Since you have a ranking sheet going, how does liking an off-topic personal attack rank versus a one-post reply linking to the appropriate thread?
2 Likes
So you think the problem is logistics and not that itâs a ridiculous idea.
Also, just so you know, You framing discussions in this thread as âpeople fightingâ is an insult, in my opinion, and I take it personally.
3 Likes
How about if we get a screenshot of it for posterity?
2 Likes
Two days ago, arguing for less moderation in general:
Yesterday, arguing that moderating calling people liars would be ridiculous:
Today, arguing likes viewed as sarcastic should be moderated.
This argument about likes is clearly in bad faith, and we shouldnât waste time on it.
1 Like
This is what happens when you post without reading. You missed where I called the idea ridiculous and blindly went with accusing me of bad faith.
Cliffs for you:
The point I was making in my last post to commonWealth is the unfairness of Hokieâs ban.
Comical that one can get a 2 week ban (not silence) for two letters in a post, that they edited out within 2 mins of posting.
Worse still for another founding member to be banned off the back of a post that member deleted way before banhammer.
2 Likes
Youâll have to come up with something better than that, because simple sarcasm immediately after making my position does not equal bad faith.
commonWealth managed to find a way to ban hokie for a quickly deleted post based on a screenshot. His arguments against banning likes also work against banning quickly deleted posts. See, I am arguing for LESS moderation here by saying hokie should not have been banned, and Iâm using commonWealths own reasoning (and I used, omg, sarcasm). For the sake of fairness he should reconsider the ridiculous ban of hokie.
2 Likes
Yeah, my bad. Cheers.
RIght, but on the other hand this new non-biased modding we were promised is truly a joy to behold.
2 Likes
They donât because deleted posts are still visible for mods to check, thereâs no record like that for likes.
1 Like
Would you be able to see which posters have the most deleted posts as a % of their total posts?
Itâs been suggested that a very small number of posters are abusing this facility to troll people.
âFor sarcasm is in poor repute among even the most sarcastic posters.â
-Erasmus, In Praise of Likes
2 Likes
It wasnât even really sarcasm, but try arguing semantics with that guy, am I right?
1 Like
AFAIK, likes become permanent after a short period. Banning for likes would be almost as ridiculous as banning for quickly-deleted posts. Even hidden posts allow for an edit to make them acceptable.
âYou canât flag a likeâ but I think youâve shown recently that flags are not a necessary condition for mod action.
If I didnât know any better, I would say that you were trying to backdoor in some old drama here.
Also: âDonald Trump manypeoplearesaying.gifâ
1 Like
Let me help you with your English tenses: âare abusingâ is not the past tense.
They donât and theyâre not logged anywhere and they also disappear from deleted posts unless the post is manually undeleted.
Banning for likes is much more ridiculous (IMO) because it relies on easily manipulated evidence. Iâm going to use Hokieâs post as an example because it was the post that caused this discussion and was screenshotted not because I agree with using it to support a ban. When a post is deleted it stays visible like this:
That particular hidden post is a different deleted post but same idea, we can click on the âView 1 hidden replyâ and see
Thereâs nothing similar for tracking likes on a post so trying to use them would be impossible to audit.
1 Like
I canât un-like posts after a couple hours, but point conceded. Youâve moved my position to banning for likes is probably more ridiculous than banning for deleted posts. Thanks for the discussion (no sarcasm).
