Log of Key Moderator Actions

[Rugby]

Unbanning Victor after rereading the exchange on his request.

The other two stand. Just piling in with one liners adds no value and makes the situation worse.

[Rugby]

Undoing the others as well.

[otatop]

I silenced Prana until tomorrow morning because he seemed hellbent on derailing the moderation thread.

Converted to a ban by request.

[Riverman]

I banned the gimmick until tomorrow for evading a ban and trolling.

[Riverman]

One day off for jalfrezi for blatant trolling.

[Riverman]

Gave Cassette the afternoon off for trolling and a personal attack.

[anon10396289]

Suspended @Watevs for a day for this too combative post:

@Watevs

Hope you die from a bomb bitch

[anon10396289]

Warned @anon38180840 to stop telling jal to ignore him, stop responding to him, etc.

There are excellent tools for users to mute or ignore other users. You don’t get to dictate who responds to your posts, however.

[Riverman]

Ctyri gets the night off for name calling and trolling.

[Riverman]

Churchill gets a day off for repeated trolling in the COVID thread.

[Tilted]

@Jalfrezi gets a 3 day break. I already warned him this morning about combative and inflammatory trolling and then he decides to go with this post hours later. I’m specifically referencing the age old “jailer man” comment. That sentence was completely unnecessary to get his point across.

RFC: Should mods have the ability to "contain" users?

skydiver, wooky and I think commonwealth who may have modded in the early days. Some ex/current mods haven’t voted. Putting posters into a virtual jail is hall of shame stuff. Imagine thinking that seeking a confinement order on a neighbour who’s too noisy in the street for your liking is any way to live. Even the guy who used to put people in real jails didn’t vote for this.

[anon10396289]

Fixed the spoiler on an improperly formatted @Danspartan post in the tv thread.

[anon10396289]

@j8i3h289dn3x7 banned for two days for this trolling post in the covid thread:

@j8i3h289dn3x7

“Vaccines are ineffective and or dangerous, and/or kids don’t need them, and also check out this study that shows ivermectin works!” -Churchill, this week

From a review of church’s post from the last week, only the ivermectin clause is even remotely true. Inflammatory and false post.

[anon10396289]

Jbro banned for a day for

@anon10387340

@anon38180840

Like without sugar coating it, what else do you call denying scientifically proven efficacy?

According to some here, that’s called basic germ theory.

Obvious trolling. He was also trolling in AM.

[anon10396289]

Forgot to explicitly tell @Danspartan that was his FIRST and FINAL warning for poorly formatted posts.

[anon10396289]

Permanently banned @jman220reading for ban evasion.

[anon10396289]

Permanently banned @jmanreading3 for ban evasion.

[anon10396289]

Deleted a post by @churchill in the covid thread where he posted an entire article in line. Please don’t post entire articles inline, just excerpt and link them.

[anon10396289]

warning @anon38180840 for this post:

@anon38180840

There are nearly 50 paragraphs in that article (I counted 48), and there are three questioning whether it should be approved and the process by which it is.

I notice you chose those three to excerpt for us. Trying to get a rise?

Don’t do shit like this, it’s just picking a fight for no reason. You want to comment on the substance of his excerpt, go ahead. But saying it’s MIGHTY SUSPICIOUS that he choose this or that paragraph? Adds nothing and picks a fight for zero reason.

Warning to not do this again and I’m deleting the post.

[Riverman]

BibleJohn permabanned for being a terrible gimmick.