreciate some explanation from the mod staff.
On May 17 2017 11:16 tofucake wrote:
really? staff can be unaccountable dicks? are you ignoring the part were xDaunt was actioned and destaffed?
We are keeping an eye on things.
Well, here's your opportunity to prove it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 17 2017 11:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 11:04 LegalLord wrote:
Kwark more than most others uses his mod powers as a blank check to be a dick to others. Regardless of what you think about his commentary wrt to xDaunt here it's not hard to see that there is widespread disapproval with Kwark among many regulars. That has a notable cascading effect that shows other people that if staff can be unaccountable pricks then why not everyone else?
I don't think that there should be some sort of "give up staff to be able to post freely" rule but damn, the thread took a nosedive the moment Kwark (among others) made their return. xDaunt was claiming things that were factually untrue such as that no leak has been justified. I pointed out that the Flynn leak directly led to the firing of Flynn which was clearly justified (lied about being a foreign agent, was vulnerable to blackmail). xDaunt claimed that I was making shit up and then dug his own grave of contradictions and insanity as he tried to argue that Trump was always going to fire Flynn, then that Trump didn't fire Flynn because he knew there was nothing to the story, then that Trump investigated it and independently decided to fire Flynn, then that Trump was forced to fire Flynn, then all of the above but with an added twist of 7D Yahtzee! where Trump's endorsement of Flynn can be read as an indication that Trump in no way endorsed Flynn and definitely planned to fire him. Also your attempt to present yourself as a moderate voice of consensus disapproval is bullshit LegalLord. You're no more impartial on this one than xDaunt. I didn't call xDaunt any names beyond saying that he's gone full Spicey. And he has. I was also very much not alone in calling xDaunt out on his bullshit. xDaunt likes to complain about me specifically because it feeds his internal narrative that the liberals with their control of everything are oppressing him. When a handful of people are all calling out his insane narrative that's not as fun, he'd much rather ignore those and focus on me as a symbol of institutional oppression with my unfair quoting of the things he literally said and my fact checking. When a right wing Trump fan starts spouting insane nonsense and you call them out you're always going to hear cries of oppression. That's just how their minds work. They're perpetually oppressed by facts. This no different than Trump's tweets about the failing New York Times and dishonest CNN. The reality is that xDaunt would rather complain about the inability to report me using the report button (a benefit he himself took advantage of for years) than throw a PM to tofucake or one of the other mods to report me manually. There is nothing preventing him from reporting me by PM, it's not about reporting, it's about his own victim narrative.
Simply look at page 3 of this thread to see part of the recurrence of complaints about your use of the mod icon to be a pointless ass.
No comment on anything else.
|
On May 17 2017 12:37 xDaunt wrote:So let's take a look at Kwark's posting. First, I defy a TL mod to argue that the tone and snark of the posts below are acceptable according to TL guidelines: Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:11 KwarK wrote:
They probably just didn't get around to firing him between when they were told and the leaks. Probably wasn't a pressing concern for them. They were going to fire him on that day anyway and the leaks didn't change anything. That's why they made those public statements expressing confidence in him right before they fired him.
xDaunt has completely lost the plot at this point. He's gone full Spicey. These inauguration crowds were the biggest in history. RIP those killed in the Bowling Green Massacre. No puppet, you're a puppet! Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:20 KwarK wrote:
So your proposed timeline is as follows
Trump is told that his National Security Adviser is a foreign agent.
Trump continues to let his compromised National Security Adviser serve as National Security Adviser.
Trump decides to fire his National Security Adviser but doesn't actually fire him yet.
Trump continues to let his foreign agent National Security Adviser sit in national security briefings.
Trump publicly backs his National Security Adviser (foreign agent) and expresses his full confidence in him.
It is leaked that the National Security Adviser is a foreign agent.
Trump fires his National Security Adviser the way he always planned to do whether or not the leaks happened.
