Referring to your latest ban and your rather numerous warnings on the subject, please refrain from posting in the US Politics Megathread until further notice. Your posts are too frequently either inflammatory, misleading, violating established rules for the thread, or some combination of these three. You've made it abundantly clear that you do not agree with the American left's political motives or the state of political discourse. It would make sense, then, to pay more attention to what words actually mean. "Anti-American", "antifa" and "lynching", to name three. Name-calling and fact-twisting don't fly, especially not with this frequency or with so obvious vitriol, and especially not on a subject that is known to spiral out of control if participants don't play nicely.
This thread ban will be subject to change if you can demonstrate that it's possible to discuss politics with people of radically different political stances without resorting to logical fallacies, personal attacks or misleading statements. I understand that you'll most likely disagree with this assessment, so I'll mention (if your rather extensive history of moderator reprimands did not sufficiently indicate this) for your benefit that you are welcome to take any questions you may have to the assigned thread in Website Feedback
But now he wants to know the mods political view points so he can argue that he is being repressed.
I've got the impression the moderation in the forum is heavily biased towards Terran. Obvious hyperbole from P and Z players that Tesagi is real and exists is banworthy whilst calling protoss the obvious truth that is is a "low APM, no skill race" is perfectly ok, not even a warning.
Is it of public knowledge how many admins play it, and which each of them mains?
On November 06 2018 23:46 Plansix wrote: Now, if folks wanted to argue that the mods were biased against Protoss, we might have something. The politics that really matter.
You may want to shut your whore mouth before it’s too late...
On November 06 2018 23:46 Plansix wrote: Now, if folks wanted to argue that the mods were biased against Protoss, we might have something. The politics that really matter.
You may want to shut your whore mouth before it’s too late...
On November 06 2018 20:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically?
Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to?
I got banned for exagerating, can't remember who the other poster was but he doubled down that rolling back on obamacare was the same as commiting genocide. Most of the "conservative posters" on the thread are gone, but what I consider hardcore leftist are allowed with extremely agressive posting and roaming both the original thread and this one, for example "Plansix" a few posts above. It's just an example anyway, the moderation team should be somewhat unbiased politically that's why I'm asking.
GoTunk! you are a pretty good example of why wide sweeping generalisations of political spectrum should be moderated. Anyways, you are refering to yourself being banned, (are you lifetime banned?), but you can't even tell us exactly what you was banned for. Don't faff around, tell us directly or link the post.
I used "lynching" to refer to mobs protesting politians on restaurants. This is quite obviously an hiperbole. I feel the moderation is not fair, I've seen people from the other side say worse things, including personal insults, and get away with not even a warning. I didn't even get a chance to clarify my post because I got insta banned.
That's why I am asking how many mods are, and how they lean politically. No need to publish names.
I am not making up fictional fights, and I still haven't got a straight answer. There is a reason why almost every conservative from the thread migrated to a blog-mirror thread, where meaningful discussion happens.
Being apolitical is a political position. Because you have to consider everyone equally, you are forced to place yourself somewhere along the center, which is how you end up at the (economically) liberal position on most issues. If you adopt a neutral view of politics it is very logical that it ends up favoring centrist viewpoints, which is mostly what you've been accused of having done. And if the center moves right or moves left, then the range of "acceptable viewpoints" is going to change.
I don't have a solution, it makes sense to be neutral when talking about moderation. I just want to point out that it's not really a counter to the accusation that is made against you.
These echo chambered threads are kind of a microchosm of America. Both sides need to hear views from the other side in order to check their own views from veering away from reality.
On November 06 2018 23:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On November 06 2018 20:54 GoTuNk! wrote:
On November 06 2018 20:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically?
Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to?
I got banned for exagerating, can't remember who the other poster was but he doubled down that rolling back on obamacare was the same as commiting genocide. Most of the "conservative posters" on the thread are gone, but what I consider hardcore leftist are allowed with extremely agressive posting and roaming both the original thread and this one, for example "Plansix" a few posts above. It's just an example anyway, the moderation team should be somewhat unbiased politically that's why I'm asking.
GoTunk! you are a pretty good example of why wide sweeping generalisations of political spectrum should be moderated. Anyways, you are refering to yourself being banned, (are you lifetime banned?), but you can't even tell us exactly what you was banned for. Don't faff around, tell us directly or link the post.
I used "lynching" to refer to mobs protesting politians on restaurants. This is quite obviously an hiperbole. I feel the moderation is not fair, I've seen people from the other side say worse things, including personal insults, and get away with not even a warning. I didn't even get a chance to clarify my post because I got insta banned.
That's why I am asking how many mods are, and how they lean politically. No need to publish names.
I am not making up fictional fights, and I still haven't got a straight answer. There is a reason why almost every conservative from the thread migrated to a blog-mirror thread, where meaningful discussion happens.
