I’m for the mods having clear rules of when they can make decisions like 24 hour temp bans. Anything longer than that should have to be voted on.
I don’t know if it’s the hangover of the election, covid fatigue, or just more stuff going on in my personal life but I feel like the quality of discourse has gone down the last couple weeks.
I try to just not read the drama but I find myself scrolling through it similar to how I scrolled through twitter comments when I was on the twitter.
I’m not leaving but I am trying to spend less time here as a result of all the drama.
Jman was being a childish jerk. Everyone knows that.
He’s on your ignore. That’s great. I’ll try to say something from now on if he’s going after you. If you want him banned, I’m not your huckleberry unless it’s enforcing the result of a vote.
I’ve said before I don’t want anyone banned unless the community votes for it. Apart from Anachronistic and someone other obvious troll I’ve campaigned hard here, harder than most even, for people not to be banned.
If we banned people lightly we would have lost NBZ, who I think most people would agree has turned out to have interesting and different views and is generally ok… and we did lose Nunenhi for doing not much wrong apart from annoy 2 people who didn’t want to put him on ignore.
The quality of the news is always good here. The discourse? Not so much. The deeper thoughts and dives (see mysteryconman) don’t go very far. People are here to learn tidbits and don’t generally have the time and patience for more.
That’s true, I often get frustrated the we discuss results rather than principles and philosophy. But most people on this site are smarter than me and I appreciate the info and insight that is shared.
I’m definitely not going to relitigate this but it was a lot more than 2 people and for a lot more than annoying people and you know it. No one called for him to be banned either, just contained, after a year+ of abusive posting. Your whole little spat with cuse is just the continuation of that same argument and it’s obvious to anyone paying attention. Very few of us are here are for lightly banning anyone, I know I am not and agree with you that it should be the absolute last line of punishment for very bad posters who show no signs of reforming.
Sabo thought the modding was unfair here and he was run off by it. I kind of agreed with his take, tbf he did take it too far sometimes with the counter trolling but it was always after the same people always came into his threads and called his ideas/posts and discussion stupid and tried to get him to shut up or called him an extremist and all that bullshit
I would concur with this assessment of where we are at. The post-election bragging and shaming and then the insane level of back and forth bickering has not been a good period for the forum. I also think hatred of Trump unified us and with that fading away we will be back to full blown attacking each other for our differences if we aren’t careful.
The votes are there. I’m not sure how long the poll will be open but @SensiblePerson’s OP rules suggestions have a 12 point lead and a majority with >50 people having voted.
Sabo was an odd one for me. He made lots of good points but also like to troll a lot too. His tendency to reply to himself over and over in threads was very odd as well and I could never tell if it was genuine or trolling.
So as a community we are happy to allow people like Sabo to be run off by sustained and concentrated bullying, but not for someone to call someone else a ■■■■■
No one should be allowed to bully Sabo or anyone else. I guess I didn’t participate in those threads because I didn’t see it but you are strawmanning with this whole “two sets of rules” theory you have. Literally no one here is for that.
The biggest thing we can do as a community is to try very to hard before we reply to ask ourselves if we would respond to someone “on our side” the same way. I am trying to do this myself lately.
So many discussions on here start with asertaining which side you are and then assuming the other side is acting in bad faith all the time and your side is acting in good faith all the time.
It leads both sides to defend obviously bad positing simply because the politics are on their side.