|
@Danglars, Sermokala and xDaunt: Alright, so you guys misrepresented what I said and ignored the part where I explicitly wrote that "it can sometimes be useful to use broad categories [like "the left"] in order to put forward a general point on a forum on which we don't always have enough time to be as precise as we'd like". The problem with xDaunt's posts wasn't a general use of labels, because it can be perfectly fine to use them when discussing ideas. Here are a few examples:
- "Some on the left would like to ban Milo from speaking at universities. I disagree because [argument]"
- "Many on the left advocate for a higher federal minimum wage. I don't think that's a good idea because [argument]"
- "Historically, the left has pushed for workers' right to unionize. I feel like unions hurt the economy because [argument]"
In neither of these examples is the use of "the left" problematic -- other posters may ask for clarification or sources on who on the left we're talking about (for example), but the aim is clearly to discuss ideas and provide context with regards to how the ideas being discussed relate to positions on the political spectrum. In many cases, however, this is not how xDaunt has been using the labels I referred to in my post. Notice the difference with an example like this:
- "About [insert general topic], the regressive left just doesn't get it." *end of post*
Often, xDaunt uses the labels "the left", but more specifically "the regressive left", "the PC crowd", "SJWs", or various combinations of the three, to 1. paint what he perceives as his opposition as a monolithic entity and 2. deny it any legitimacy in the debate -- they are "totalitarian and fascistic and they need to be "wiped out". Individual posters are attacked for having a "SJW disorder", and their SJW perspective is "toxic". Oh, and by the way, the "regressive left" "owns the universities, pop culture, and most of the media", and "a preponderance of liberals do fit within that SJW mold to one degree or another". You can easily find plenty of such examples in xDaunt's post history, where he uses those labels to attack, mock, belittle, and insult what he sees as his ideological opponents. He does this with an aim that is the exact opposite of wanting to have an honest debate over ideas, since he already knows he doesn't want to "coexist ideologically" with his targets -- he indeed often doesn't actually engage their ideas, being content to disparage his perceived opponents individually or as a group.
Let me be clear again: I'm perfectly fine with xDaunt holding those views. I obviously don't agree with them, but he's entitled to his opinion and he should be free to discuss his ideas on freedom of speech and on progressive social norms -- and we can all have very productive debates on these and related matters. This is not the problem. All I'm saying is that you, xDaunt, should try to express your ideas without making such use of the aforementioned labels, which clearly serve to disparage and antagonize the people you disagree with, thus poisoning the debate. I'll repeat: I'm perfectly fine with xDaunt defending his views in the thread -- I'm probably one of the posters (if not the poster) who have spent the most time arguing against many of the positions xDaunt has expressed on these forums, and I'll gladly continue to do so when I disagree with him. Yet there's a clear difference between using helpful labels to articulate a position and engage in honest debate ("Some on the left would like to silence conservative voices in the media, in popular culture, at universities, etc. I find this tendency unacceptable, and fundamentally illiberal"), and deliberately using very loaded and insulting labels to disparage the opposition and poison any chance of having a serene debate (because you're not interested in having one with them in the first place). xDaunt is perfectly capable of doing the former, and he has done so plenty of times in the past, including in discussions over issues of free speech. And when he does the latter, we see what happens to the discussions in the thread.
@Danglars: Biff expressed his opinion that Milo's message was all about being mean and hateful. If one disagrees, one's response should not be four posts exclaiming that Biff just "doesn't get it" and is exemplary of the "regressive left". It should instead be "I disagree, I think Milo's message is [x]". It's as simple as that. And again, xDaunt is perfectly capable of responding normally like this, since he's done so in the past.
@Sermokala: No, you're drawing a false equivalency between our respective use of labels. I didn't even say xDaunt was part of the alt-right, I only referenced how the term "regressive left" was initially popularized and was then co-opted.
|
1. You claim points absolutely diminished by appropriate use of terms like regressive left, PC crowd, and SJWs. The examples in the post history are apropos. I suggest you foolishly believe the assignments and uses are off the mark because they strike too close to home for comfort. I can't see any other reason why you claim appropriate use isn't justified.