As an individual who claims to be a lawyer on the internet and might even pretend to be one in real life, how well do you think that narrative would go with a jury? Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:14 KwarK wrote:
Careful, if you keep this up he'll start whining about you in website feedback. Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:39 KwarK wrote:
We've now reached the point where Trump endorsing his National Security Adviser and expressing confidence in them is being used as evidence that Trump always meant to fire his National Security Adviser and that subsequent events didn't change that.
xDaunt clearly angling for that White House job.
Liberal media: But doesn't the fact that he expressed support for Flynn right up until the leaks imply he didn't plan to fire him until the leaks?
Spicey 2.0: Classic liberal media always spinning the facts. Everyone knows that when Trump expresses support for a member of his team it has always meant he's committed to firing that person for being a foreign agent. If Trump only decided to fire him after the leaks then how come Trump expressed support before the leaks even came out? Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:52 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 10:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Ah. So then, Trump shouldn't have fired him (or at least did not accomplish anything by doing so) and only did so for optics. Gotcha. Least you agree it was pure ego for Trump rather than stated reasons. But this whole thing started because of this On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. you make shit up. How are we now here? I think a charitable description for these posts is that "while they are probably just within non-actionable bounds, there's still a general aggressive tone/baiting that might be considered for holistic action that as a staff member [Kwark] is immune to." I'm all ears if the mod staff has an alternative view point, but I doubt that it will be very compelling for reasons that tofu mentioned, which are related to why most of the previous sentence is in quotes. Aside from the tone, the other, problem with Kwark's problem is that he relentlessly miscontrues and misrepresents the posts of others. I'm not going to bore everyone with the details, but you can see very clear examples both in the posts from above (especially that last one which he ridiculously edited down for his own purposes such that everything was taken out of context) and in his recent posts in this thread. Hell, he even routinely makes up shit that I and other didn't even say just to serve his narrative, of which we can see a great example of this with he did with the first and last quotes above, which serves the basis for his ranting in response to my initial post. This isn't accidental on his part (this is a simple question of stupid or liar, and Kwark isn't stupid), and it happens all of the time. Just to be clear, I don't think that this issue is particularly actionable on its own, but in combination with the snark/tone as discussed above, it makes Kwark a uniquely toxic poster in the thread. I would appreciate some explanation from the mod staff. Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 11:16 tofucake wrote:
really? staff can be unaccountable dicks? are you ignoring the part were xDaunt was actioned and destaffed?
We are keeping an eye on things. Well, here's your opportunity to prove it.
The best result would be a modicum of self-policing as a result of this clear evidence. Failing that, this is an ideal time to show the rules apply to everyone: if it's grounds for de-staffing for one political affiliation, it should also be for the other.
|
|
|
What TL guidelines is Kwark supposed to have violated here? He's snarky for sure. He's explicitly picking a fight with xDaunt. He called him "obtuse," compared him to Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway, and created mock arguments which try to draw a throughline that doesn't involve xDaunt contradicting himself somewhere in this conversation.
But snark and name-calling aren't even against TL guidelines. Glancing at the Ten Commandments, the closest thing I could find was "follow forum etiquette":
2. Follow forum etiquette.
Use common sense and treat others like you would want to be treated. This doesn't mean you can't argue or even flame someone. However, flames are largely discouraged and we expect people to have a good reason to resort to harsh language. Gratuitous swearing, insults, or trolling will get you banned. If you must flame, be smart or creative about it, and make sure the flame was deserved. In general, you'll never go wrong by being nice, polite, and mature. [emphasis added]
It's explicitly not against the rules to flame someone, you're just supposed to be careful about it. In fact, it even seems to give points for being creative and original about flaming someone, which Kwark generally is. As one of the more vocal critics of snark ITT, I would certainly prefer if everyone in the thread lived by the last sentence of this quote, but it doesn't seem to be against the rules to post this way.
Part of the difficulty here is that TL is more hesitant to weigh in on who's right in a discussion of the Trump administration than they are to weigh in on a balance whine or someone complaining about a player/caster/etc. The "make sure the flame was deserved" part of rule 2 is harder to enforce without mods taking a position on whether Kwark is right that xDaunt's position here is completely convoluted and untenable. But compared to xDaunt's posting that micronesia complained about yesterday, Kwark's snark remains on topic, which was micronesia's primary complaint (at least as I read it). And given that the exchange began with xDaunt accusing Kwark of making shit up, xDaunt's usual defense of "I'm only as nice to people as they are to me" would seem to equally defend Kwark here.
