I'm not at all wound up. But unless you missed my post, apparently you're the one now avoiding my questions, and I see that you're continuing to claim someone's avoiding a question that you never actually asked them. So again, what is it you're hoping to achieve for Politics 7.0? It sure doesn't seem to be anything positive when this is your initial reaction to a mod being added.

Why you can't just let a new mod get his feet under him before starting in on him like this is beyond me.

Wow. Really? I'm quite clear on what happened without rewinding anything. I didn't bother commenting at the time because I didn't see the point, but with the way Noodle's acting towards a new mod, it seemed relevant.

It seems like you need things rewound, though, so here you go:

I didn't bother cut-and-pasting in the quotes he used, but he showed that he had indeed stepped in. I completely understand it probably wasn't what either of you considered to be sufficient, but it's not nothing. And yet you both contine:

So chez has shown that he did indeed do something, but Noodle continues to be focused on him not having removed links, and for some reason still believes that means chez lied.

And continues on. The time stamps are irrelevant, because even without the deletions, he had done something.

You both thought there should have been deletions, and even chez seems to agree with that, as he did them once they were pointed out again. But you didn't initially say he failed to delete the links - you said "he did nothing". Not failed to remove links - nothing. People use imprecise language all the time though, so that in and of itself wasn't a big deal. But you guys didn't let it go there - when chez denies doing nothing, he's called a liar. So he demonstrates, with quoted posts, that he did take some action. That action wasn't what either of you deemed sufficient, so you point that out, and continue to accuse him of lying. Days later, you're still doing it.

Obviously chez made a mistake in not deleting the links initially, as he has admitted himself. You guys had a good point there. But apparently that wasn't good enough, and you've tried (and failed miserably) to make that into something other than what it was. Why? It hasn't strengthened your position WRT chez's competence as a moderator - it's weakened it.

Through this thread, I've seen that chez certainly does things differently than I would, in a number of ways. Can't say as I strongly disagree (or agree) at this point, because TBH I'm not interested enough to wade deeply enough into that forum to have an informed opinion on the overall situation. But that little exchange was neatly contained within this thread and didn't require much outside knowledge to understand what had happened. For me, I've come out of it believing that any posts ITT from the two of you need to be read with the understanding that you have what I assume must be a big chip on your shoulders when it comes to chez. Perhaps it's warranted, perhaps not, IDK - but it's there. And it seems to be pretty big.

Ugh. He answers the question that was actually never directly asked of him, and for which he was needlessly "called out" for supposedly avoiding it, but he doesn't answer it in the style you liked, so apparently even that needs editorial comment.

Welcome to the forum, whosnext - hope you don't regret it.

That wasn't what he said he felt insulted about.

Great difference. It's a general rule to lurk before posting. We all sin against that.

And, confirmed, your first post was February 23

There were multiple reasons why I was very keen to welcome whosnext as co-mod.

One was that he was looking at the forum with fresh eyes.

I think it was an answer. The long post clarifies things about the process leading up to him accepting mocking...eh modding. And Noodle wasn't very spot on by practically saying whosnext had never visited the forum. So his question wasn't very specific either, even if it was short. Shortness is not always a blessing. As EINSTEIN (wow) said: simplify as much as possible, but not more than that.

I can imagine there can also be benefits with "not having got your hands dirty" by posting.

I agree with your criticism of Noodle Wazlib's interaction with chezlaw, but I don't think he is being unreasonable in his questioning of whosnext. Competently moderating a politics forums requires substantive political judgements, and most posters believe these judgements are influenced by the moderator's own political views and attitudes. Since whosnext doesn't have a posting record in P7, most posters don't know what his views are. it seems reasonable to me to ask him to explain those views and why they motivated him to want to moderate P7.

A lot of posters in the politics forums treat the moderators as proto-politicians. One of the first questions any politician is supposed to answer (especially if they are a carpetbagger) is, why do you want to be in office?

lol, okay. chez took at look at the links, announced that he wouldn't take them down, and left. If you're going to call that "doing something" then I guess we have a legit difference on semantics.

It wasn't a "mistake", it was a deliberate effort to defend white supremacists, which is something chez has a long history of doing. Respectfully, it seems like you're giving chez all the benefit of the doubt while asserting that Noodle & Co. are acting in bad faith.

Maybe reserve judgement then? You're weighing in here even though you aren't familiar with the backstory of all this.