2. If you post a video and comments with explanation, anybody that then tries to reduce the whole to "mean and hateful" is entirely disingenuous and frankly a pure troll. Maybe we need ten more alt-right memesters to drive the point home because people on the left can't grasp what bad trolls do. If you reject the entirety of the argument without discussion with pejoratives, you invite being ignored or outright derision. Only a man like kwizach would be blind enough to not see what's happening for what it is. Engage, and you will be engaged, trivialize every fucking point and you will be trivialized. This forum is diverse enough to have the most pure examples of misbehavior that can be asked for; people like you that ask others to be treated above what their behavior merits are delusional.
3. Posters are judged by their posts. Most everything I've seen in the last two pages do not deserve mod actions. xDaunt is a pathetically poor example to pick. Seriously, stop embarrassing yourselves. Your examples are about as weaksauce and objectionable as LegalLord on an average day (bottom line: nothing objectionable). Give it a rest! It's like seeing CNN vs Trump play out on the small stage the way everybody blubbers on about imagined offenses.
|
I agree with your points but disgrace with your conclusions. My point was that there are worse offenders and that you where putting xDaunt on focus for no apparent reason other then he's the combative one recently.
If anything he's being a good counter weight to the eye roll anti trump cheerleading that goes on so much in the thread.
|
@kwizach: I myself feel some trepidation about demonstrating some kind of witting misbehavior from xDaunt's posting just by virtue of his use of labels. This is partly because it's hard to prove, and partly because labels are so ingrained into how people talk and think that using them feels natural - we come to think of them as real entities in and of themselves and think nothing of using them in an argument when they seem helpful in demonstrating our point. That said, I do think that the consequence of what he says is that the discussion gets a lot shallower.
@Danglars: If kwizach is suggesting, as I suspect he is, that what we assume is "appropriate use" may not actually be appropriate, I'm not sure I see what your first point is really accomplishing. It seems to beg the question by assuming the negation of kwizach's argument (and then attaching a little ad hominem for good measure). Perhaps if you could explain why you are not convinced by the idea that labels (as they are used in kwizach's example) make for an unhealthy argument, it would be easier to see what, precisely, you're driving at here.
|
On February 08 2017 00:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
@Danglars: If kwizach is suggesting, as I suspect he is, that what we assume is "appropriate use" may not actually be appropriate, I'm not sure I see what your first point is really accomplishing. It seems to beg the question by assuming the negation of kwizach's argument (and then attaching a little ad hominem for good measure). Perhaps if you could explain why you are not convinced by the idea that labels (as they are used in kwizach's example) make for an unhealthy argument, it would be easier to see what, precisely, you're driving at here.
I'm adding my voice to say I've reviewed the last few hundred pages of uses and found no substance to kwizach's claims (overly reliant on presuming monolithic entity vs segments/distinguished by actual behavior, used to deny legitimacy vs use in simple characterization). Surely, you can see why review and studying each use is valuable in the case.
I suggest you try the same RuiBarbO. I've seen nothing like what's being claimed. Certainly not something sinister needing mod interaction.
|
We need to rename this thread the "Let's bitch about xDaunt and brainstorm special rules for him thread." I find this particular discussion about labels to be particularly hollow given that a poster just divided the opposition on a certain topic into "idiots" and "callous assholes" in the main thread. Personally, I really don't mind, but the hypocrisy and quixotic self-delusion from some of the posters around here is staggering. Kwizach and some of the others can pretend all they want that this isn't about me or some of my ideas, but it very clearly is. And the funny part about this meta discussion is that it feeds right into my original point from the main thread.
EDIT: Anyone who honestly gave a shit about cleaning up the the US Politics thread would not pick me as the starting place for the cleanup effort.
|
It doesn't feed into your point to the extent that you and your fellow conservatives have made similar pleas for less pointed language, which is really the central issue here. Danglars himself has just now spent pages whining over being called a "denialist" and it is entirely fair to characterize a lot of Trump's support as the sort of people that are just as concerned with being referred to with what they consider "fair" language as kwisach's posts suggest he is. Claims of hypocrisy come from a place of the same more often than most realize, and here it seems more evident than ever. Literally everyone, even the most callous, assholish people in the world, are fighting, at least in part, over the fairness of the words people use to describe them.
In the end, if we can't rely on associative reasoning in the face of mostly unadorned support for highly charged symbols (like Milo or climate denial), then what exactly are demurrers supposed to do?
|
On February 08 2017 01:19 farvacola wrote:
It doesn't feed into your point to the extent that you and your fellow conservatives have made similar pleas for less pointed language, which is really the central issue here. Danglars himself has just now spent pages whining over being called a "denialist" and it is entirely fair to characterize a lot of Trump's support as the sort of people that are just as concerned with being referred to with what they consider "fair" language as kwisach's posts suggest he is. Claims of hypocrisy come from a place of the same more often than most realize, and here it seems more evident than ever.
