What happened to the idea of tucking individuals into containment threads when they were mucking up a main thread? It’s a way to allow them to keep posting with the people that want to engage them, without taking us all along for the ride.
Bh did this! Repeatedly!
That’s essentially a ban though (containment to one thread). If you mean excising a discussion then sure. This should be done way before banning.
Ukraine-Russia non-American MSM thread?
Edit: I mean I assume that’s a joke (as is my post) but if not then that is just essentially chucking any discussion in the dumpster (labelling contrarian will turn a lot of people off instantly).
The forum can handle someone being wrong. It‘s not like this was going on for hundreds of posts.
3 Likes
I think it’s a bit better than a ban, but fair point. Judicious excising might really help. It seems like these problems really only arise when certain posters just latch on to a position and post relentlessly on it, arguing simultaneously with several other posters until that one thing just dominates a thread and makes it unreadable.
1 Like
I think that’s fair, and I think a separate thread where people can discuss the origins of the Ukraine conflict would be helpful.
The defense of what BH was doing needs to be frank though, he wasn’t some poor honest guy with a wrong position. He was being a fucking annoying idiot repeating the same thing over and over again.
I think that’s a dumb take, but not banworthy. Haywood is at least arguing in good faith imo.
I don’t normally get involved in this drama, but that’s an awful ban and needs to be reversed immediately.
1 Like
I think he believes his claims, but repeating the same opinion without updating anything when faced with good faith counters is getting pretty dubious.
1 Like
I find it weird that you want a forum where there is no back-and-forth debate. What was the “problem”? That someone posted a take that didn’t line up with forum consensus? And then came back and tried to defend his position after getting a ton of heat for it.
1 Like
I eyeballed it, it just seems like a somewhat less smart version of the OP. If it went on for days or hundreds of posts with no point, ok I guess. My main test here is is it being posted in good faith, and if it is, the level for banning gets higher than being wrong. Maybe being obtusely wrong over a long period of time would have been good enough for me but banning him now is a little pre-crimish. Just my opinion.
3 Likes
A lot of the counters were not in “good faith.”
2 Likes
Most were. Being snarky isn’t bad faith if you’re including an actual argument. Pointing out that Russia has had shared borders with NATO since the founding of the alliance certainly isn’t.
ok and @catfacemeowmers sabo wasn’t banned because river man didn’t like him. He was permabanned and it was unilaterally overturned by a mod throwing a hissy fit on his way out.
1 Like
@Riverman if you want to ban people because you don’t like the content they’re posting you need to start a poll. BillHaywood didn’t break any rules.
1 Like
He posted the same exact misinformation YOUTOOBZ repeatedly Jesus fucking Christ
No, he was given a 2 week ban by PC, which wookie turned into a perma without community approval. I raised this issue with Riverman and he didn’t bother to respond. He can start a poll for Sabo too.
4 Likes
wat
Uh, I’m pretty sure there was a vote with broad consensus on banning him.