Imagine what the reaction would be if this involved other posters in a non-COVID topic.
Poster 1: I have friends in Kyiv
Poster 2: My cousin was in Mariupol
churchill: lol Ukraine
or
Poster 1: My nephew is trans
Poster 2: My child is trans
churchill: lol transkids
You might find this unbelievable, but I genuinely would enjoy if UP was a more tolerant place that was less focused on muting dissenting voices. My poll was initial snarky in that vein, but I edited it. I think banning RFCs in bans for awhile would be a good thing.
I never left UP and have been a relatively frequent lurker. I don’t post much because there seems to be little interest in a real community here. That is a bummer to me.
If that’s a riot to you, I’m sorry.
(That said, yes my post was a bit melodramatic, I admit. I’ll go back to lurking for now, good luck with your forum wars. I’ll probably still be checking in here on occasion, but don’t like the vibe enough to post regularly.)
You only come here to start and participate in drama. gmafb
You are the drama bro.
Anyway, peace… Out for now.
See you in a few months! And you can delete all these posts to so I can’t quote you later! I remember you calling for me to be banned. Weird how that works.
dont know if it has been addressed bc i cannot be bothered to read this dumpster fire, but, limiting users access in specific threads (they call them topics) was something I had researched a while back, here is the (frankly hilarious) discussion about it from the guy that built discourse:
TLDR version, “we wont do this because we would have to rearchitect the entire software (wut?) but also it’s dumb so we won’t do it.”
if you want that behavior you’re gonna have to make a specific category for that thread and then limit access to that category.
peace and love
I think we’d all like that, but what’s the solution? I don’t think your proposed idea of telling people to ignore Church is going to work. It seems long-term bans are out of the question. Do we just carry on the way we have been, where he pops in one a week to catch a ban until he eventually finds a better hobby? I’d appreciate a constructive answer and not just snark.
Do we just carry on the way we have been, where none of the Calvinballers ignore him and mods always temp ban him, until eventually Wookie and Goofy and Ikes find a better hobby than asserting they’re Authorities On Subjects who get to mock anything contrary to what they say, and then whenever there’s pushback from the mocked, bans get handed down to the unwashed?
if they do no one’s told me about it.
Short of banning anyone, what should be done? Maybe Wookie and CN ignore Church for a month and we see if the drama stops?
Is there a software way to force users to mutually ignore other users? Like if two guys are always going at it can the mods force them to not respond to each other?
They seemed disconnected, so I viewed it as two separate posts that were put together.
Even if this is a poorly-articulated post (and I believe churchill to be below-average on this forum in ability to communicate a point), it seems intentionally more antagonistic than it has to be in dismissing posters’ concerns about their kids. And I say this as someone who advocates attacking Republicans by going after their kids, even if they are minors, and who has probably had some posts hidden for saying intentionally gross things about Barron Trump. I feel like I know the game that’s being played here.
Anyways, CN and Wookie have demonstrated that they can be trolled by bringing their families into it, so look for more of that in the future, I guess.
They’ve demonstrated they can use their kids as ammo in Calvinball
As far as I can tell, no. I believe an admin can go into a user profile and manually set them to ignore another user.
It’s extra work for the mods and admins, but this seems like it might cut down on some of the recurring spats in this forum.
I read that thread, I’m not lying. If your dispute is with “a bunch of people” I’ll switch to “several people.” Regardless, it’s semantics. Not everyone in the thread was trolling. Several people were, and they were bragging/joking about it in that thread.
There’s fundamentally nothing wrong with spats. Spats are two or more people voluntarily participating in a discussion on a message board.
Those exchanges aren’t what precipitates drama. The drama comes when one or more voluntary participants wishes to silence the other voluntary participant via ban or silencing, thus involuntarily silencing that person and halting anyone who wants to engage that person or read their views in the thread or elsewhere on the forum.
Churchill doesn’t really cause more drama in COVID thread anymore than you, RM, suzzer, and others stir it up in crypto thread. The difference is the crypto posters aren’t running to mods to ban you all each time you post something perceived as dumb or contrarian or snarky.
That’s what causes forum wars drama, not posting disagreements. You have been posting on internet forums for long enough that I shouldn’t need to say that. :shrug:
“Spat” is probably the wrong word here. I mean, long running drama between two posters who simply can’t let it go. Like the the endless Jal/Jman ghetto/spicy curry drama that went on for year or so. Things get heated in the crypto thread but everyone involved seems to be able simmer down and avoid stuff that gets flagged. Witchta/Suzzer were needling each other the other day and both backed down when they were politely told to chill.
tbh I’m not really sure what exactly you mean by all “wishing to silence” someone.
You have been posting on internet forums for long enough that I shouldn’t need to say that. :shrug:
This felt unnecessary.
I guess short of posting horse porn, getting permabanned is impossible.