nope, that’s not it. You’re trying way too hard to make this something it’s not. Again, trolling someone about their children isn’t ok in friendly groups.
And yet people argue with goofyballer every day
1 Like
The first step would be to try being more chill and grown up. Be the change you want to see
No idea why you considered it a good idea to make a post like that.
Would you say your posting here today is chill, grown-up behavior?
I’m not convinced everyone here has bothered to read the COVID threat. The anti-churchill faction seems adamant that everything is obvious. So let’s do a dive into what was actually posted.
In response to someone else’s COVID experience, churchill posts his own:
churchill continues:
So far, I would consider that acceptable posting.
MrWookie posts a link to an article with the conclusion: “We found that younger children may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with older children, and the highest odds of transmission were observed for children aged 0 to 3 years.”
Trolly is Trolly and says:
CaffeineNeeded asks for data.
Wookie follows up with an excerpt from one of his links.
spidercrab posts some news articles on vaccines for kids, which gets these reactions:
This is where I think the thread goes off the rails. churchill’s response is to quote them and say:
I think this is pretty obviously trolling and it gets the predictable response:
And it goes on from there.
My judgment is that churchill started it in this instance. I would not consider Trolly’s comment to be the start of it.
If people want churchill banned, or at least more severely punished than he currently is, then you should be willing to do the work to document if he has behaved similarly when he has been banned previously.
This isn’t a friendly group and we shouldn’t write our rules under the assumption that this is a friendly group.
grunching, but why do Wookie and CN feel compelled to engage with Churchill? What is wrong with ignoring or scrolling past his posts?
1 Like
what if i told you there was a way so that we could all just not have to deal with churchill’s posts?
And it doesn’t even require a ban!
“Not having to interact with him” is not the reason for a ban. That doesn’t in itself mean we shouldn’t ban, but ovbviously there’s more trying to be accomplished here than “I don’t wanna see his posts.”
There’s also a way to not have to deal with you. And more people are choosing it.
you’re far too well versed in internet forums to suggest this in good faith.
My my count:
Mr Wookie (7), Otatop (4), Riverman (4), Tilted (3), CanadaMatt (1) and now JonnyA (1).
He also had Keeed delete a post but no ban. That’s just from the covid thread. I believe there was an additional ban for something else by micro.
Number of bans or mod actions is a bad metric because it is based on reporting.
For example, jman dropped in with this yesterday and was not banned or even hidden, because most everyone ignored it.
If Churchill or many other post like this, it would be insta ban or insta mod action, because you and others would be pounding the report post key.
Which I can safely assume you didn’t here. In fact probably no one did despite it being a perfect example of trolling personal attack, which you are so righteously opposed to.
weird how you guys are all super concerned about treating things differently when clearly instigated to the point you make up instigations, and then for some reason you’re not concerned about that at all!
I think you’re mistaken on that. I mean has anyone called for you to be perma’d? I’m confident any attempt to do so would fail by a huge margin. I’d be genuinely surprised if those three voted to ban you.
If I recall, some people wanted you de-modded, but that’s a different story.
That PM thread was pretty terrible, and he orchestrated it. His overall presence was trolling pretty hard IMO, which was disappointing because he offered a different viewpoint that was interesting to see discussed. But when others would try to debate him in good faith, he’d rarely engage and that was unfortunate. That’s a separate matter from the ban, but I digress.
How many people have been perma’d? Like three? In like 3-4 years? (Not including like spammers and Nazi drive by trolls.)
Is this even a sentence?
If so, I cannot decipher either its context or implication.
Seems a totally reasonable defense. And hardly the only one ITT.
you did the thing the next post! well done!
It’s a reasonable defense because it shows everyone is actually perfectly capable of ignoring trolling when they want to.
Just like they are perfectly capable of ignoring posts without citations when they want to. Just look at most any thread.