|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On July 17 2018 09:55 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:
I have to have one of the worst moderation histories among the people discussing this topic and I have somehow managed to avoid moderation since the new thread started.
And if people want better moderation, press the report button. Don’t use this thread as a public substitute for reporting posts. A reasonable number of my reports are addressed, so they do get looked at. Would just like to point out that not everyone has a report button. I think previously banned people never gets it back again (at least that's what happened to me, way back).
If you would like your reporting privileges back then make a statement about why you should get it back and PM it to me. I'll discuss it with the mod team and see what the consensus is.
|
On July 17 2018 08:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I get ganged up on all the time. For instance one poster here does so at every possible instance to the extent that I simply don't read his posts anymore. Yet I manage to not do an xdaunt and play a victimisation card. It can be difficult admittedly.
Also, I don't get why xdaunt thinks my posting is unacceptable. What exactly is unacceptable? Care to give an example? Preferably one that isn't from the old pol thread? You frequently write that I should be banned under the rule, without specifying what rule. So here is another chance to be specific. That you view my "rash of posting" as impudence that I would argue against you and point out the gaping holes in what you write, does not my posting unacceptable make.
yeah i can tell you whats unacceptable. its the most pitiful, slow-witted form of goal-post shifting, born of your seeming inability to discern a particular argumentative strand. you fired back a bunch of bullshit when xdaunt rightly pointed out that "foe" meant "economic/trade foe" because he didnt include some inane statements trump made about unemployment and his family's immigration history? that stuff is totally irrelevant to the point in dispute (that trump was casually throwing around bellicose language and calling the EU our military "foe") and appears to be a purely reflexive attack on your part in response to a hashtag. the execrable part is that your post was straight up embarrassingly off target to the point that your conclusions and accusatory capstone makes me question your reading comprehension. either that or you are incapable of telling the difference between
"trump thinks the EU is our foe. its unclear how he means that, foe usually means strategic and military enemy"
and
"trump thinks the eu is taking advantage of us in trade. what an idiot"
simply because both are stupid, despite being stupid in different ways. the most important and egregious folly in my view, however, is in your even bothering to look for logical inconsistencies or any meaning at all in anything trump says and then shitting up the thread with it. you fundamentally misunderstand trump's particular idiocy and you only redouble his bullshit with, and i want to emphasize the adjective here, stupid attacks on xdaunt
|
I would like to ask if there rant post I made about that KR_4EVR person was toeing the line in regards to personal attacks or not.
|
like for the love of god stop making stupid attacks. stupidity is always evil. youd get a lot more interesting conversations from people if you actually attempted to follow and understand what they were saying and responded intelligently, to the point
|
I just want to know why IgnE hates capitalization. There isn’t a web browser out there that doesn’t do it automatically, so it has to be an esthetic choice.
|
i dont let a browser ai nudge my keyboard thumbs. #resist
|
On July 17 2018 09:37 Sermokala wrote:
We don't even need all that. The same issue that the thread had at the start is the same issue we're talking about now. What the heck are the mods expecting of us? Just a clear communication on standards and practices followed by ,at the very least perceived, consistent applications of those standards. We ignored the threads stated rules in the old thread quite easily because it was communicated that it was an almost no mans land of moderation. Now in the new thread we get sporadic and chaotic proclamations from the congress of olympia on whats okay and whats not.
If we're suppose to only attack the post and not the poster that would be a very easy standard to adhere to and enforce.
I just think the ideology is the reason behind the reason for inconsistent application of standards. If you see someone posting from across the aisle with incisive statements, you should expect the same forbearance for your posts. Sadly, that is not the case, and the conclusions are declared in dispatches from the Congress of Olympia that everything is a-okay. Consistency and impartiality is the goal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Might be æsthetic. Maybe just always posts from a computer, never from mobile.
What can I say, some people fancy themselves E. E. Cummings or something.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 17 2018 10:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 08:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I get ganged up on all the time. For instance one poster here does so at every possible instance to the extent that I simply don't read his posts anymore. Yet I manage to not do an xdaunt and play a victimisation card. It can be difficult admittedly.