You told bold faced lies, atleast be honest about what you do. And excessive use of hyperbole's has resulted in warnings, myself included. We just learn to tone it down rather then go one to pretend that a protest is a lynch mob.
On November 07 2018 03:06 Doodsmack wrote: These echo chambered threads are kind of a microchosm of America. Both sides need to hear views from the other side in order to check their own views from veering away from reality.
Agreed. The thread before 2016 was antagonistic at times, but the discussions were about policy outcomes or events in the news. Shootings. Apple vs the FBI. That family that wanted to come from then UK to have their kid treated with some Hail Mary experimental treatment. If there was some wild alternative reality theory, it was in the minority. The political views were strong, but we were never forced into corners. 2016 changed that. Greivence politics won, if just barely. And we can’t have a discussion where people can’t even agree if a caravan of homeless people is a threat to the US.
The moderators with strong political leanings/interests have self-excluded from moderating political threads. While it is true that right-leaning posters have been moderated against for posts that have been tolerated by center-leaning posters, this isn't a reflection of the political attitudes of the moderators themselves; it's a consequence of right-leaning (and also far left of center-leaning) taking a more antagonistic role in the discussions, which is an understandable consequence of holding opinions that significantly deviate from the majority. Even then, some posters, like Introvert, still manage to post 3800 posts without getting a single warning, despite being subject to much the same pile-on other conservative posters are subject to.
I will also freely admit that a conservative shitpost stands out as more of an eye-sore to me than what a liberal shitpost does, even if both are equally guilty of misrepresenting the other side, simply because I unconsciously agree more with the liberal misrepresentation of the conservative than with the conservative misrepresentation of the liberal, but I don't think this is an actual factor for the moderators that moderate, because they don't share my political opinions, and my awareness of this self-flaw is a significant part of the reason why I don't moderate these threads.
On November 07 2018 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote: The moderators with strong political leanings/interests have self-excluded from moderating political threads. While it is true that right-leaning posters have been moderated against for posts that have been tolerated by center-leaning posters, this isn't a reflection of the political attitudes of the moderators themselves; it's a consequence of right-leaning (and also far left of center-leaning) taking a more antagonistic role in the discussions, which is an understandable consequence of holding opinions that significantly deviate from the majority. Even then, some posters, like Introvert, still manage to post 3800 posts without getting a single warning, despite being subject to much the same pile-on other conservative posters are subject to.
I will also freely admit that a conservative shitpost stands out as more of an eye-sore to me than what a liberal shitpost does, even if both are equally guilty of misrepresenting the other side, simply because I unconsciously agree more with the liberal misrepresentation of the conservative than with the conservative misrepresentation of the liberal, but I don't think this is an actual factor for the moderators that moderate, because they don't share my political opinions, and my awareness of this self-flaw is a significant part of the reason why I don't moderate these threads.
Thank you for that, it is a very honest response. Don't bother about me I'm happy with the other thread
On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically?
I don't really moderate much anymore (busy these days), but as far as I can tell, I'm probably the most right-wing among the moderators that at are all associated with the thread (either by posts or by moderation). But centre-right Canadian, doesn't usually net me a very right wing position in the American political spectrum.
On November 14 2018 20:12 HwangjaeTerran wrote: e. hello fellow humans, the following video hosted on an internet hosting site stars reporter Jim Acosta performing his job, his white house privilege has since been taken away from him the point of this video is to show that the decision to rewoke his media pass was probably not based on a single incident
personally, I'm not one to take away one's right to screeching in a way that is not completely unlike someone diagnosed on the autistic spectrum might in a horrible misunderstood and misrepresented way as seen on numerous media, however at some point one becomes disrespectful to one's colleagues
I hope this clears things up and the context of the video is now clear to everyone without having to watch said video
User was warned for this post
Our boy HJT edited this after the warning, but I’m pretty sure autism jokes are not acceptable.
Seems to be a pretty common "meme" nowadays. To disparage people of opposing politics as "autistic screeching". And so the inability to compromise in politics is further entrenched.
On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote: Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction.
This sounds pretty close to rationalization for genocide.
I'm just stating reality. Genocide is as old as humanity itself. Indeed, genocide is the primary arc of human history. Our story is one of one people replacing another, a process which has repeated itself since the days that our ancestors snuffed out and replaced the neanderthals. Rationalizing genocide is truly besides the point. Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point.
Could I get a quick clarification on TL's policy wrt advocating genocide? I thought about reporting but I'm honestly not sure if this is over thr line or not. I mean, it's not full on "genocide is good," but it is something like "genocide is inevitable, so we might as well pick who gets genocided." Is that kosher, or no?
Edit: this is from GH's politics megablog, if anybody wants to read the context of the discussion.
EPT