The other argument is that because Kwark is a mod, a higher bar is set for him than is prescribed in the Ten Commandments, which I don't really know how to evaluate – if TL gives guidelines to mods for how to post if they want to stay mods, I don't know where to find them, so I wouldn't know how to judge if Kwark violated them. As far as what would seem like reasonable guidelines, I would tend to think that mods should largely stay dispassionately engaged in any discussion they are actively moderating, because if they were actioning people and flaming people in the same thread, it could damage the credibility and appearance of impartiality for TL's moderation. That is to say, if Kwark were actively moderating the politics thread I would find his posting wholly inappropriate.
But he's not, right? I think I saw him give Plansix a warning one time, but otherwise, he's not moderating in the thread. If he saw someone's posting and thought it was actionable, I assume he would bring it to the attention of other mods, just like any of us could, and the other mods could make a decision about whether to action them. Therefore Kwark's posting is no more damaging to the credibility of TL moderation than any other poster, and if Kwark were a regular user rather than a mod, it would neither help nor hurt that credibility.
|
On May 17 2017 11:41 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 11:04 Sermokala wrote:
So to throw a softball out there can we have a rule where there's a limit to how much you can direct quote from another article? Like 2 or 3 paragraphs or a word count? It's annoying to scroll down some pages The issue I have is that I always feel like I'm editorializing and introducing extra bias with my selection so I generally try and avoid it. Granted, I'll still do it if an article is exceptionally long or only 1-2 paragraphs of it are new or important. Plus some long articles people post are from behind paywalls (though that's less frequent)
The first paragraphs or maybe the biggest ones about it past an explination? Pay walled articles are different I can see that.
|
I'm hoping it's a delay with internal mod discussions regarding the clear evidence. Kwark stepped over the line, continued inaction would prove the moderation is biased by micronesia's own standard (and maybe he hasn't read your post compendium of evidence), and now the internal discussions begin. It's legitimately just copy paste what made micronesia single you out in the first place. I'm very interested in the results of this; no action (or response) a week from now will make micronesia look very foolish indeed.
|
On May 17 2017 14:27 Danglars wrote:I'm hoping it's a delay with internal mod discussions regarding the clear evidence. Kwark stepped over the line, continued inaction would prove the moderation is biased by micronesia's own standard (and maybe he hasn't read your post compendium of evidence), and now the internal discussions begin. It's legitimately just copy paste what made micronesia single you out in the first place. I'm very interested in the results of this; no action (or response) a week from now will make micronesia look very foolish indeed.
Let's do that copy paste:
On May 16 2017 08:55 micronesia wrote:
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute.
If we're trying to draw an analogy, I suppose Kwark's inflammatory post would be this:
On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:05 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:01 NewSunshine wrote:On May 17 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Is there one liberal around here who understands that I'm not the one making the argument that the information should be spun one way or another? Has this thread really fallen this far? And do you assume, just by me interpreting the information I have before me, that I am a liberal? I'm criticizing a grossly incompetent leader who deserves it by every measure I can think of, that doesn't make me a Democratic shill. You're the one projecting here. The situation looks awful no matter how you want to spin it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. There's nothing baseless about my presumption. Here are you are presuming that Trump's disclosure of the intelligence is another act of gross incompetence. It's pretty clear to me what you're doing. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... enlighten me please, what else could it be? In a vacuum, what would be wrong with Trump sharing information with Russia that Russia was about to be attacked by ISIS? It would give away methods and routes of intelligence. Russia is deeply invested in knowing the inner workings of Israeli intelligence. Having little clues here and there, in addition to what Russia already has, would likely allow Russia to confirm/deny underlying assumptions and to build a more complete model as to Israel's capabilities, current pursuits, positioning, etc. Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse.