Also, I don't get why xdaunt thinks my posting is unacceptable. What exactly is unacceptable? Care to give an example? Preferably one that isn't from the old pol thread? You frequently write that I should be banned under the rule, without specifying what rule. So here is another chance to be specific. That you view my "rash of posting" as impudence that I would argue against you and point out the gaping holes in what you write, does not my posting unacceptable make. yeah i can tell you whats unacceptable. its the most pitiful, slow-witted form of goal-post shifting, born of your seeming inability to discern a particular argumentative strand. you fired back a bunch of bullshit when xdaunt rightly pointed out that "foe" meant "economic/trade foe" because he didnt include some inane statements trump made about unemployment and his family's immigration history? that stuff is totally irrelevant to the point in dispute (that trump was casually throwing around bellicose language and calling the EU our military "foe") and appears to be a purely reflexive attack on your part in response to a hashtag. the execrable part is that your post was straight up embarrassingly off target to the point that your conclusions and accusatory capstone makes me question your reading comprehension. either that or you are incapable of telling the difference between "trump thinks the EU is our foe. its unclear how he means that, foe usually means strategic and military enemy" and "trump thinks the eu is taking advantage of us in trade. what an idiot" simply because both are stupid, despite being stupid in different ways. the most important and egregious folly in my view, however, is in your even bothering to look for logical inconsistencies or any meaning at all in anything trump says and then shitting up the thread with it. you fundamentally misunderstand trump's particular idiocy and you only redouble his bullshit with, and i want to emphasize the adjective here, stupid attacks on xdaunt
Pitiful, slow-witted form of goal-post shifting is it? I've repeatedly written the same 2 points:
On July 16 2018 03:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
xdaunt claims to put comment in context, by editing out the actual context. Types #fakenews at the end of it.
But, ok, I'll just say it straight. You, in an attempt to discredit a link, edited a straight quote, and presented it as a quote, and added #fakenews to the end of it. Presenting your own falsehood as truth.
On July 16 2018 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You don't get to present that what you have written is the entirety of what was said by cutting out bits and then add #fakenews to the end of your post.
On July 16 2018 05:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To me the issue of presenting a quote, claiming to depicting the entirety of what was said, and cutting parts in between what was quoted out, and adding #fakenews
On July 16 2018 05:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Is that your genuine opinion? Ok let us all get banned.
You for #fakenews
I for #xdauntisfakenews
On July 17 2018 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:I never said he added anything, so yes, you are correct about that, pat yourself on the back. As I have repeatedly written, xdaunt portrayed that he wrote the entirety, but xdaunt in actuality cut out parts of an available transcript, thus not showing the what a bone crushing nonsense Trump is. I normally wouldn't bother pointing that out, but adding #fakenews was just the final straw that roused me to point it out due to the sheer gall of it.
Where is the goal-post shifting here? I have been banging the same point, that
1) xdaunt presenting a quote, claiming to depicting the entirety of what was said, but in actuality cut out parts to make Trump not look like a total moron, thus presenting his own personal context
2) #fakenews used Trump style
I've banging the same bloody point, because, you IGNE, Deepelmblue, and the rest of the usual suspects, are shifting the goal posts, around dogpiling on me, to the point where I simply have to repeat myself, because you guys as a group have decided to consistently insulted and accuse me of misintepreting your posts. Well I am tired of it, which is why I was certain to remain at the same bloody points.
At no point did I write that xdaunt " or "add anything", that was simply DeepElemBlues making shit up.
At no point did I even type anything about foe/economic foe/military foe, that's you making shit up, your own "pitiful, slow-witted form of goal-post shifting, born of your seeming inability to discern a particular argumentative strand" (your words IgnE)
So at this point I'm pretty fed up. Even total the point of anally repeating myself, as if I am unable to change the point of argumentation, when it as a result of defending myself against totally random arguments I have not said, the usual suspects, the band of brothers, the same shitposting dogpilers who gang up on my still manage to make shit up about my misinterpretation.
Well, let me tell you IgnE, that you have an unacceptable, pitiful, slow-witted form of goal-post shifting, born of your seeming inability to discern a particular argumentative strand, born of your desire and seeking of opportunity to dogpile on me over and over again, that this time, you have shown to everyone on the forum that you are capable of accusing someone of the very mistep that you are making yourself, that you cannot discern the argument, that even though there are 2 very simple points are am making, one of misrepresentation, and other of #fakenews, you still, in your complete and blind fevour to discredit me, still managed to make shit up.
Edit: Ahhhh, shit, I think I just played a victimisation card that I said I wouldn't be doing.
|
On July 17 2018 10:24 IgnE wrote:
like for the love of god stop making stupid attacks. stupidity is always evil. youd get a lot more interesting conversations from people if you actually attempted to follow and understand what they were saying and responded intelligently, to the point
Agreed. But in fairness, a lot of the time careful, intelligent responses get ignored in favour of the ones that can easily be knocked down. There are several posters who clearly come on here to feel superior in one direction or the other and aren't really interested in any sort of dialogue. A lot of the lingering antagonism towards certain posters stems from that attitude, be it real or simply perceived to be.
|
On July 17 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 10:24 IgnE wrote:
like for the love of god stop making stupid attacks. stupidity is always evil. youd get a lot more interesting conversations from people if you actually attempted to follow and understand what they were saying and responded intelligently, to the point Agreed. But in fairness, a lot of the time careful, intelligent responses get ignored in favour of the ones that can easily be knocked down. There are several posters who clearly come on here to feel superior in one direction or the other and aren't really interested in any sort of dialogue. A lot of the lingering antagonism towards certain posters stems from that attitude, be it real or simply perceived to be.
