Sauce on this?
This is a good point, and it’s problematic because a lot of them are not registered from the same IP so I guess there’s no way to definitively prove it. @zikzak?
He said so, but in his usual wink wink kinda way, so maybe it isn’t legit. Who knows.
I do not have another account here. Why do you claim that I do?
To attempt to draw a comparison between droning Assad and, say, using ethnic cleansing language about Republicans is absurd.
Obviously it’s not like NBZ is pointing this out to help us write the rule in a way that allows for valid discussions like the former while banning the ethnic cleansing language, etc.
1 Like
I put a “where most of us live” clause in the original because my thought is advocating droning Assad is permissible, but advocating the droning of Boris Johnson may not be since a few of us live there.
In before,
Narrator: @UKUnstuck enthusiastically supported the droning of Boris Johnson.
1 Like
We only have about 300 registered accounts, almost all of which are known regs. Ballot stuffing would be both very unlikely and immediately obvious.
Given what brought us to the point, I don’t see how we keep this out of it. In discussing where the line is going to be, were going to have to use hypotheticals and/or examples. We should try to leave bitterness and anger out of it, and maybe start from a clean slate - but at the end of it we’re going to have to analyze where the line is and what that means for various types of posting.
1 Like
Counter point: we’re going to get 60-80 votes most likely, and a 70% threshold has been proposed. If we get even a handful of illegit votes, then it’s effectively a 75% threshold.
I guess that just is what it is if nobody else is concerned about it.
If @SteveHarvey or @Narrator or @Narrator_Voice or one of the other obvious gimmicks vote I don’t think it’s huge deal to throw their votes out, as long as it’s established that that’s what will happen.
While I agree with a lot of that, the issue is that if we leave this all out of it and establish a rule without discussing NBZ’s posting, it’s just setting up WW3 the first time a moderator perceives him to have crossed the new line. (That is assuming that rule is approved by the community, which it may not be.)
I think what cuse did to skydiver today in the 2020 election thread ought to be against the rules. Some sort of rule to go along with post in good faith, assume others are posting in good faith and don’t rapidly jump to the conclusion that they aren’t when you can’t convince them of your opinion.
1 Like
It wasn’t rapidly jumping to a conclusion, she’s been clearly posting in bad faith and I initially corrected her on it, then she did it again and I became more hostile about it.
If you disagree with my posts and think I was out of line, I’d encourage you to go back through some of the thread to see the history on the subject. But feel free to report my posts and let another mod handle it, warn me, ban me, whatever. I’m on the record as not arguing with any mod action against me for anything.
Also this isn’t the thread for it, so I’m happy to discuss it elsewhere but I’m not going to argue about it here.
I’ve read the exchanges you two had and it is extremely obvious that she was posting in good faith. You calling her a liar based on that disagreement is ridiculous and I think that sort of thing ought to be against the rules, hence my suggestion here.
1 Like
Not quite. It doesn’t do enough to encourage people to interpret someone’s posting as good faith. Cuse has decided skydiver is a liar and is posting in bad faith so would probably say rule ten does not apply.
I vehemently disagree, I’m confident several others would agree with me, and the exchanges go back beyond the last few days. Again, this doesn’t seem to be the place for it. Feel free to report my post to other mods, or start a thread about it in About Unstuck.
(Unless JT wants to get into this here.)
Transgender, not transgendered
2 Likes
Yes, I am against all personal attacks as they lead to a toxic atmosphere.
The first fuck is as a stresser, the second is an attack. Totally different.
No matter where we draw the line we will always have to make judgement calls if it falls on the allowed or disallowed side of the line.
Remove the qualifier ‚excessive‘ from the first sentence. Remove the second to last sentence (excessive … moderated). The last sentence might now be redundant.
- No personal attacks. Many subjects we discuss here are sensitive and passions will run high, but when a debate turns into a personal argument it is not good for anyone. No fighting words or go kill yourself type posts.
3 Likes
By default assume good faith and be considerate of unpopular opinions that are offered in good faith. Just because someone continues to hold an opinion that you disagree with and think is indefensible does not mean that person is posting in bad faith. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, bad faith posting is even more destructive to productive discourse and will not be tolerated. But if a poster is making bad faith posts, report it to moderators or discuss it in the moderation thread (note: if such a thread is to exist, I think it should) rather than confronting and attacking the bad faith poster directly.