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.
I don’t think I am overcomplicating things. I am being rigorous here. People who say churchill only trolls are wrong. People who say churchill is being provoked instead of being the instigator are wrong.
I’m not really feeling either extreme in this debate, which may be one of the few where “both sides” is a legitimate response.
We have a handful of center-right posters who argue with plenty of us and are still generally welcome. They troll sometimes, but usually lightly and not personally.
The main difference seems to be they are viewed as making good faith arguments most of the time, whereas Churchill is not. There’s also the matter of that leaked PM thread with a bunch of people admitting to (bragging about) and coordinating their trolling. So don’t just take our word for it.
Was this a thing? Pretty sure it wasn’t. The forum is almost universally pro-testing. I believe you’re referring to an argument over whether Wookie should get tested in a specific situation, and whether not doing so amounted to harming others or just personal risk.
Nobody did this.
A point was made that mod actions count can be biased based on reporting. Lots of trolling goes unreported and no action taken. The more a poster is disliked by a prevailing majority, the more likely their posts are reported.
This is pretty reasonable assertion, and no, I’m not going to conduct a study to prove it. We have however had at least one mod (otatop I believe) that openly acknowledged his own biases in moderation due to this effect.
I have heard this referenced. Is it confirmed that the “Captains” do have their own forum where they post regularly?
Do posters here have a reasonable expectation not to be subjected to trolling about the health of their family members? If not, what kind of community are we, really?
Churchill lols at unvaxxed under 5s of forum members, jman calls him a spectacular piece of shit, and jman is the problem?
The more a poster behaves poorly, attacks others, and trolls the forum, the more likely they are to be disliked by a prevailing majority.
/Edited my snarky response/
Do you not agree also that the more a poster posts selectively contrarian views in a challenging way, they also become more disliked? I do.
I seems like a sensible idea but in practice, “just ignore all the trolling” has never once actually worked in the history internet communities. Which is why moderation is a thing.
Still, I don’t know, maybe we could all try collectively ignoring Jal et al. the next time try to rile people up.
We tolerate you.
1 Like