No more unsettling orwellian weirdness?
No, more unsettling orwellian weirdness!
2 Likes
i donāt even know what ācreating dissentā means but it sound sexy af
@otatop Can we get some more explanation on the the Kelhus permaban? I know it was said that he was up to his old tricks, but what exactly was he banned for.
Was it for the post in the COVID thread? Something else? Both?
1 Like
This place is not the marketplace of ideas. Dude came in doing exactly the same stuff that Iād assume got him banned last time while being boring and engaging very little when people engaged with him as he vomited out right wing talking points.
Do you know how bad at posting you have to be to get nuked in a day in this kiddie glove place?
7 Likes
The last straw for a known troll doesnāt mean making the same post a sufficient condition for anyone else to be banned. History and context matter. Also you cut off a really important part of my post.
2 Likes
-
Iām not even sure this reaches last straw status, so I donāt really care about his history. But thatās just me. Iām sure others have a different view on this.
-
If youāre talking about the scaremongering part that I left out of your post, I didnāt think that was relevant. Mostly because I personally didnāt think it was that scary. Again, maybe thatās just me. Iāll grant that it wasnāt exactly positive about vaccination. That should really not be a sufficient justification for banning/flagging. Especially when the DM article linked to the primary source.
Not sure why the kelhus post was flagged. Here is a link to the actual paper, which is in a reputable journal:
There are of course some limitations in extrapolating the results of this study in a lab to real life. Kelhus, if Iām not mistaken, is well aware of what they are and even if he isnāt, the authors of the study describe some of these issues in the paper itself.
Iām also not sure that there is anything in this study that would strongly support altering current vaccination recommendations. Itās possible I missed something, which if I did, Iām sure our buddy Kelhus will chime in. I only spent about 2 min skimming it.
Flagging that for a covid thread is an epic fail. It should be free to be posted and debunked even for this place.
2 Likes
It depends. Weāve had nothing but headaches when people dump articles with explicit or implicit anti vaxx headlines and provide no commentary. The act of dropping it in with no commentary leaves the impression thst the headline speaks for itself, but these posts are in fact begging for the āso whatā that follows (if any). A productive discussion of a new variant and its implications is welcome. Dropping an antivaxx turd is not good enough. Context matters.
3 Likes
This whole episode will be very revealing when the UP files are released.
6 Likes
Maybe read the reason for the ban? Jeez
The poster was permabanned for posting an article in which two regulars agreed that it was being discussed by reputable sources - two posters who would not have been banned if they did so themselves. Youāre certainly free have the setup you want here but I would disagree that the particular post was worthy of a permanent ban.
Disclaimer: I have very little idea how content moderation and banning posters works here. I know there are massive discussions about these issues and I largely avoid them.
It appears to me that there are two issues. Flagging the post and banning the user. Is the post flagged because only he is banned (or I guess āsuspendedā)?
And when I click on his user name, reason for the suspension is āIn the wrong placeā. Iām not exactly sure what that means.
My impression was that any post can be flagged and then a mod would look at the post and decide whether it stays or goes. Is that right? Can it be flagged again? Is there anyway for someone to know that a post was flagged and deemed acceptable, so that they know not to flag it again?
Nope. Read the reason in the mod log.
Not sure why youāre asking me this. I sure as shit donāt have any say in moderation here. Iām just capable of reading the mod log.
I guess one thing you could help me out with is the āread the reason for the banā. Is it āIn the wrong placeā or is there something else. If thatās all, then what exactly does āIn the wrong placeā mean.
Edit: Just saw this part
I didnāt even really know we had one of those.
Edit: OK, I just found the mod log thread. I assume that further discussion of this should be in the about moderation thread, so I guess Iāll carry on there.
1 Like
Hereās the explanation in the mod log. The first two paragraphs of the quote came from Tilted when he was mod and the rest is from otatop for the most recent ban.
Silenced @Scylvendi for a few months. It was discussed back when he started posted here that he was a previously multi banned poster with questionable views from 2+2. The suspension ran out and they immediately come back to post views such asā¦ āVaccines are giving people heart disease and killing everyoneā and āMaybe we should stop focusing on racismā.
Someone can make a thread on if they want to permaban, remove silence, or disagree.
Wouldnāt you know it the silencing ended and Scylvendi (aka kelhus) went right back to his old tricks.
Permanently suspended, have fun over at Breitbart or wherever.
What are āhis old tricksā referring to here if not posting an article?
I asked this in the about moderation thread. I think we should probably continue over there. Kelhus has made some dumb posts (but not bannable, imo) in other threads so maybe it could be that. Iāve got no idea.
1 Like
We (unfortunately) already have a place for stupid moderation discussions. This isnāt it.
2 Likes
Right, hiding the article above was clearly a misclick.