Calling xDaunt obtuse is inflammatory, I suppose; the rest are characterizations of the events of Flynn's firing that aren't particularly controversial, although xDaunt apparently found the characterization not only unfair, but so wrong that Kwark must have fabricated it:
On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:05 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:01 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
And do you assume, just by me interpreting the information I have before me, that I am a liberal? I'm criticizing a grossly incompetent leader who deserves it by every measure I can think of, that doesn't make me a Democratic shill. You're the one projecting here. The situation looks awful no matter how you want to spin it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. There's nothing baseless about my presumption. Here are you are presuming that Trump's disclosure of the intelligence is another act of gross incompetence. It's pretty clear to me what you're doing. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... enlighten me please, what else could it be? In a vacuum, what would be wrong with Trump sharing information with Russia that Russia was about to be attacked by ISIS? It would give away methods and routes of intelligence. Russia is deeply invested in knowing the inner workings of Israeli intelligence. Having little clues here and there, in addition to what Russia already has, would likely allow Russia to confirm/deny underlying assumptions and to build a more complete model as to Israel's capabilities, current pursuits, positioning, etc. Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up.
At this point in xDaunt's side of this analogy, he started calling hunts "padawan" and saying he was being strawmanned. Notably, any discussion of the actual issue hunts had ceased in xDaunt's case. Kwark, however, challenged xDaunt to indicate which part of that characterization had been made up. I'll spare everyone the rest of the quote chain (look it up if you want), but the rest of the discussion was Kwark trying to figure out what xDaunt thought had been made up here.
Having read the entire discussion, I'm still not sure what xDaunt thinks Kwark made up. The analogy really breaks down on the fact that xDaunt ceased to discuss the original controversy with hunts almost immediately; he complained that hunts was strawmanning him, but refused to actually clarify what his position was or where specifically it had been mischaracterized, which would seem like a natural thing to do if you think you are being strawmanned. This ultimately led to micronesia's intro "If you've run out of things to discuss, why post?"
The two situations seem entirely dissimilar. What was this copy paste supposed to accomplish?
Edit: This post?
On May 16 2017 09:01 micronesia wrote:@ Dangers and DPB: Then how about you both take a step back and actually lay out your policy goals and explain how they align with the current parties, administration, or other candidates? Maybe there would actually be something to discuss then other than the tweet of the hour. Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 08:55 micronesia wrote:
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute. Really? You're going to single me out? Like I have said til I have been blue in the face, I don't start shit around here. I'm as a nice as this thread lets me be. There are literally dozens of liberal shitposts for every one of mine. Almost none of them get actioned (and I'm too nice to report every one of them; I'm guessing the other conservative posters are, too). If you mods aren't going to do your job and action shitposts like hunts, then at least have the courtesy to leave me alone. I was reading through the most recent few posts and I saw your posting, like I said, degrading by the minute. You stood out. You were the slowest person when the bear was chasing your group. I'm sorry you think the moderation is biased, but that argument doesn't carry much weight when you are making it right after a chain of terrible posting. If you want to report inappropriate posts from people with another political ideology than you, go ahead.
|
People appreciate how hilarious I find this concern from xDaunt and Danglars regarding "bias" and an inequitable application of the rules right?
Personally I hope the mod team goes out of their way to treat conservatives (particularly the white male ones) worse than everyone else. Perhaps combining the feeling it gives those posters, with the utter triviality of a gaming website treating you unfairly,will give them a better appreciation for how having your constitutional rights (instead of your posting privileges) stomped all over and your concern dismissed/belittled, may be bothersome.
