where does one opt out? and can one still participate while opted out?

If Hillary Clinton got a twoplustwo account but stayed out off politics would she be off limits for discussions?

No. Clinton is a political topic in her own right. Same for trump even if, as seems likely, he got himself banned

We can argue forever about how it happened and what the possible implications are for future neo-Nazi types who try to stay within the forum rules, but I'd like to say how glad I am that finally a poster as obviously duplicitous and racist as TS has been banned.

Yes they can participate in the non-!!! threads but no they can't participate in the !!! threads.

The opt outs are for any posters who don't want to get involved in attacks on other politics posters or be subject to them themselves. So it requires both a request (here will do) and the reality of not attacking/etc others. Posters will also be able to change their minds about their opt out status. I'm aware people might try to game it so:

a) there will be a period after requesting the opt out when the poster will have to grin and bear it without attacking others. I'll determine the period but it will be based on the minimum required to prevent abusing the opt outs.

b) any other forum or threads used to attack politics posters will risk invalidating the opt out just as much as posting in a !!! thread.

It is soothing, to me at least, that Chez is living up to his undertitle. Job well done I say. And posters should aim to keep their sniveling to a minimum. Comrade Chez is not someone to be trifled with. No mod worth his stripes should.

The problem here, in a hypothetical thread regarding unbanning a poster, those who are "yay" can post, while those who are "nay" cannot. If this is how it's going to be, I can't see any reason to tolerate these un-ban threads here at all.

zan nen was banned in 2011. I can't call him odious forever here in Baja?

Why does anyone need a "right of reply" when anonymity on this site is optional? Who do you think will be harmed by talking about a banned poster?

So banned posters need a safe space?

I tend to agree and I've closed it.

I'm not doing exiles but if I did then I'd allow an exception so they could participate in any thread about them returning.

Never heard of him but his under title is temp-banned. Why would you care much anyway?

He isn't banned, he is exiled. Beyond that, the fact that anonymity is an option doesn't mean some posters don't know each other outside of the forum.

A right to reply is basic decency imo. On the other hand there's not much reason to discuss a poster who cant post anymore.

OK VG.

The story is that he was perma-banned from a cell phone or something. My question is when a poster get's banned, can they ever be referenced ever again here in Baja? How about posters who slink away with their tails between their legs. Without naming names, or quoting quotes, there was a foemer mod here in Politardia who escrowed the FFB prize money, and then absconded with the cash. He was never banned. Can he be referenced here in Baja?

Is it possible that you aren't the sole arbiter of what people want to post about?

I'll try to be reasonable about it. If someone isn't banned, exiled or opted out then it isn't even an issue. I can't give a blanket ruling on such a serious claim - I'm not even sure what the 2+2 rules are.

Talking about what content can't be produced in a content thread generates a warning about forbidden topics! What a ****ing joke.

Discussion about moderation issues is not going to be allowed to derail content threads. If there's any questions about the decision on what is content then bring it here.

Posters can even bring it here first if you aren't sure. Lets keep the content threads flowing as much as possible

Foldn got a warning for saying people had misrepresented him ffs.

He said posters had twisted his words and referenced the !!! thread. I don't see how that can be pursued without bringing into the content thread the attacks/etc that aren't allowed.

So is the expectation here that all threads are self-contained?

For the record, I didn't attack the fool. He claimed my union was calling for violence. I find his calumny offensive. At no time did I make any kind of attack.

Not necessarily, the instruction was to take care. The intent is to avoid the introduction of !!! derails.

and he said you were twisting his words. I'm not making even looking into the merits of it - it's exactly the sort of thing that needs to stay in !!! threads.

Which is attacking me. To review: the only attack was from that fool, which he choose to spew for whatever reasons in an entirely unrelated thread. Of course that kinda cross-thread spewing should be discouraged. My only quibble was me being accused of making attacks too.

**** Generally Unrelated Point of Discussion ****



What we have here in this recent attack is an example of what I call "Strawman Trolling". This was a favorite tactic of the ACers back in the day. They would spew their spew. Us normals would try to make sense of their spew. They would accuse us normals of "strawmanning" them, often by posting a "STRAWMAN" meme without comment. They would also refuse to clarify their spew, of course, as avoiding doing so was their goal. And thus a thread was derailed.

Now, I know that unauthorized use of the r-word is allegedly the primary cause of derailed conversations (... if only the SJWers wouldn't be so mean, blah, blah, blah). But this kinda "strawman trolling" is also a cause of derailed conversations.

I propose that when someone thinks they are being misrepresented, they should be encouraged to: (a) ignore it, (b) clarify their comments to correct the mistake, (c) take it to a moderation thread if they feel this misrepresentation rises to an attack. Likewise, refusing to do any of the above, and instead attempting to derail a thread by "strawman trolling", should be sanctioned in the exact same manner as making personal attacks in a non /|\ thread.

I'll take the most charitable interpretation of this as I can, and assume you just egregiously misread my posts. To me, this is a demonstration of the sort of offense taking pathology I've been discussing in the PC thread, and how it's then used to attempt to shame people into submission with unwarranted accusations and smears.

FTR, I was talking to Fly about his calling Milo a fascist, I was not referring to your union.

I'm sorry about your union brother. **** is getting pretty real, and I'm continuing to become more concerned every day.

This is clarifying your comments to correct my mistake. That's what you should have done in the first place. Instead you attacked me in an unrelated thread.

No. It's an example of your piss poor posting.

Your read was so egregiously wrong, I couldn't imagine you didn't misinterpret it on purpose. It looked malicious. Simply read the comments above and below it, and I think your mistake should be very obvious.

Maybe Chez and you are right that I shouldn't have brought it to the other thread. I sensed that, and so I just provided the link instead of calling you out by name. I not sure what was reasonable there, as it seemed like such a good example.

Perhaps not though, since you do seem to be accepting the clarification of what I think was too obvious from the start, that the posts should not have been offensive to you, a luxury not given to Ellen or intel in that thread.

Also, you are super upset about your union brother, which is understandable. And I can see that leading to a misread. So, again, I'm sorry.