Yeah, and now I totally forgot what I was going to post. Thanks a lot!
Hereās jman joining the pig-pile insult party in the trump thread and receiving full sanction.
Thereās a difference between implying you think someone is a moron and directly calling them a moron.
What about implying that you think a poster gets sexually aroused by war porn or loss porn?
Agreed. Itās a problem when the more honest direct version gets you banned and the stealth asshole version get LOLs and likes from the person handing out bans.
I personally would allow it.
This forum has consistently been modded so that being an asshole is permitted so long as you obey rules of decorum. I donāt see a problem with that. Anyone who knowingly takes a bull-in-a-china-shop approach because they disagree with how that line is drawn isnāt proven a point, unless their point is that they are capable of being stupid. If I opposed how that line was drawn, Iād figure out a way to be completely obnoxious without crossing the line, until enough people felt motivated to change the policy.
Thatās why making hard and fast rules like āno insultsā does not work because people in bad faith will start litigating āwell what constitutes an insultā and a very general, broadly applied ādonāt be an assholeā rule works far better, because nearly everyone can identify assholish behavior, and it covers stuff that for sure should be moderated but is not quite covered by the āno insultsā rule.
Always good to include an example, so thanks for that. Youāre fine with that post, moderation wise, because you have only implied the moderator and certain members are too stupid to be persuaded by sound reasoning
We talked yesterday about moderation. Out of curiosity what else would you allow? Threats of doxxing?
Yes. You should be able to say that ideas are stupid. Saying that someone holds a stupid idea implies that someone might be stupid, but thereās plausible deniability that you might just think they are a non-stupid person with a stupid option on a particular issue. If we say you canāt label their ideas, then how can we criticize anyoneās point of view on anything? You might as well include a āno sarcasmā rule if you want to tone police to that extent.
Iād would much rather have the moderation policy to be to ask people to say āyour idea is stupid because_____ā and temp-ban them if they canāt/wonāt fill in the blank to cut down on the drive-by dunking on each other. Instead of banning bring up old drama, Iād have a ācite or banā policy and make people take the time to do the work of digging up old posts and quoting them.
I donāt keep track of everyoneās ban and posting history in a giant spreadsheet but from what youāre telling me now I guess you think doxxing is ok?
Donāt you mean youād fruitlessly try to motivate others to act obnoxiously
Has Cactus ever raised this as an issue? Most of the moderation actions I have taken have been the result of people who were directly affected by the behavior making a complaint. On the other hand, there were many instances where posts were flagged by someone not involved in the discussion where I and other mods took no action, as Yuv mentioned earlier.
I realize that it doesnāt make sense to always require the aggrieved party to complain because that can create an environment that is so harmful for certain users that they donāt even feel like showing up. However, in cases like the post we are talking about which, in my admittedly subjective view, is borderline, I think it makes sense to consider the feelings of those directly involved.
did anyone say this? like anything remotely like this?
Jman and goofy liked my post sarcastically to show they disagree. Thatās, at least, remotely similar.
Go ahead and state why you liked it and prove me wrong.
I can see why you might be hesitant to respond given the choices. Either you agree with my post or, like I posited, you disagree with it and liked it sarcastically, or you just click like on a lot of my posts as a sort of ā¦
stealth asshole version
of calling me a moron.