|
On May 17 2017 14:55 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 14:27 Danglars wrote:I'm hoping it's a delay with internal mod discussions regarding the clear evidence. Kwark stepped over the line, continued inaction would prove the moderation is biased by micronesia's own standard (and maybe he hasn't read your post compendium of evidence), and now the internal discussions begin. It's legitimately just copy paste what made micronesia single you out in the first place. I'm very interested in the results of this; no action (or response) a week from now will make micronesia look very foolish indeed. Let's do that copy paste: Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:55 micronesia wrote:
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute. If we're trying to draw an analogy, I suppose Kwark's inflammatory post would be this: Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:05 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:01 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
And do you assume, just by me interpreting the information I have before me, that I am a liberal? I'm criticizing a grossly incompetent leader who deserves it by every measure I can think of, that doesn't make me a Democratic shill. You're the one projecting here. The situation looks awful no matter how you want to spin it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. There's nothing baseless about my presumption. Here are you are presuming that Trump's disclosure of the intelligence is another act of gross incompetence. It's pretty clear to me what you're doing. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... enlighten me please, what else could it be? In a vacuum, what would be wrong with Trump sharing information with Russia that Russia was about to be attacked by ISIS? It would give away methods and routes of intelligence. Russia is deeply invested in knowing the inner workings of Israeli intelligence. Having little clues here and there, in addition to what Russia already has, would likely allow Russia to confirm/deny underlying assumptions and to build a more complete model as to Israel's capabilities, current pursuits, positioning, etc. Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Calling xDaunt obtuse is inflammatory, I suppose; the rest are characterizations of the events of Flynn's firing that aren't particularly controversial, although xDaunt apparently found the characterization not only unfair, but so wrong that Kwark must have fabricated it: Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:05 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing baseless about my presumption. Here are you are presuming that Trump's disclosure of the intelligence is another act of gross incompetence. It's pretty clear to me what you're doing. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... enlighten me please, what else could it be? In a vacuum, what would be wrong with Trump sharing information with Russia that Russia was about to be attacked by ISIS? It would give away methods and routes of intelligence. Russia is deeply invested in knowing the inner workings of Israeli intelligence. Having little clues here and there, in addition to what Russia already has, would likely allow Russia to confirm/deny underlying assumptions and to build a more complete model as to Israel's capabilities, current pursuits, positioning, etc. Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. At this point in xDaunt's side of this analogy, he started calling hunts "padawan" and saying he was being strawmanned. Notably, any discussion of the actual issue hunts had ceased in xDaunt's case. Kwark, however, challenged xDaunt to indicate which part of that characterization had been made up. I'll spare everyone the rest of the quote chain (look it up if you want), but the rest of the discussion was Kwark trying to figure out what xDaunt thought had been made up here. Having read the entire discussion, I'm still not sure what xDaunt thinks Kwark made up. The analogy really breaks down on the fact that xDaunt ceased to discuss the original controversy with hunts almost immediately; he complained that hunts was strawmanning him, but refused to actually clarify what his position was or where specifically it had been mischaracterized, which would seem like a natural thing to do if you think you are being strawmanned. This ultimately led to micronesia's intro "If you've run out of things to discuss, why post?" The two situations seem entirely dissimilar. What was this copy paste supposed to accomplish?
You didn't quote the post by Micronesia that I was referencing. It's the other recent one. Additionally, it's the sequence of Kwark's false troll-like comparisons and purely personal insults ("I'm amazed you're this obtuse" "has completely lost the plot" "gone full spicey" "you're a puppet" "he'll start whining"). Not some post taken in isolation. Finally, I'm lending my own voice to as feedback. I'm not going to be person C arguing with person D about how to characterize the dispute between persons A & B moderated by person E. I read all you write and if you want my comments you can PM me.
|
I serially ignore Kwark for all of the reasons listed above. I haven't been interested in having a discussion with him for almost a year. I feel no obligation to respond to his posts. Nothing good ever comes of it, and I can't say that about very many other posters.
And I have zero patience for patently stupid posts from people like hunts who think they are really clever to assert that I have adopted positions that I have never adopted. Rhetorically asking me whether my commentary on the sharing of intelligence would change if Obama or Hillary were in office is retarded -- especially given that I don't recall ever criticizing Obama for working with the Russians in Syria, which included sharing intelligence with them.
|
On May 17 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
People appreciate how hilarious I find this concern from xDaunt and Danglars regarding "bias" and an inequitable application of the rules right?
Personally I hope the mod team goes out of their way to treat conservatives (particularly the white male ones) worse than everyone else. Perhaps combining the feeling it gives those posters, with the utter triviality of a gaming website treating you unfairly,will give them a better appreciation for how having your constitutional rights (instead of your posting privileges) stomped all over and your concern dismissed/belittled, may be bothersome.
