|
On December 08 2016 12:32 LegalLord wrote:
Frankly all I see is someone taking disagreement personally and calling the other a liar and asking for bans. Nothing there looks to be bad posting even if you disagree on the issues.
Then you have very different standards for acceptable behavior; as I documented the cases quite clearly. And the instances of his poor behavior are very numerous in the thread.
Have you ever played the legend of the five rings rpg? If you have there's something there that could perhaps make the point clearer. otherwise I can't think of a good reference point that would make it clear.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I already made some rather clear remarks on what I think of his posting style, somewhat earlier. I understand exactly where the problem is and why people get pissed off by that. And yet, it simply isn't grounds for banning. Opinionated people often have an aggressive manner of sharing their opinions, surprise surprise. It's not really a good thing to start banning people because one person thinks that one other person is a liar.
|
So the only concrete example of dauntless lying is that he said you don't give trump a "single ounce of fairness" but you measured the fairness you gave Trump on your digital scale and found it to be slightly over an ounce, even if maybe you should have given him two ounces? What am I reading? Is this why you lost your report button? I asked for a lie, not a disagreement wrapped in rhetoric.
|
On December 08 2016 15:10 IgnE wrote:
So the only concrete example of dauntless lying is that he said you don't give trump a "single ounce of fairness" but you measured the fairness you gave Trump on your digital scale and found it to be slightly over an ounce, even if maybe you should have given him two ounces? What am I reading? Is this why you lost your report button? I asked for a lie, not a disagreement wrapped in rhetoric.
I provided a lie and documented it clearly. If you chose to ignore the points I can't help you; especially as you did not counter any of my points, and seem to have ignored some of my points entirely. Since you're ignoring some of my points, and/or not being careful when looking at them, I can't help you more; and am disinclined to. the fact that you misstate my point so blatantly, ignoring the fuzziness I added to the measurement, is why I say this.
I will provide other examples as they become available.
legal -> I tire of your insistence that I'm pushing for bans and only bans; it is rude. I've specifically stated REPEATEDLY; that things such as warnings and curtailing his problem posting would suffice. I also provided documented proof of "lying", went over the details and how it was far lesser than some other lies; and you ignore that without providing a counter to the actual argument. So this is going nowhere, and we may as well stop talking about it.
PS apologies to attitude; but it is stressful when people seem to be ignoring your points, or key parts of them.
|
It's not a lie if its open to interpretation. Like I said, hermeneutics is not your strong suit.
|
On December 09 2016 00:32 IgnE wrote:
It's not a lie if its open to interpretation. Like I said, hermeneutics is not your strong suit.
it's obviously not yours; since I already addressed and countered the point you just made. and you failed to note that I had done so (or choose to ignore it AND not cite where I did so and note your disagreement with it).
I already covered the issue of interpretation in detail.
so I recommend we just drop it.
|
how many times are you going to suggest we drop it before you actually do?
|
Interesting that danglars knew the length of my ban. Is this part of a negotiation between him and a mod or something? The thread suffers from opinionated moderation. I had a ban from seeker, and when co fronted with posts that had the same offenses as mine, he could only say "I can't take action unless you link me to the posts".
|
Hyrule19028 Posts
maybe it's because durations and reasons are public
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 05:08 tofucake wrote:maybe it's because durations and reasons are public
I think the conspiracy between him and the moderators is the more likely reality.
|
On December 09 2016 04:54 Doodsmack wrote:
Interesting that danglars knew the length of my ban. Is this part of a negotiation between him and a mod or something? The thread suffers from opinionated moderation. I had a ban from seeker, and when co fronted with posts that had the same offenses as mine, he could only say "I can't take action unless you link me to the posts".
Oh you gave me a good chuckle. You're looking for the community automated ban list and automated ban list. You can learn what other people think about Seeker's "I can't even" or your hopes in moderator bingo (salacious stuff).
It's public knowledge. Like your three pages of mod notes. But behind the scenes, I'm always negotiating with mods to extend the lengths of bans for people I politically disagree with ... I just never thought anybody would notice!!!
((Moderation has been good in thread, I was wrong to suspect the RiK/Sabotage was a new mod direction.
Though I could argue for less restraint in these 'XD Chess' contentless memes:
On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns.
Reported, unactioned
On December 09 2016 10:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. I know you guys don't want to hear this, but y'all on the left are badly underestimating Trump. Trump is going to keep winning politically until y'all wise up and start looking at him with a real critical eye as opposed to through the lens of the stupid the caricature that the media and democrats have provided y'all with. Believe me when I say that I hope y'all stay the course. I'm not even discussing the likelihood of his playing 7d chess, I think it's pretty obvious that he isn't but that's not really a conversation I'm interested in having. I'm just asking why you want that to be the case. If he's playing 7d chess, clearly one of his moves has been to convince you that he wanted to do what you want him to do.
