Should we compile a list of proscribed opinions? Might be helpful.
Definitely agree that people who make accusations of bad faith should be required to show their work.
- Holocaust deniers
- 9/11 truthers
- QAnon
- False flag school shootings
- “Black people had better lives as slaves”
3 Likes
I don’t think calling someone a liar or accusing someone of bad faith or other trolling should be bannable, although it should hopefully be accompanied by a post report, and such posting is subject to moderation. For example, in the case of an obvious bad faith troll pops in and a few dozen posts get lit off pigpiling on that guy, it’s better to delete the troll post and all the replies than it is to just delete the troll post.
I’m not a fan of Keeed’s proposed Keeed Protection Rule, but if the community does want it, then it has to come with the corollary that arguing for a sincerely held belief ad infinitum in a thread with a subject matter broader than just that particular belief is Bad Posting (whether you want to call it trolling or whatever) that is subject to moderation.
1 Like
Moderation like breaking the conversation into a new thread? If people are talking about it why does it have to be moderated other than a new thread?
Because sometimes it can look like you’re relishing in the hijack rather than participating in an organic subthread,
Sounds serious
But of course my proposed rule has no implication for the sort of moderation you’re suggesting anyway. It’s a rule about posters not calling folks liars or trolls. Moderators can and should moderate trolls or liars and posters should report such posts rather than resort to vigilante moderation. Indeed, that was explicitly stated in my draft of rule 10.
I think it is clunky to not have a separate thread for each rule.
I tried to handle this privately but I have been told my request has been denied for reasons passing understanding.
I asked that the title of the billionaire thread, which contains my user name twice, be changed as it is obviously misleading and meant to disparage me. I have not posted in the thread.
I do not see how this is an unreasonable request.
Apparently the moderation rule is that anyone is allowed to start threads containing other usernames even if the title contains false and defamatory information.
6 Likes
Clovis, I’m sorry brother, but you have done this sort of thing multiple times, and it’s absolutely fair for your name to be attached to every single time this conversation gets brought up. It would be like if someone made a title for me derailing about impeachment or something.
If you’re causing multiple derails or threads related to a particular topic, it’s only fair to give you proper credit since you are the driver of every single one of these conversations. I thought you didn’t believe in shame, and it’s not at all misleading that you were defending Gates, and often billionaires like him. The substance about that defense is what belongs in your thread not everywhere else. That discussion certainly does not belong in the ‘guillotine’ thread no matter how much easier for you that would be to happen.
Own it. The only charitable way anyone can read your defenses of wealth, etc. is you feel maligned as part of the class of people that is being attacked because you don’t view yourself in those terms. That’s your thread to prove that having more money than anyone can reasonably spend in a lifetime is or can be a virtue.
You purposely and knowingly lied into be title. Period.
As you knowingly and purposely lied in this post.
1 Like
You have a very weird definition of ‘lied’.
The title literally says, ‘clovis8 Defends Billionaires Like Bill Gates, and You Offend clovis8’
The purpose of that thread is stated in the OP. It was a placeholder to move the exact conversation that had derailed that thread for 250+ posts. Go ahead and bold any word in that title you feel is misleading.
In that thread, you literally defended Bill Gates (not about everything, but you still defended him) and have defended billionaires in the past. You also get very offended about anyone coming back on you about this.
And again, go ahead and point out where I’ve lied in the other post. Your definition of ‘lied’ is very suspicious.
The purpose of the title is mock me and mislead about my actual position. You knowingly and purposely lied. You can go fuck yourself with the innocent act now.
Wow, it never crossed my mind that the thread title is misleading. Nun created a thread to which the long Bill Gates discussion could be moved. Mods seem to agree since they did not grant clovis’s request of a title change. Airing the “grievance” in this thread seems pointless and groundless.
Let’s not waste precious forum oxygen on this silly issue (imho).
rofl dude. I gave you credit for the ideas you were spouting, and did not lie in the least. I am very tired of you trying to say you’re not responsible for these kind of derails, and wanted to make sure you were known to be responsible for that. In fact, a thread with your name in the title might become one of the most popular on the forum. It’s amazing how much shame you can suddenly have when you have no shame over anything else.
Except not a single post I made was copied to thread. Not one. Just the lie that my position is to defend all billionaires on a forum where doing so is considered the highest treason.
But no, it was a totally good faith effort to represent my positions fairly.
Ok boomer
I have not visited the “new” thread but I was reading the Trump thread when the “derail” transpired and I thought you were heavily involved in the Gates discussion.
I apologize if I am mistaken.
I simply asked that my name be taken off a thread that doesn’t contain a single post by me and I feel misrepresents my positions.
I am saddened that this is considered an unfair request.
I won’t post about it anymore