If we can't rely on associative reasoning in the face of mostly unadorned support for highly charged symbols (like Milo or climate denial), then what exactly are demurrers supposed to do?
I don't see Danglars whining to the mods in here.
|
Mod involvement is an ancillary concern; for every exhaustive kwisach post in here, there are dozens of hastily written yet similarly whiny reports made every single day. The meat of this dispute is about the words people use to refer to one another, ban flavor of the day notwithstanding.
|
On February 08 2017 01:05 xDaunt wrote:
We need to rename this thread the "Let's bitch about xDaunt and brainstorm special rules for him thread." I find this particular discussion about labels to be particularly hollow given that a poster just divided the opposition on a certain topic into "idiots" and "callous assholes" in the main thread. Personally, I really don't mind, but the hypocrisy and quixotic self-delusion from some of the posters around here is staggering. Kwizach and some of the others can pretend all they want that this isn't about me or some of my ideas, but it very clearly is. And the funny part about this meta discussion is that it feeds right into my original point from the main thread.
EDIT: Anyone who honestly gave a shit about cleaning up the the US Politics thread would not pick me as the starting place for the cleanup effort.
I wasn't going to get mixed up in this discussion, but if what you got from this post:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 07 2017 20:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 19:57 Slydie wrote:On February 07 2017 17:03 nojok wrote:On February 07 2017 16:03 Buckyman wrote:
There is no single, canonical 'denialist' viewpoint. Just a bunch of people who found that their concerns about the consensus, legitimate or otherwise, could not be seriously discussed. Actual points of disagreement range from "the earth isn't actually warming" to "the warming is (mostly) caused by a variety of non-CO2 factors" to "warming is a good thing" to "the data isn't solid enough to draw conclusions from". All those claims are treated identically - they're insulted and otherwise ignored.
Insults aren't convincing to the people being insulted. What we need are debates up and down the entire chain of claims.
Those debats ended 15 to 10 years ago in the rest of the world, I remember when it was discussed a lot in the medias. At one point you have to move forward. The only reason this debate is still going in the US is because you have your weird lobby system. On the other hand, the US have been the the fastest country to use mass GMO without proper independant studies. That's all there is to it, you adapt fast or not in the US based a lot on lobbies' work at Washington. There is something else to this. Once the climate precaution start affecting you in unpleasent ways, we could not care less about them. This is equally true for countries, companies and individual. Remember we are talking about potential consequences in the future with a high degree of uncertainty. Even the most extreme climate activist I know flew to South-Africa for a gig. Once jobs in entire big industries are on the line, the CO2 emissions are forgotten about. When China has an unfair advantage by allowing more pollution, other countries need to do the same. There's a very big difference between stating Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, but I don't give a shit about it, and stating Anthropogenic Global Warming is false. One makes you a callous asshole, the other makes you an idiot. If your point is that callous assholes deny AGW in order to look like idiots, there may be something to it. It makes them lying callous assholes, but in practice indistinguishable from real idiots. That said, many of us are hypocrits to some extent or another. I tend to spend a bit more money buying "green" products, but I don't reduce my travelling: I love it too much. Between travelling and my use of technology (and hence electricity), my footprint is about average for my country, which means it's about 4x what it should be. That probably makes me a callous asshole in the views of some. But at least I'm not an idiot 
is that I was dividing "the opposition" (nice reification there) into idiots and callous assholes, you need some remedial teaching in reading. Not only that, but you are claiming that because I labelled things, kwizach and farvacola should stop talking about people labelling things being bad. WTF? Since when are kwizach or farva responsible for what I post?
But I know you don't need remedial teaching in reading... you were just trying to score a cheap point. Too bad, because what really sounds hollow is you (1) misrepresenting my post to make a point, and (2) your consistent attempt to paint yourself as the maligned party.
