|
On March 06 2019 11:56 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 11:19 Danglars wrote:
That was pretty bullshit. Ambiguous reason, no specific post cited, no warning beforehand. Yes, No, No. I think it's worth sharing with the thread a reminder that, when you have over a page of moderator notes associated with previous warnings, bans, etc., you are on thin ice. Don't expect a warning before any moderator actions. Your history is already full of warnings. If someone with such a history cleans up their act and becomes more of a model poster, over time, the damage they did to their reputation will heal, and moderator evaluation of their posts will be more favorable. Some very good posters got warnings and temp bans years ago that aren't held against them anymore.
I missed the post since it was so many ago from him.
The trouble with becoming more of a model poster is that your evaluations are at the subjective analysis of whoever judges the exchange. Maybe JimmiC is out of line with "None of your facts are facts" and "you are so far to the right you can't even see the center." Tempban. Maybe xDaunt's "I don't know what you're talking about" and irrelevant international perspective is out of the line. Tempban? Who the fuck knows anymore. The only clarification happens after somebody has already reached a decision, and it's all over.
Let's trade mods and users for a couple months. See me ban micronesia and then explain how I conferred with a bunch of guys privately and reached a conclusion in his case. Well, micronesia, you thought you were being a model poster, but really you were skating on thin ice. And you had no way of knowing that. So keep on believing you're healing your past bans, until we drop a present ban on you. Enjoy!
You really need to take the current state of affairs back into development mode. If Sermokala got banned for twice telling people off in their intentional misreads, I would've thought it entirely in keeping with current moderation standards. If JimmiC had gotten smashed for "Daunts version of America only cares about that sort of thing when it benefits them" type of hyperbole/bad faith bullshit, I would've thought it entirely in keeping with current moderation standards. Or Dangermousecatdog's 2sentence post with "This appears to be a foreign concept to you, which is why you continue to argue on the notion that to understand a person is based on their race." I wouldn't even be surprised. They're all in a family of possibly bannable offenses and you're just essentially posting and waiting. Call it a superposition of bannable offense and innocuous debate states.
|
|
|
On March 06 2019 12:44 Danglars wrote:
You really need to take the current state of affairs back into development mode. If Sermokala got banned for twice telling people off in their intentional misreads, I would've thought it entirely in keeping with current moderation standards. If JimmiC had gotten smashed for "Daunts version of America only cares about that sort of thing when it benefits them" type of hyperbole/bad faith bullshit, I would've thought it entirely in keeping with current moderation standards. Or Dangermousecatdog's 2sentence post with "This appears to be a foreign concept to you, which is why you continue to argue on the notion that to understand a person is based on their race." I wouldn't even be surprised. They're all in a family of possibly bannable offenses and you're just essentially posting and waiting. Call it a superposition of bannable offense and innocuous debate states.
Why are you taking entriely innocuous statements and try to render them as not in keeping with moderation standards? xDaunt agreed with JimmiC's analysis of xdaunt's position, Sermakola continues to argue that it is right to form an opinion of someone's opinion based on something other than their actual character, though I went off to bed during that time, and I have no idea what you are on about Sermakola telling people off in their intentional misreads; Sermakola can continue to argue with me. The US politics thread is a thread where people argue, it is fine to disagree.
What isn't fine is when you, Danglars decide that you didn't write something a page ago even though we can just click some buttons and quote that you did, when you play this silly game of "woe is me, I am misconstrued".
|
Why is xdaunt still allowed to post in the thread when someone like ayaz gets banned for disproving his blatantly false assertions?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36960 Posts
On March 09 2019 11:28 hunts wrote:
Why is xdaunt still allowed to post in the thread when someone like ayaz gets banned for disproving his blatantly false assertions?
No idea. Ask KBB.
|
I never saw xDaunt drop a couple hyperlinks and tell Ayaz2810 to put his FISA bullshit to bed. It's never been permissible to write posts that let videos and hyperlinks to do all the arguing for you.
|
On March 09 2019 11:42 Danglars wrote:
I never saw xDaunt drop a couple hyperlinks and tell Ayaz2810 to put his FISA bullshit to bed. It's never been permissible to write posts that let videos and hyperlinks to do all the arguing for you.
Instead he makes baseless assertions with nothing to back them up, that's somehow better?
|
On March 09 2019 11:47 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 11:42 Danglars wrote:
I never saw xDaunt drop a couple hyperlinks and tell Ayaz2810 to put his FISA bullshit to bed. It's never been permissible to write posts that let videos and hyperlinks to do all the arguing for you. Instead he makes baseless assertions with nothing to back them up, that's somehow better?
The rules of the thread are atrocious imo. They're promoting not backing up anything you're saying with any kind of source. Not that you can't provide sources, you'll get away with it if you do it correctly, you're just much safer off not bothering.
