I agree that it’s bad when contributors leave, and it’s not good to have differing viewpoints shouted down. This seems like a tougher issue to tackle to me, so I’d really appreciate any concrete ideas about how to improve things on this front.
Why did you censor “chap”?
I thought it was sexist.
1 Like
Your position is it’s fine to accuse people of cheating? They should just put the accuser on ignore?
Warning people when they shout down opposing opinions, especially if they’re being nasty about it. Separating derails when they happen, but without derision or demeaning titles on the new thread. It’d be pretty simple.
But that’s not what a large part of this forum wants, including some of your fellow mods. The derision and nastiness is the point. You guys just need to decide what sort of forum you want. There’s a lot of interesting people here that are fun to talk to, but it’s just not worth it if that sort of behavior is tolerated and even encouraged.
4 Likes
In this case no games had been played.
In general after actual game play it depends on what evidence there is. Baseless accusations of cheating after games should probably be met with the widespread disapproval of the community and a retreat and apology. Funny how this hasn’t happened to gman in real life, though.
What’s the correct way to post when there’s a legitimate 99-to-1 ratio of disagreement?
Right, but the runners-off see these as victories not embarrassments, because they are shameless and victory of ingroup over outgroup is all that ever mattered once it becamse apparent that not everyone here was a centrist and America Exceptionalist. That’s the core of the problem on this forum. They’re probably high fiving each other in PM every time an out grouper leaves.
1 Like
Post your point of view about the subject matter, with like supporting points and stuff. (I mean I’ve posted dozens or hundreds of “Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed” type responses back when I was one of the bullies. But it’s pretty clearly become an “old boys club” atmosphere of stale ideas and a handful of shot callers in this place, and if the mods actually want to improve it they need to fix that first. (Prolly impossible at this point, and not something I would waste my own time with.)
Should temp-banned posters who immediately return to fight under a new account get time added to the original ban?
There is zero point zero chance that the gimmick was 6ix. It’s way more likely that Robbi had a jackhammer in her tights than that gimmick was 6ix, just based on the style of the writing.
NBZ of all posters on this forum probably post the most often the viewpoints that deviate from the consensus of the rest of the forum. Yet, he does not seem to be involved in so many types of disputes. Why do you think that is?
1 Like
Bans and silences in the mod action log should quote the language that leads to punishment. In the past, name-calling and directing profanity towards another poster have been the most obvious behavior that predictably leads to punishment. Quoting offending language will help establish precedent for what is considered an insult because posters here are going to disagree about what crosses the line.
Honestly, I think some of the people who have described as being piled on were simply not very good at presenting their arguments coherently.
1 Like
I don’t agree with that at all. But in any case, NBZ would have been permed long ago if I and a few others didn’t step in to stop CW from doing it.
I also advocated against nbz being banned
Excellent. Then it should be easy to see how close he came to being permed solely for having differing viewpoints that only a handful of the power brokers on this forum disliked. He doesn’t even realize this, because back in those days he never read the mod threads.
And the fact is that most of NBZs viewpoints align with the forum, outside of his wanting to kill and maim Republicans.
Well, there was one episode when a regular poster went off and got themselves banned in reaction to NBZ’s posting, so I wouldn’t say he hasn’t been involved in disputes, but my genuine answer to this is that NBZ’s posting style is relatively boring and he doesn’t seem to ever get riled up in response to people attacking him. There are probably a few people with him on ignore, too, which reduces the chance of stirring up a dispute.
Other posters aren’t quite as, uh, robot-like when people take issue with their posting.
1 Like
Don’t make me go back and read all that. Look, this is a forum with a few dozen active posters. It’s not the NYT or the BEE BEE CEE. I’ve been accused of “naked racism” and banned for 2 weeks here which was rescinded on a community vote because it was so ridiculous a charge, but the entry still remained in the log as a fuck you Jalfrezi and I didn’t get an apology.
Where was your voice asking for that mod to be banned?
NBZ may have some extreme takes, but I rarely see him attacking other posters.