Sometimes you have to accept that if people are ignoring your sensible point its because they don't want to deal with a sensible argument, and would rather yell about the stupid argument.
Its one of the pitfalls of forum discussions.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
Mods are considering enacting the following procedure:
- Site-wide ban for any users who received a mod action from posting in the USPMT if their posting history shows that all or the majority of their posts are in the USPMT.
- Thread ban for any users who received a mod action from posting in the USPMT if their posting history shows that they also contribute to the TL community outside of the USPMT.
Thoughts?
|
seems like a distinction without a difference that’s ultimately just more work for you.
ultimately the specifics of how people are actioned seems like something most users shouldn’t be overly concerned about (aside from of course the actionee) but rather what they did to lead to it just as an example for the rest as to what not to do.
i can’t imagine whether a person is threadbanned or site banned should be making a large difference to the rest of the people not involved.
i do understand that for some it is. but it really shouldn’t be. especially in the instances outlined.
|
On July 17 2018 22:29 Seeker wrote:
Mods are considering enacting the following procedure:
- Site-wide ban for any users who received a mod action from posting in the USPMT if their posting history shows that all or the majority of their posts are in the USPMT.
- Thread ban for any users who received a mod action from posting in the USPMT if their posting history shows that they also contribute to the TL community outside of the USPMT.
Thoughts?
How is that different from what you’re doing now?
|
I demand a hearing before an ALJ and a thorough appeals process!
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On July 17 2018 22:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 22:29 Seeker wrote:
Mods are considering enacting the following procedure:
- Site-wide ban for any users who received a mod action from posting in the USPMT if their posting history shows that all or the majority of their posts are in the USPMT.
- Thread ban for any users who received a mod action from posting in the USPMT if their posting history shows that they also contribute to the TL community outside of the USPMT.
Thoughts?
How is that different from what you’re doing now?
I'm trying to be more transparent about our thought process. You mentioned that you wanted mods to be honest and fair. Yes, I've been doing that for some time now, but at least now we can openly discuss it together as a community.
|
My view is that it should be a site-wide ban for anything that would get them banned from the site normally, and a thread ban for violating a thread specific rule, but I can understand the reasoning behind the proposed official procedure seeing the grey area that is produced due to the new tolerance of American politics, and the impact on reforming behaviour on offending posters if they normally only post in the US pol thread.
Since the original intent of the thread ban was that we are normally fine outside the thread, what would be the justification of doing so if all the posts by the offending poster was within the US pol thread? On the other hand, for such a poster, the thread ban would be as good as a site wide ban, unless that poster decides to move to new grounds within the forum.
Transparency is good, and in doing so, if doodsmack/stealthcc was for instance tempbanned site-wide for further contentless tweets, I probably wouldn't care to respond as the reasoning behind of the of the site ban was communicated clearly.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On July 17 2018 22:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
My view is that it should be a site-wide ban for anything that would get them banned from the site normally, and a thread ban for violating a thread specific rule, but I can understand the reasoning behind the proposed official procedure seeing the grey area that is produced due to the new tolerance of American politics, and the impact on reforming behaviour on offending posters if they normally only post in the US pol thread.
Since the original intent of the thread ban was that we are normally fine outside the thread, what would be the justification of doing so if all the posts by the offending poster was within the US pol thread? On the other hand, for such a poster, the thread ban would be as good as a site wide ban, unless that poster decides to move to new grounds within the forum.
Transparency is good, and in doing so, if doodsmack/stealthcc was for instance tempbanned from site for further contentless tweets, I probably wouldn't care to respond as the reasoning behind of the of the site ban was communicated clearly.
Basically, this is my thought process:
-You should receive a thread ban if you only post in the USPMT. That way, it encourages you to post outside of the USPMT and contribute to TL more.
-You should receive a site-wide ban if you also post in threads outside of the USPMT. You don't need to be encouraged to post outside of the USPMT since you already do that.
However, a couple of the other mods that I have been discussing this with feel that:
-You should receive a site-wide ban if you only post in the USPMT. Main reason being that thread bans should be used sparingly and only in certain cases, because thread bans could end up getting abused too easily.
|
Have folks been abusing the threadban process? Not sure if I've seen that in action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
