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.
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 I’ve been accused of “naked racism” and banned for 2 weeks here which was rescinded on a community vote because it was so ridiculous a charge, but the entry still remained in the log as a fuck you Jalfrezi and I didn’t get an apology.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?
yea this is fair - I guess I’m just trying to say that his style is not very inflammatory, and maybe the perceived feeling of persecution is due to the “riledness” of the content they post, whether with intent or not, and not so much they have dissenting opinions.
I think we’re talking about keed being piled on in the ukraine thread. me and at least a few others spoke in defense of his point(s).
There’s a difference between being run off and forcing them to throw you out the front door.
I generally don’t believe in hot takes or dunking on people with drive-by posts. I also usually understand and predict all the counter-arguments to what I post. Other posters sometimes act like their posts are definitive and should sway anyone with a brain, then become bewildered when someone still disagrees. The cognitive dissonance of someone intelligent and rational disagreeing sometimes breaks their brain and they resolve that dissonance by thinking the other person has to be trolling or arguing in bad faith.
At the same time, I think some posters may sometimes be framing their possibly sincere beliefs in an annoying and trollish way because they want to try to break the brains of certain posters, especially when they believe those posters have shown a susceptibility to being mind-fucked.
Ok, to be clear, I don’t want this guy banned for this.
So this is the kind of gray area I was kind of referencing. How do we want to approach this kind of post? Does it attack me personally directly? I guess not. Is it still a personal attack? 100%.
My fear here is that if we make some sort of strict rule it becomes easy to manipulate it so that your attack still gets made which harms discussion.
Because people think talk of murdering Republicans is less harmful than talk of Russia seeing NATO expansion as a threat.
They also think it’s more likely NBZ believes what he posts, because that kind of terrorist ethos is apparently much more understandable than talk of Russia seeing NATO expansion as a threat.
Finally, NBZ sticks to this one particular topic over his entire forum duration. So people just skip right over NBZ posts.
AQ the point isn’t that it’s some sort of severe attack. I made that explicitly clear. You might remember the old politics forum right? It had this same rule.
I was also very good at working around that rule. So good in fact, that you’re still mad about things damn near a decade old at this point.
My point here is that this type of rule, or any rule really, is easily manipulated by people acting in bad faith. It shouldn’t be the only criteria for what is or isn’t acceptable
It’s a substantive attack claiming that you fail to accurately represent Keeed’s views and gives a range of possible explanations why.
Attacks should be allowed. “Personal attacks” is an ambiguous term, since so much of politics is personal and it can be hard to delineate between a political attack and a personal attack. The rule against personal attacks should really be against non-germane ad hominem attacks used in an irrelevant or fallacious manner.