OT: the labelling discussion is stupid.Sometimes they're used to generalize something that can be generalized, and sometimes they're abused. Deal with it in the thread.
|
On February 08 2017 01:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 01:05 xDaunt wrote:
We need to rename this thread the "Let's bitch about xDaunt and brainstorm special rules for him thread." I find this particular discussion about labels to be particularly hollow given that a poster just divided the opposition on a certain topic into "idiots" and "callous assholes" in the main thread. Personally, I really don't mind, but the hypocrisy and quixotic self-delusion from some of the posters around here is staggering. Kwizach and some of the others can pretend all they want that this isn't about me or some of my ideas, but it very clearly is. And the funny part about this meta discussion is that it feeds right into my original point from the main thread.
EDIT: Anyone who honestly gave a shit about cleaning up the the US Politics thread would not pick me as the starting place for the cleanup effort. I wasn't going to get mixed up in this discussion, but if what you got from this post: + Show Spoiler +On February 07 2017 20:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 19:57 Slydie wrote:On February 07 2017 17:03 nojok wrote:On February 07 2017 16:03 Buckyman wrote:
There is no single, canonical 'denialist' viewpoint. Just a bunch of people who found that their concerns about the consensus, legitimate or otherwise, could not be seriously discussed. Actual points of disagreement range from "the earth isn't actually warming" to "the warming is (mostly) caused by a variety of non-CO2 factors" to "warming is a good thing" to "the data isn't solid enough to draw conclusions from". All those claims are treated identically - they're insulted and otherwise ignored.
Insults aren't convincing to the people being insulted. What we need are debates up and down the entire chain of claims.
Those debats ended 15 to 10 years ago in the rest of the world, I remember when it was discussed a lot in the medias. At one point you have to move forward. The only reason this debate is still going in the US is because you have your weird lobby system. On the other hand, the US have been the the fastest country to use mass GMO without proper independant studies. That's all there is to it, you adapt fast or not in the US based a lot on lobbies' work at Washington. There is something else to this. Once the climate precaution start affecting you in unpleasent ways, we could not care less about them. This is equally true for countries, companies and individual. Remember we are talking about potential consequences in the future with a high degree of uncertainty. Even the most extreme climate activist I know flew to South-Africa for a gig. Once jobs in entire big industries are on the line, the CO2 emissions are forgotten about. When China has an unfair advantage by allowing more pollution, other countries need to do the same. There's a very big difference between stating Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, but I don't give a shit about it, and stating Anthropogenic Global Warming is false. One makes you a callous asshole, the other makes you an idiot. If your point is that callous assholes deny AGW in order to look like idiots, there may be something to it. It makes them lying callous assholes, but in practice indistinguishable from real idiots. That said, many of us are hypocrits to some extent or another. I tend to spend a bit more money buying "green" products, but I don't reduce my travelling: I love it too much. Between travelling and my use of technology (and hence electricity), my footprint is about average for my country, which means it's about 4x what it should be. That probably makes me a callous asshole in the views of some. But at least I'm not an idiot is that I was dividing "the opposition" (nice reification there) into idiots and callous assholes, you need some remedial teaching in reading. Not only that, but you are claiming that because I labelled things, kwizach and farvacola should stop talking about people labelling things being bad. WTF? Since when are kwizach or farva responsible for what I post? But I know you don't need remedial teaching in reading... you were just trying to score a cheap point. Too bad, because what really sounds hollow is you (1) misrepresenting my post to make a point, and (2) your consistent attempt to paint yourself as the maligned party. OT: the labelling discussion is stupid.Sometimes they're used to generalize something that can be generalized, and sometimes they're abused. Deal with it in the thread.
No, I think I interpreted your post very accurately. Like you said in your post, there are two types of people who oppose the leftist position on global warming: those who deny manmade global warming exists and those who think that manmade global warming is real but don't want to do anything about it. You clearly dubbed the former "idiots" and the latter "callous assholes." It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to think that my comment on your post was off the mark.
Yes, I did score a cheap point, because you made it hilariously easy.
And no, I'm not imputing your post to farvacola or kwizach. In fact, I find it funny that you bring up farv at all because, to his credit, he's not one of those Leftist posters who looks to shut people on the Right up. I will levy that criticism against other posters, including kwizach and you.
|
On February 08 2017 01:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 00:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
@Danglars: If kwizach is suggesting, as I suspect he is, that what we assume is "appropriate use" may not actually be appropriate, I'm not sure I see what your first point is really accomplishing. It seems to beg the question by assuming the negation of kwizach's argument (and then attaching a little ad hominem for good measure). Perhaps if you could explain why you are not convinced by the idea that labels (as they are used in kwizach's example) make for an unhealthy argument, it would be easier to see what, precisely, you're driving at here. I'm adding my voice to say I've reviewed the last few hundred pages of uses and found no substance to kwizach's claims (overly reliant on presuming monolithic entity vs segments/distinguished by actual behavior, used to deny legitimacy vs use in simple characterization). Surely, you can see why review and studying each use is valuable in the case. I suggest you try the same RuiBarbO. I've seen nothing like what's being claimed. Certainly not something sinister needing mod interaction.
