Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I guess you didn't get as far as reading the second sentence of the post you quoted.
No, I read it. Apathy sounds too humanish and feely. I just read 'disinterest' as lack of interest, certainly not as its used in a legal sense.
Ah, got it. Sample usage - "as this discussion progresses, I find myself increasingly disinterested in it."
Here is a question. If you were a mod, and for some inexplicable reason, you were required to ban exactly three regulars (or semi-regulars) for a year, regardless of whether you thought they deserved it, who would you choose?
Here is a question. If you were a mod, and for some inexplicable reason, you were required to ban exactly three regulars (or semi-regulars) for a year, regardless of whether you thought they deserved it, who would you choose?
On what we basing this decision, if it's not whether or not they deserve it?
Here is a question. If you were a mod, and for some inexplicable reason, you were required to ban exactly three regulars (or semi-regulars) for a year, regardless of whether you thought they deserved it, who would you choose?
I wouldn't want anyone here banned but gun to head the author of this magnificent post is a strong candidate.
[QUOTE=]There may be a good reason. There may be a bad one. Or something inbetween. [/QUOTE]
Doug Polk?
I wouldn't want anyone here banned but gun to head the author of this magnificent post is a strong candidate.
Interesting. I knew you disagreed with me on a fair number of things, but I didn't know that you would banish me before, say, Brian James.
A person could have a very anti-ban approach. Plenty of people here don't think anything besides being a spammer deserves a ban.
I might be the only one, but I believe purposefully and consistently spreading misinformation that is demonstrably dangerous to people is probably the least controversial reason to ban someone (obv referring to Brian James).
Interesting. I knew you disagreed with me on a fair number of things, but I didn't know that you would banish me before, say, Brian James.
I initially also read Jal's post as referring to you, but upon re-reading I think he meant the author of the post he quoted below his. A semi colon or dash instead of a full stop would have done wonders for clarity there, but, and speaking of the author of the referenced post, I have it on good authority that as long as you can (eventually) be understood "just fine", nothing else matters.
I might be the only one, but I believe purposefully and consistently spreading misinformation that is demonstrably dangerous to people is probably the least controversial reason to ban someone (obv referring to Brian James).
Yeah, I'd probably choose the lying scumbags like him, playbig and bahbah, but they've mostly all been banned or disappeared already.
Interesting. I knew you disagreed with me on a fair number of things, but I didn't know that you would banish me before, say, Brian James.
It's weird as to me it was entirely clear what he meant it was also a perfectly good post, far better than the initial posts with false certainty from posters who then claim not knowing is being the expert.
Yeah, I'd probably choose the lying scumbags like him, playbig and bahbah, but they've mostly all been banned or disappeared already.
Playbig added way too much entertainment value to be on my list. I'd probably lean in the direction of unfunny trolls like that guy with the Crusader logo and QTang.
Interesting. I knew you disagreed with me on a fair number of things, but I didn't know that you would banish me before, say, Brian James.
lol?
I was referring to the post I quoted, not to you.
It's weird as to me it was entirely clear what he meant it was also a perfectly good post, far better than the initial posts with false certainty from posters who then claim not knowing is being the expert.
No one said anything with certainty, only likelihood, You deliberately conflating these two because you don't like people disagreeing with you and then resorting to petty name calling when they tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about is the problem.
Here is a question. If you were a mod, and for some inexplicable reason, you were required to ban exactly three regulars (or semi-regulars) for a year, regardless of whether you thought they deserved it, who would you choose?
bob, trolly, shawnmul
A person could have a very anti-ban approach. Plenty of people here don't think anything besides being a spammer deserves a ban.
but yeah i'm generally against bans
but spammers, people who threaten bodily harm etc and those who post zero content and just insult others should all go
No one said anything with certainty, only likelihood, You deliberately conflating these two because you don't like people disagreeing with you and then resorting to petty name calling when they tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about is the problem.
No but Im pleased you now agree with me about something that is pretty obvious.
Small steps
I agree that to take a moral stance against name calling makes you look doubly foolish when you then name call. Agreement is good. We can agree on that too.
Now youve managed the small step perhaps you can have a go at the bigger step of not assuming authority over subjects you have little knowledge in.
I'm please you now agree on the simpl point about the cloudflare checks. I appreciate it may have painful for you to do so it comes with a lot of silly noise.
[QUOTE=rickroll;59187668]bob, trolly, shawnmul[/QUOTE]
This should be the easiest