I didn't bother, previous was unactioned
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I think I'm going to dust off my report button on a few posts I see that I feel are actionable and see if I notice this previously mentioned inconsistency in moderation. Will report back in whenever.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There's enough hypocrisy in someone with a broken report button saying "this thread should be up to my standards in moderation" but when you go on further to post like shit it's a double whammy of hypocrisy.
On December 14 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:52 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election). will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so? If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm. And how do you define "doing harm to our country" in this context? I think harm is a clear enough term to not need explanation; especially as danglars can use his own definition since I responded to his use of the term. Fantastic. So you use an ambiguous definition of "doing harm" and you fail to define what you mean. And so it could arbitrarily be true or false because there is no standard by which that can be evaluated. Give a definition of what you mean by "doing harm" because there is no clear context by which that is true. Otherwise the response is simply that no, he isn't doing harm, he is merely making America great again. And the definition of that is clear enough to need no explanation. what I'm hearing is: you uselessly interject into someone else's conversation to quibble about their word choice, in a way that's not helpful to the question they asked or the larger discussion. You also ignore my clear point about definitions which leaves danglars with something he can use very easily; namely my already explicitly stated point that Danglars can use his OWN definition when answering the question.
Let me try:
Person 1: Do you think Trump is making America great again?
Person 2: What do you mean by "great again" exactly?
Person 1: I think the definition speaks for itself.
Person 2: Well then that's a non-statement since that could basically mean anything...
Person 1: WELL I DIDNT EVEN ASK YOU'RE OPINION UR JUST INTERJECTING
or:
Person 1: Do you think Trump is basically Hitler?
Person 2: What do you mean by "basically Hitler" exactly?
Person 1: I think the definition speaks for itself.
Person 2: Well then that's a non-statement since that could basically mean anything...
Person 1: WELL I DIDNT EVEN ASK YOU'RE OPINION UR JUST INTERJECTING
I suppose the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" applies here. Don't talk about how we should "action liars and people who post badly" when your own posting is utter shit. Start with yourself.
|
slefin operates in a narrow world where words mean exactly and only what he thinks they mean.
|
I was'nt going to request a mod review of the alleged incident; but since Legal choose to assert unfounded and inaccurate things against me; deliberately strawmanning my clear points. I do request mods go over that chain for his violations.
shame on him for such an unjustified accusation of hypocrisy.
|
It seems to me that a more accurate description of what happened would be:
Person 1: The NYT is doing harm by acting like the election was stolen
Person 2: Well, would you say Trump has similarly been doing harm to the country?
Person 3: Hey person 2, what do you mean by "doing harm"?
Person 2: The same thing person 1 meant.
Person 3: *flips out at person 2*
By "forgetting" to mention that Danglars is the one who used "doing harm" first and that zlefin explicitly told you he was using it like Danglars, you're painting a completely inaccurate picture of the exchange. In any case, just report his post if you feel it violates forum guidelines. There's no need to attack him here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Kwizach, since you continually butt in to play bothersome semantic games and/or bring up old grudges (not just his post but in general over the past few weeks), I feel the need to say this once: I do not wish to discuss any topic with you. I have made it clear what I think of your posting, and I would appreciate it if you would fuck off. I do not care what you think about this topic, that topic, these topics, those topics, or any topic. I would appreciate it if there were not a troll constantly following me around spewing unwanted commentary from the sidelines. I realize my posts on your posting issues in this thread have made the point they were intended to make and that I've brought them up more times than necessary for the points I had, and as long as you can refrain from following me around like a troll I will not be making any more of them (because Drone is right that in a way I drone on and on about them). I can't really force you to do it one way or the other, but just know that the request was made.
As for Danglars, he defined quite well in what way the NYT was "doing harm" while zlefin did no such thing with Trump. He was quite confused as well as to what was meant there, by the way.
I do not have any particular problem with zlefin as a poster, except for his inability to adequately acknowledge the hypocrisy of going to this thread and complaining about other posters being "not up to his standards" when people could damn well point out the hypocrisy in that view.
|
I can't help but snicker at Legal's last statement; and the parallels with the situation. he accuses another of unwanted commentary from the sidelines when that is what I accused him of.
I'd really rather just wait for the mods to review the matter, but since you seem so interested in discussing here beforehand:
I'm not being a hypocrite; I wish the standards were higher, but they are not, so I post at the standards extant in the thread, and work on posting better to the extent I can. I'd also claim that my posts are in general quite good; and the poor ones are only in response to other people's poor ones, so if there were no other poor ones, mine would always be good.
And my contention is generally that the thread would be better with higher moderation standards; not that my own posts live up to that high standard all the time.
and if danglars is unclear about what I mean; he can ask me himself, or simply not answer my question.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The mods can act as they see fit. As for me, I will simply leave my point as "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and before you accuse other posters of acting banworthy you should look at yourself.
No further commentary.
|
Fortunately, I live in a stone house, so throwing stones won't really be a problem.
And I already addressed and dealt with your point.
still seemed unnecessary for you to also go off on kwizach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