Who knows, maybe I have reviewed the last few hundred pages of uses and found some substance to kwizach's claims. I've also engaged with his argument directly. He's making an argument about what certain language accomplishes. You're saying it doesn't necessarily accomplish that, but you're not explaining how it is that you've come to a different conclusion after seeing the same evidence. That's all I was asking about. Not that you need to worry about persuading me anyway, since I'm not convinced that there's anything actionable in the posts in question based on the general standards applied to forums on this site.
|
On February 08 2017 01:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 08 2017 01:05 xDaunt wrote:
We need to rename this thread the "Let's bitch about xDaunt and brainstorm special rules for him thread." I find this particular discussion about labels to be particularly hollow given that a poster just divided the opposition on a certain topic into "idiots" and "callous assholes" in the main thread. Personally, I really don't mind, but the hypocrisy and quixotic self-delusion from some of the posters around here is staggering. Kwizach and some of the others can pretend all they want that this isn't about me or some of my ideas, but it very clearly is. And the funny part about this meta discussion is that it feeds right into my original point from the main thread.
EDIT: Anyone who honestly gave a shit about cleaning up the the US Politics thread would not pick me as the starting place for the cleanup effort. I wasn't going to get mixed up in this discussion, but if what you got from this post: + Show Spoiler +On February 07 2017 20:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 19:57 Slydie wrote:On February 07 2017 17:03 nojok wrote:On February 07 2017 16:03 Buckyman wrote:
There is no single, canonical 'denialist' viewpoint. Just a bunch of people who found that their concerns about the consensus, legitimate or otherwise, could not be seriously discussed. Actual points of disagreement range from "the earth isn't actually warming" to "the warming is (mostly) caused by a variety of non-CO2 factors" to "warming is a good thing" to "the data isn't solid enough to draw conclusions from". All those claims are treated identically - they're insulted and otherwise ignored.
Insults aren't convincing to the people being insulted. What we need are debates up and down the entire chain of claims.
Those debats ended 15 to 10 years ago in the rest of the world, I remember when it was discussed a lot in the medias. At one point you have to move forward. The only reason this debate is still going in the US is because you have your weird lobby system. On the other hand, the US have been the the fastest country to use mass GMO without proper independant studies. That's all there is to it, you adapt fast or not in the US based a lot on lobbies' work at Washington. There is something else to this. Once the climate precaution start affecting you in unpleasent ways, we could not care less about them. This is equally true for countries, companies and individual. Remember we are talking about potential consequences in the future with a high degree of uncertainty. Even the most extreme climate activist I know flew to South-Africa for a gig. Once jobs in entire big industries are on the line, the CO2 emissions are forgotten about. When China has an unfair advantage by allowing more pollution, other countries need to do the same. There's a very big difference between stating Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, but I don't give a shit about it, and stating Anthropogenic Global Warming is false. One makes you a callous asshole, the other makes you an idiot. If your point is that callous assholes deny AGW in order to look like idiots, there may be something to it. It makes them lying callous assholes, but in practice indistinguishable from real idiots. That said, many of us are hypocrits to some extent or another. I tend to spend a bit more money buying "green" products, but I don't reduce my travelling: I love it too much. Between travelling and my use of technology (and hence electricity), my footprint is about average for my country, which means it's about 4x what it should be. That probably makes me a callous asshole in the views of some. But at least I'm not an idiot is that I was dividing "the opposition" (nice reification there) into idiots and callous assholes, you need some remedial teaching in reading. Not only that, but you are claiming that because I labelled things, kwizach and farvacola should stop talking about people labelling things being bad. WTF? Since when are kwizach or farva responsible for what I post? But I know you don't need remedial teaching in reading... you were just trying to score a cheap point. Too bad, because what really sounds hollow is you (1) misrepresenting my post to make a point, and (2) your consistent attempt to paint yourself as the maligned party. OT: the labelling discussion is stupid.Sometimes they're used to generalize something that can be generalized, and sometimes they're abused. Deal with it in the thread. No, I think I interpreted your post very accurately. Like you said in your post, there are two types of people who oppose the leftist position on global warming: those who deny manmade global warming exists and those who think that manmade global warming is real but don't want to do anything about it. You clearly dubbed the former "idiots" and the latter "callous assholes." It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to think that my comment on your post was off the mark. Yes, I did score a cheap point, because you made it hilariously easy. And no, I'm not imputing your post to farvacola or kwizach. In fact, I find it funny that you bring up farv at all because, to his credit, he's not one of those Leftist posters who looks to shut people on the Right up. I will levy that criticism against other posters, including kwizach and you.
