Yeah, like not making his arrest quota. No one likes cops who can’t pull their weight!
I would actually say it’s the exact opposite. I’m in the midst of a Walrus game there that includes JBro’s entries. Saving this forum from listening to it is my greatest gift to UP.
2 Likes
This is demonstrably untrue: I thought you were a terrible mod well before you banned me. It’s unfair to Tim to assume that your ban of him was the proximate cause of his grievance.
2 Likes
You’ve been a horrible internet troll for like 15 years. The fact that you weren’t IP banned on this site after your first post is a travesty.
4 Likes
Fuck off
2 Likes
No, it is easily demonstrable as true. Since for months here I have let potato and cuse do their things uninterrupted. So at best/worst I could be lumped in with Sven ad JonnyA as inactive mods. That would be untrue, but at least an honest review of my moderation.
That’s the weakness of bad faith posting. It’s very easily destroyed by using words that have meaning.
3 Likes
You think I thought you were dong a fine job before I got banned? Demonstrate this please, it seems patently untrue to me.
2 Likes
Why did you think yuv was doing a bad job? (You won’t answer, obviously).
It might be a language barrier since you’re from the Midwest, but I claimed you only think i’m a ‘horrible mod’ (quite the title) because I banned you. As does Tim. And I totally get you guys, getting banned sucks.
You don’t need to think i’m doing a ‘fine job’ for that to be untrue. You could just not consider my moderation at all as I’ve barely done any. Hence why I said lumping me with JonnyA and Sven would be at least an understandable assertion.
1 Like
But this is clearly not true since I thought you were terrible as a moderator well before you banned me. It’s a classic post-hoc fallacy.
As for Tim, we can’t read into his secret heart but he’s just given some reasons why he thinks you’re a bad mod beyond your banning of him.
1 Like
Why?
1 Like
It’s pretty useless if you don’t even pretend to read my posts or comment on the actual words I’ve written. Sad. You don’t have to engage in a conversation if you don’t think you can contribute to it. Just replying while ignoring the content is a pretty good example of spam.
1 Like
Also, the fact that his ban was 8 months ago suggests that it wasn’t the proximate cause of Tim’s desire to demod you. Or at least, you need to explain why he stewed for several months.
Trolly, are you going to answer Keeed’s question, you coward?
(This is a parody of Trolly’s words, for you would-be pearl clutchers.)
I will try to raise up a question for current and future moderators. Hopefully it can lead to an actual discussion with reading and replying.
The whole notion of overruling another moderator is something that should be addressed and thought about.
There’s an inherent problem with the way this idea is accepted today, if I take the word of some people at face value. It basically means that a moderator action is only an active one. Hence a supposed custom of never “overruling” another moderator gives an inherent “advantage” to acts like banning, deleting posts, editing posts, hiding posts, throttling threads etc.
If 4 moderators think a post isn’t ban worthy but one does, by definition pretty much that user is going to be banned and that ban can not be reversed unless the single moderator is either convinced (assuming he’s even listening or cares about other moderator opinion) or de-modded.
Maybe that’s the way you guys want it and it’s fine, but I would argue that not-banning/deleting is a moderating decision of its own. Moderators who were given a mandate to ban users were also given a mandate to not ban users.
I think it’s at least an issue you guys should discuss even if you just want to make this about bashing specific users and moderators.
3 Likes
What would be an example of an inactive moderator action?
Choosing not to ban someone. Read the post again.
2 Likes
Not throttling a thread so people can discuss moderation issues like this one, for example.
Not thinking “fuck off” is a ban worthy offense and not banning someone who uses it.
Those are decisions a mod takes. But if another mod thinks a thread should be throttled and “fuck off” is ban worthy, then he gets to do that regardless and is always within his right to do so.
2 Likes
When mods dont like each other and work at cross purposes, shockingly, group moderation will not work well.
5 Likes
I fully agree. Which is why I agreed to let cuse and potato work for months without intervening even if I disagreed completely with their reasoning and method and predicted exactly what would happen.