EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 67
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Nixer
2774 Posts
On July 07 2017 09:36 zlefin wrote: things would work better if the feature to ignore individual posters was available to all politics threads; instead of only being for tl+ users. then the failure to moderate properly would be far less of an issue, as the poor posters could more easily be ignored. Not a feature and never will be. Would defeat the point of a forum. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On July 08 2017 07:30 Nixer wrote: Not a feature and never will be. Would defeat the point of a forum. Safe space denied. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 08 2017 07:30 Nixer wrote: Not a feature and never will be. Would defeat the point of a forum. it is a feature in tl+ is it not? and it doesn't defeat the point of a forum at all; thinking so means you obviously haven't thought abotu the problem mcuh at all. when moderators fail to moderate, other means of moderation are necessary. one thing that's well proven on the internet is that inadequate moderation leads to crappy results. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9625 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9625 Posts
edit: IMpossibly | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 11 2017 05:29 brian wrote: i'm not going to pretend to defend either his impossibly stupid position or even less impressive strategy. simply adding that it isn't ban worthy. by a very, very large margin. i'd go so far as to say if that's the standard for poor posting many if not all participants in that thread could use the same breather. in this case yourself certainly included. and so i'm obviously not advocating anyone be banned but rather pointing out absurdity with absurdity. edit: IMpossibly This. If this particular ban signals the enforcement of a new posting standard that will be universally applied, I am all for it. I just seriously doubt that this is the case. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Nixer
2774 Posts
On July 11 2017 06:47 zlefin wrote: hurray for legal being banned! good work mods. Christ, grow the fuck up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 12 2017 00:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I wonder how Ted Cruz family has reacted him defending Trump the man who attacked father, daughter, and wife. At least put a bib on if you're going to give oral on live TV. Another entry in the catalog of uneven standards in the thread. Can we get some mod feedback on offhand comments of oral sex? Because I'm going to love insinuating on how politicians suck Schumer's cock next time that's in the news. Mod feedback, please. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
and celebrating justice done seems entirely proper and grown up to me. dunno why nixer would complain about that. mostly I use this thread to vent anyways. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5672 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 12 2017 05:51 IgnE wrote: dont be a prude I'm waiting for the next obvious cock-sucking to see if everybody's fine with Pelosi or Bernie having traces of cum left on their face after a TV interview. Catalog of double standards, here we come. I only wish brave moderation would speak up on if bibs for oral sex is an accepted part of US Politics Thread Standards. I can envision Obama's next interview resulting in media orgasm, or any number of similar situations. So come on banhammers and moderation staff, get on the record about oral copulation of Republican senators by presidents by StealthBlue, this is a feedback thread after all. I have some dripping analogies that are in keeping with new standards. | ||
| ||