I'd be lying if I said that the irony of your point here had not previously occurred to me.
|
On May 17 2017 15:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
People appreciate how hilarious I find this concern from xDaunt and Danglars regarding "bias" and an inequitable application of the rules right?
Personally I hope the mod team goes out of their way to treat conservatives (particularly the white male ones) worse than everyone else. Perhaps combining the feeling it gives those posters, with the utter triviality of a gaming website treating you unfairly,will give them a better appreciation for how having your constitutional rights (instead of your posting privileges) stomped all over and your concern dismissed/belittled, may be bothersome. I'd be lying if I said that the irony of your point here had not previously occurred to me.
You'd make my day if tomorrow you spent the same level of effort fighting/arguing against the systemic violation of black people's constitutional rights as you did today arguing for equal treatment for yourself and kwark here.
Blog about the argument you had with whoever you discussed it with and I'd stop nagging on it for at least 3 months.
|
On May 17 2017 12:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 11:04 LegalLord wrote:
the thread took a nosedive the moment Kwark (among others) made their return. Regardless of the merits in this particular case, the above is absolutely true.
+1
And the "among others" obviously means Plansix.
The two do nothing positive for the US politics thread.
|
On May 17 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
People appreciate how hilarious I find this concern from xDaunt and Danglars regarding "bias" and an inequitable application of the rules right?
Personally I hope the mod team goes out of their way to treat conservatives (particularly the white male ones) worse than everyone else. Perhaps combining the feeling it gives those posters, with the utter triviality of a gaming website treating you unfairly,will give them a better appreciation for how having your constitutional rights (instead of your posting privileges) stomped all over and your concern dismissed/belittled, may be bothersome.
Actually, all you will get is an echo chamber, pretty counter-productive if you ask me. They can just leave, and then you can't convince anyone of anything. But then again, convincing people of things has never been you strong suit in that thread.
|
On May 17 2017 15:19 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 12:34 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2017 11:04 LegalLord wrote:
the thread took a nosedive the moment Kwark (among others) made their return. Regardless of the merits in this particular case, the above is absolutely true. +1 And the "among others" obviously means Plansix. The two do nothing positive for the US politics thread.
Hello. I like it when Kwark posts. He tends to explain his points very thoroughly which I really like in a political discussion setting. He can definitely get snarky, but asking to remove his mod status over recent slights looks like some vendetta seeking bs.
|
On May 17 2017 15:52 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 15:19 Laurens wrote:On May 17 2017 12:34 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2017 11:04 LegalLord wrote:
the thread took a nosedive the moment Kwark (among others) made their return. Regardless of the merits in this particular case, the above is absolutely true. +1 And the "among others" obviously means Plansix. The two do nothing positive for the US politics thread. Hello. I like it when Kwark posts. He tends to explain his points very thoroughly which I really like in a political discussion setting. He can definitely get snarky, but asking to remove his mod status over recent slights looks like some vendetta seeking bs.
It's not recent, it's a constant thing. You can look at page 3 of this thread for complaints about Kwark from almost a year ago. He can't help himself.
Those months without Kwark and Plansix in the thread were the best the thread has ever been. I honestly don't think anyone can disagree with that.
e: He does explain his points very well indeed, if he could now do that without being condescending and looking for fights all the time that would be great.
Also, I am not asking to remove his mod status, that wasn't in the posts I quoted either.
|
KwarK has been an asshole for years. I'd like to subtly brag about making complaints about it long before it was cool. For some reason, the other mods don't seem to care, he probably has everyone dick pics or something. Any othet poster would be banned a dozen times for what KwarK is consistently showing. Yes, he is very often right and I share most of his views and his posts are even usually pretty educational, but that doesn't change the fact that he just lacks any hint of decent human behavior online.
However seeing LL calling him out for that is the pinnacle of irony, because he is no better than him at all. Surely he manages to do without open insults, but his posts aren't any less toxic. These two and xdaunt are really well matched together, they should have their own thread which we others would observe like a freak show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