Well, no I didn't. I divided the world in general into a whole number of groups and singled two of those out. I will take your particular offense to that to mean that you feel you belong in one of those two groups. You see, I said nothing about those who believe AGW is real, are in favour of doing something about it, just not what the Paris accords say should be done, or any other number of nuances that you decided to skip over. I also skipped over them, because my main point with that post was in response to Slydie, in the context of the discussion we were having. You cannot generalize that to me classifying "the opposition" as either callous assholes or idiots, as "the opposition" is an amorphous group that encompasses more than just the two I singled out. Those two groups, in particular, belong in the basket of deplorables, I'll grant you that 
As for your second point, I agree wholeheartedly. Being raised in Europe, I do feel there should be limits on freedom of speech, and especially on TL: there are things that should not be said. Generally speaking, I don't think you cross the line. I disagree with you on almost everything, and I would classify your preferred method of discussing "trollish", but you know where the bounds are and hardly ever overstep them (and not at all, imho, since being destaffed, or I would gleefully reported you, which I haven't done). But I don't think you have voiced an opinion I (personally, I'm not staff) don't think belongs on TL since you called BLM supporters "vermin".
|
@Danglars: If you somehow manage to not see examples of what I'm talking about (with regards to his use of the terms and to their effect on the discussions) in the posts I linked to, in xDaunt's easily accessible post history containing those labels, and in the several pages of discussion that literally just followed his comments in the other thread, well, there's not much to do except agree to disagree.
@Sermokala: As I said in my initial post, I'm not saying you can't feel the same applies to other posters (regardless of their positions on the political spectrum). I mentioned xDaunt because of his repeated use of those labels and because his comments just led to several pages of discussion on the issue in the thread, with new visitors to the thread even joining in to voice similar criticism. In any case, I agree with your comment on the necessity of having dissenting voices in the thread.
@xDaunt: Nonsense -- I explicitly said I was fine with debating your ideas in the thread, as I've always done, and I explained what was different about your name-calling. I didn't report your replies to Biff or any of the posts I just linked to, but if you're going to complain in this thread about bashing, the least you could do is avoid it yourself.
@farv: To be clear, I'm not concerned about seeing those labels applied to me as I couldn't care less and I wasn't even involved in the Milo discussion -- I've just witnessed their use frequently enough to know that the "no bashing" rule is useful to help ensure productive debate.
Anyway, I've made my point and there's not much to add here. Cheers.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In general, I think the thread seems to have gotten a fair bit better over the past few months compared to before. Random mudslinging battles seem to be a lot less common. I have a few gripes here and there about what should or should not have been banned but I definitely looks better than before.
I mention this because I'm curious if the return of the first wave of banbet losers and self-exiled folk will strain that. And also to say that the moderation staff seems to have been doing pretty well recently.
|
Agreed moderators have been doing well lately. I don't think Kwark or LT were causing problems really though. There's some "nobody's fault" explanations for the improvement, like there being fewer people on one side so fewer fights can happen, or everyone learning the rules a bit more. Or more obviously, the election ended, so tensions aren't quite as high. A fair number of fights tended to happen around P6 but I'm not sure they were always his fault. Anyway, keep up the good work, mods.
|
|
|
Maybe you haven't noticed, but a majority of the thread's posts have been shit posts and troll posts this month.
|
I have noticed quite a lot of that; and i'd like more of them to get actioned, as per my usual stance.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 23 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:
Maybe you haven't noticed, but a majority of the thread's posts have been shit posts and troll posts this month.
Within the past two weeks, to be precise. Since February 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
