|
They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different.
Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists.
You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here.
I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing.
|
On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Show nested quote +Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing.
i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want."
|
United States43570 Posts
I'm the one contorting things after you said that "rape is when women lie about consensual sex" means that "I am open to the possibility of false rape accusations"?
You're being an idiot for the purpose of furthering your "I'm being oppressed" narrative. It's nonsense, nothing more there than your "a mod has a grudge against me and is out to get me" paranoia when you're not being banned for shit. Utterly ridiculous.
|
Canada11415 Posts
@jd
Well that's a catch-all.
And certainly there are some topics that are right out. Conspiracy theories for one. But generally speaking moderation isn't trying to go out of our way to ban based on personal hate. Actually, we'll generally leave moderation to someone else when we are personally involved in the thread or argument. Not always, but often. Moderation tries to moderate fairly regardless of the " if we don't like you we simply ban you." rule.
Internal discussions that 'lead to nothing' may simply mean that staff came up negative. For instance for the original complaint in this thread, several admins or red names have weighed in seeing nothing at issue with that specific complaint. (Now I guess this is a catch-all thread.)
|
On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want."
I love that TL reserves the right to "rule" (lol) as they see fit. Support it 100%. But what I love even more is their statement, "We try of course, and that's why we're consistently considered one of the best gaming sites on the web..."
and
"We will make all attempts to treat everyone with due respect and to accommodate everyone's wishes as far as reasonably possible..."
I think the double standard argument is justified when reading these parts. You can't tell one group of people to "grow thicker skin," and then ban someone because they are being insensitive about a belief the mod believes to be justified.
Or maybe you can, but at least be honest about it. If you are going to live by the motto of "we will do what we want" then there's no reason to hide behind the pretense of objectivity.
|
On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want."
I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
|
On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want." I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
can you point to a single ban of yours that you dont feel is justified?
as far as i know mod history usually goes towards the length of the ban, not the fact of the ban. only in rare cases have i seen someone banned because they are just a shitty poster in general.
|
United States43570 Posts
On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want." I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
In your own case what? Nobody is banning you, how have you possibly noticed a change in the way we're moderating you if you're not receiving any?
This is flat out delusional at this point.
|
On November 15 2012 16:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want." I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that. In your own case what? Nobody is banning you, how have you possibly noticed a change in the way we're moderating you if you're not receiving any? This is flat out delusional at this point.
According to Nyvone, I've received 19 moderation actions on this account. I know I am not a bad poster, I see some of the people you keep around here who are atrocious in comparison. I should not have that many moderation actions, and when I look at many of the bans, I cannot justify or explain them in the context of what is usually allowed.
|
United States43570 Posts
Your last long ban was January when you made a retarded sheeple post which was obviously banworthy. Since then nothing but routine warnings, despite your history. You got a 2day ban for bitching about moderation in the topic, entirely standard and no more than anyone else would have gotten. How does a single 2 day ban in 10 months for a completely standard offence which you should have known better than to do amount to a moderator conspiracy to get you?
You're at 7 bans and 7 warnings at the moment by the way. The rest were comments on you, several of which relate to your ongoing conspiracy bullshit. Get over it, it's in your head, nothing more.
|
I said before I didn't want to rehash old history, I ought to stick to that. This thread shouldn't be about me, but about the larger moderation policies and practices in place. I apologize for derailing.
|
Sorry if this has been answered somewhere else.
How does the mods mod so quickly? Its like a couple of minutes after a bad post is made a mod has seen it, the post gets moderated. Do you guys get alerted to new posts or get assigned to certain members and just get a huge list of recent posts? Or do you guys just constantly check every thread like the other forum goers?
I'm starting to think that you guys are just really well programmed AI made to look like real posters with built in post reaction time delays, personalities, preset opinions, etc
= P
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On November 15 2012 18:19 MasterCynical wrote:
Sorry if this has been answered somewhere else.
How does the mods mod so quickly? Its like a couple of minutes after a bad post is made a mod has seen it, the post gets moderated. Do you guys get alerted to new posts or get assigned to certain members and just get a huge list of recent posts? Or do you guys just constantly check every thread like the other forum goers?
I'm starting to think that you guys are just really well programmed AI made to look like real posters with built in post reaction time delays, personalities, preset opinions, etc
= P
Users can report posts they feel go against the site rules. Moderators can look through a list of reports.
Users only get the 'report' button after a year of being on TL.
|
By the way, with the new search feature on your PM inbox, you can look for tl.net bot PMs to see your mod actions without wading.
Also, I bet I could debate pro-gun ownership with KwarK and not manage to get banned in the process. I can definitely imagine worse mods to have an argument with.
|
If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^
+ Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew.
|
On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew.
You can find your warnings/bans like this:
put the following text: [b][red]User was warned for this post
into the search bar. Search, and then add your name to the username slot. Make sure the search is set to "content" and not "title". This will bring up your warnings, though some of the results might not be your warnings; if you've ever quoted someone who was warned, that might appear there too.
You can use the same method for your bans, but a far easier way is to search your name (in bold) and set to content. This way you can find your bans in the ban list.
|
Yeah but you don't get the "this guy is a fucking annoying bw/movie elitist." "he likes tvz better than zvp. what a noob lol-harem" part.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States43570 Posts
On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew.
A single completely innocuous warning I'm afraid. No comments.
You are what we refer to as a good poster.
|
On November 16 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew. A single completely innocuous warning I'm afraid. No comments. You are what we refer to as a good poster.
Out of interest, what about me? So far I've only got a singular warning, but I am interested.
|
On November 16 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew. A single completely innocuous warning I'm afraid. No comments. You are what we refer to as a good poster.
My secret lives remain hidden. Mwahahahaahaa!
Actually, that's surprisingly disheartening... Thanks for the effort, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