That said: The rules, as stupid as they are, are equal for everyone. So as much as I agree with the content of Ayaz's post, my first thought when seeing it was "this is going to get banned for sure". We shouldn't provide exceptions for people with opinions we happen to agree with (But the rules really should be changed).
|
On March 09 2019 11:47 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 11:42 Danglars wrote:
I never saw xDaunt drop a couple hyperlinks and tell Ayaz2810 to put his FISA bullshit to bed. It's never been permissible to write posts that let videos and hyperlinks to do all the arguing for you. Instead he makes baseless assertions with nothing to back them up, that's somehow better?
I'm not seeing any defense of Ayaz2810's post, so I'm curious if you can offer any at all.
You're confusing arguable points with baseless assertions. I consider a lot of your posts in the category of "baseless assertions" (Trump put a rapist on the supreme court, Sanders is a one trick pony, for example). It's healthy to learn that one man's baseless assertion is another's obvious truth or most likely avenue for improvement.
I see you have not taken after Ayaz2810's descent into allegations of treason and "read these two links that expose your bullshit <LINK1> <LINK2>, so I have something to be thankful for. I don't want you to take any of this to mean that you don't hold yourself to a higher standard.
|
On March 09 2019 11:28 hunts wrote:
Why is xdaunt still allowed to post in the thread when someone like ayaz gets banned for disproving his blatantly false assertions?
Ayaz was misrepresenting what he was citing and being unduly rude and offensive to boot. He didn’t disprove anything. All he did was spam nonsense that I’m not even sure he fully understood. I would hope that everyone would agree that his posts were precisely what we don’t want in the thread.
|
you know what is funny here though?, the right wingers going against conspiracy theories; it has to be some irony somewhere.
|
On March 09 2019 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 11:28 hunts wrote:
Why is xdaunt still allowed to post in the thread when someone like ayaz gets banned for disproving his blatantly false assertions? Ayaz was misrepresenting what he was citing and being unduly rude and offensive to boot. He didn’t disprove anything. All he did was spam nonsense that I’m not even sure he fully understood. I would hope that everyone would agree that his posts were precisely what we don’t want in the thread.
Ayaz wasn't rude. The reason why it doesn't matter if Ayaz disproved the bullshit you constantly spew out is that TL mods, with the exceptions of 9/11 and holocaust denial, don't want to be in the business of regulating the "truth" in pol threads.
Though what I wonder is, should there be an exception the the link rule, if it is posted to disapprove another poster? At some point it will seem to require a disproportionate amount of effort to argue with another.
|
On March 10 2019 01:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2019 11:28 hunts wrote:
Why is xdaunt still allowed to post in the thread when someone like ayaz gets banned for disproving his blatantly false assertions? Ayaz was misrepresenting what he was citing and being unduly rude and offensive to boot. He didn’t disprove anything. All he did was spam nonsense that I’m not even sure he fully understood. I would hope that everyone would agree that his posts were precisely what we don’t want in the thread. Ayaz wasn't rude. The reason why it doesn't matter if Ayaz disproved the bullshit you constantly spew out is that TL mods, with the exceptions of 9/11 and holocaust denial, don't want to be in the business of regulating the "truth" in pol threads. Though what I wonder is, should there be an exception the the link rule, if it is posted to disapprove another poster? At some point it will seem to require a disproportionate amount of effort to argue with another.
Yeah, about that....
On March 09 2019 01:49 Ayaz2810 wrote:
You keep on lying. You still haven't said why. Just honing your skills? Are you a crazy person? Are you just that die-hard? What is the motivation here? You're very clearly and provably wrong in everything you are saying, so there has to be a reason you keep digging.
|
That wasn't the post he was banned for. But anyways xdaunt, just curious. Why do you keep lying and keep calling Trump/Russia collusion as a hoax. A hoax by whom exactly? What possess a person to ignore all available evidence in favour that it is a hoax? What exactly is the motivation here?
|
Did you seriously just go "Ayaz wasn't rude" and follow it up with "That wasn't the post he was banned for?" And then change the subject to why xDaunt's still lying?
You win the troll award.
|
On March 10 2019 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Did you seriously just go "Ayaz wasn't rude" and follow it up with "That wasn't the post he was banned for?" And then change the subject to why xDaunt's still lying?
You win the troll award.
I just think it's amusing that he actually seems to expect that I'd respond to him after all of that.
|
Is that you guys new thing then? Just call whatever the other guy a troll?
|
United States13816 Posts
I'm fascinated to find out why you think calling someone else a troll is somehow new or "our thing".
|
Seems to be a new thing after being called a shit tier poster by the usual suspects including yourself. I curious to see what new bandwagon you'll find to jump on.
|
United States13816 Posts
And you think that the "usual suspects" you refer to are not also called shit tier posters? That we arn't called racist bigots and more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
