For starters, you declared on your own that you were playing devil’s advocate. Devil’s advocacy is literally bad faith – it’s posting arguments you don’t believe in to solicit a response from people! To the extent that it may be useful, the situations where I can figure it might be are intellectual exercises (such as debate team prep), or raising no more than a token argument in the face of unanimous opposition to verify that the position is reasoned – and backing down when given an argument that it is. The c-word debate was neither of those things. It was serious, at least as far as internet forums go, and you were on the more popular side. Now, perhaps you want to claim that in fact you were arguing a sincerely held belief. Well, masking a sincerely held belief as devil’s advocacy would itself be bad faith.
In mod correspondence, you looked far more interested in finding out precisely where the moderation line is rather than being safely inside it. That is textbook bad faith. The name of the game is not to troll to the maximum extent allowed without drawing a ban.
Your devil’s advocacy wasn’t even self-consistent. You would have lost your proposed bet with jman, because hitching your wagon to the idea (one that strained credulity that someone could sincerely believe it in the first place) that the c-word appearing in a low percentage of total posts means it’s no issue and then throwing that all away to argue that banning a tiny percentage of words is still a travesty was a pretty clear demonstration that you were just tossing shit you didn’t believe against the wall for its own sake in service of getting a rise out of your opponents. That is most definitely bad faith.
Devil’s advocacy isn’t bad faith. If you’re saying that you’re bringing up an argument as a devil’s advocate, you’re saying that you’re not necessarily backing this viewpoint but you’re interested in the response to that viewpoint. It might be bad faith if you’re making the same argument while not believing it but not saying that you’re making a devil’s advocate argument; saying that it’s a devil’s advocate argument makes it more good faith, not less.
I’ve just skipped the last 50 posts but I will be alone for the next 3 days as my wife works Covid and I hide out at home. Lets do some booze discord therapy. That means you @churchhill@anon38180840@Jalfrezi and whoever else wants to join. I cant even do it after like 9pm cst because the wife has to sleep so it should work fantastically for the euros. I know i left out a ton of people. Literally everyone can come and we can talk shit. Wtf happened to @6ix anyways. That guy was awesome election days. If no one wants to that’s fine but i guarantee this can be solved over beers and jokes if people let it happen.
I dgaf if we just play jackbox and talk shit even.
You and I obviously depart on definitions of “bad faith”. Devil’s advocacy is not bad faith in my book, but you’re the mod.
I didn’t realise that a private message with one mod was a private message with all mods. Noted.
I would have lost the bet you propose above, but that’s not even close to the bet I proposed. The bet I proposed was regarding which post got (or would) get me banned.
6ix comes when you beckon him usually. He asked me to tag him if he’s needed. We should play Among Us or some shit but I’ve still not hooked up my gaming mic. I could.
Just to respond to this specifically - if I am getting moderated when another poster is attacking me, then yeah, sure, I want to know where the line is. I have no problem with being attacked, personally or otherwise, by any poster here. I do have a bit of a problem when my responses get moderated, though.
Well, if you want to admit to being an angle shooter, that is fine and should be noted. The post jman quoted was the post that convinced me to ban you. If you don’t think that means you should have paid based on the terms you stated, I guess I should not expect any better from a guy who says he’ll only respond to direct replies to him and then claims he gets to respond to posts that mention him even if not direct replies.
I was under the impression coming back with a new account was frowned upon when temp banned? If we don’t have a rule on this we probably should have because it’s rampant atm.
You just download discord, open the link to the room, plug a headset in and join the voice channel. I guess some people have issues still, but they can usually be resolved by going into the audio output settings and changing the output to the correct device.
Say you had a partnership in a business. You think one officer or something should be able to remove a partner that easily? 2p2 could permaban left and right because Mason and whoever absolutely owned the site and they authorized mods to do it. We haven’t done anything like authorize mods to permaban a reg/member/owner/partner.
You want them perma’d, start a thread and a poll.
At least start a thread about adding the “ghost account → permaban” policy.
