RFC: Permanently Ban Churchill

Unequivocal No, which isn’t in your poll

He’s only BEEN trolled.

At least get the instigation correct. The opening salvo was mocking me and CN for wanting to get our kids vaccinated.

And no, I don’t think that one exchange merits a permanent ban. It’s that churchill has been 100% trollling 100% of the time for months with no signs of slowing down, no signs of any moderator actions having any impact or deterrence, and no interest in good-natured contributions anywhere.


When every post is coming out of the blue to fire a shot at someone, why are you surprised that people fire back? He’s starting it, every time.

We got him!

I don’t know church at all other than having to painfully pay him a bet but don’t you think part of it is the disdainful way he was treated long ago when he was at least partially right? like none of us nailed the pandemic. i wouldn’t put him at the top of the class but he wasn’t the bottom either.

Lately? Yes.

It’s not just about guessing right or wrong about the pandemic. The process matters, and deliberately misrepresenting your own sources is really, really shitty posting.

But, like, it’s not hard to search his posts and see that everything is firing shots at people and continuing his dumbass UK#1 nationalism spiel. You don’t have to pop in here from a place of ignorance.


Ok but like we have people wilding away in threads they literally know nothing about on the daily and nothing happens. Like ask Riverman or suzzer to explain what a blockchain is after 15 years of shitposting about it, they couldn’t do it? Be consistent at least. And I’m not saying church is as ignorant as that example. Clearly less so imo.

1 Like

I haven’t been following the crypto thread closely, and I’m not going to vouch for any behavior in there as being acceptable or unacceptable.

1 Like

Those 2 post valuable posts in other threads. Church doesn’t. Big difference.

Only one of the quoted posts crossed the line to personal attack?

1 Like

Can you explain how this is relevant in a discussion of the value of a poster bringing up peoples children to troll?

The big lie here is that this has anything to do with churchill being against the consensus. He’s being a massive dick. That’s the problem

Oh so it’s ok if you do it in 1-5 threads but not all of them? Will keep that in mind.

Yes? I mean, obviously yes. Someone who is generally popular in many areas but is causing a scene in 1-2 should of course be dealt with differently from someone who posts 100% troll.

Church feels like his sometimes correct advice was mocked and not heeded. So he has turned into a troll because why continue to post in good faith.

But why should anyone here have a shred of self-reflection (well cuse did) about how they were wrong during the pandemic. Lets be real. The general advice here was not good, cause people to chicken little and also look like dumbasses to the people around them. Covid is serious. It requires precautions. But the general consensus here in May 2020 was laughably bad. I can run the tape if anyone wants.

Come on man. I’m talking about intent. Do you believe Suzzer and River are only on this website to troll you in the Crypto thread? The answer should be no. Has Church given any evidence lately that he has any other purpose than trolling the covid thread? This isn’t the same.

1 Like

They are only in that thread to troll yes. They also post it in the stonks thread. Why that should be allowed just because some of their other posts aren’t dogshit I’m not sure.

although many people are saying that some of their other posts aren’t so great either!

1 Like

No - both probably did, but I’ve generally given people more leeway for one-off attacks (or just asked them to stop). I’d just sent churchhill a PM asking him to knock off the petty bickering in the Covid thread, so he got less leeway here.

1 Like