I mean, Noodle is kind of an ass, and I don't see any problem with letting this new guy run the show, but the fact pattern here is:

Noodle asks a question about the moderation in the moderation thread, gets no response.

Noodle then takes the question to atf, several people jump down his throat, no one actually answers the question.

That's still untrue and we have the tape.

The trouble for you is that you're trying to justify a story that you've made up over along period of time and it simply wont wash with people who can so clearly see the way you have operated here.

What you call 'defending white nationalists' has been me objecting to the way you and a few others attack, smear and misrepresent people rather than behaving in any sort of reasonable manner.

Yes, we know Chez. BruceZ writing racist **** wasn't a problem. The problem was people "smearing" him by pointing it out. We get it.

That's long over. Getting back to the point

White nationalism is a problem but that doesn't justify the way some attack, smear and misrepresent someone they think is a white nationalist - well it does to some clearly. Worse in their eyes is someone who opposes things like white nationalism but also stands up for being reasonable and not hating people.

You thought Low Key was a reasonable poster?

Hold up, I thought you finally agreed with us that the Britain First links were white nationalist agitprop? Like that's why you decided to take them down? You gotta at least keep your cover story straight here.

My understanding is that personal attacks/insults are allowed in some threads but not in others. Were the attacks/insults occurring in threads where that's not allowed?

Yeah that's the problem with chez, he always ends up trying to have it both ways and eventually argues himself into a dead end. At which point he generally declares it's time to "move on".

I asked him repeatedly which, if any, of wil's pro-pedophilia posts were unacceptable and he dodged it every time.

This is because chezlaw agrees with all of that ****, he can only deduce what offends liberals after the fact when liberals complain, he has never(not once) identified offensive content by himself. He, in fact, will generally deny that any offensive content is offensive and get about his actual passion: complaining about people being rude on the internet to people he agrees with politically.

Also one time he offered unsolicited post coaching about how to avoid MrWookie's moderation to a guy who posted a video about how the Jews are intentionally flooding Europe with Muslim immigrants. It's upsetting that he was modded, but everything that has happened since then is completely unsurprising.

I agree it was a mistake not to remove the links as well as the action I took The fact the posts were unacceptable hasn't changed. The fact that site is totally beyond the pale hasn't changed.

When anything remotely like that happens now then the post will be deleted or heavily edited. As you must have seen happening if you have been visiting Pv7.0

The new forum has those two different types of threads. In unchained all thread allowed attacks and insults. Politics will have to speak for itself. However I don't think that's the underlying issue here at all.

There's a different view about how to treat people we disagree with politically.

The poster in question here was an alt account of silverman, who's been banned numerous times for posting racist garbage. You seem to agree that his posts in P7 were unacceptable. So, I don't think I'm smearing, misrepresenting, or being at all unfair by calling him a white nationalist.

I'm not objecting to you calling him a white nationalist. Not everything has to be a smear or a misrepresentation.

His posts were definitely unacceptable and he was being sanctioned (as the tape shows) before the previous account finally caught up with him.

There are folks suggesting you're protecting racists/etc because you're deleting insults towards them. I was curious if the ones you were deleting were occurring in the threads where they aren't allowed.

LOL the "has no idea what's going on" caucus is trying to feed chezlaw lines now?

Yes we have threads where insults are discouraged, so that we can discuss content. Not many (if any) insults have been deleted.

On the other hand many offensive posts are being deleted, links to sites including breibart are banned and posters who make the offensive posts are getting cracked down on - one has just been chucked out if the forum for two days.

I've always regretted not getting out to do this, hopefully there will be an opportunity for it soon.

There was more freedom under kerowo then chezlaw.


Free.

You're confusing actual 2p2 politics posters who have legitimate gripes with the mischaracterization of posters people like marn and jonnycrash put forth.

This whole issue started up again because, after a decent start, chez eventually just started making up rules based on what the anti-SMP crowd was doing, while giving lots of leeway to the pro-White nationalist and pro-pedo crowd.

That's the issue. Full stop.

Me and many others who frequent the forum would like a coherent set of rules that are applied regardless of a poster's "side" in the SMP debate. That's it. Chez routinely gaslights and lies about how things are happening there, as he did during the entire two year BruceZ debacle. He is well known for gaslighting and lying. He is doing it still.

That the new mod was plucked from SMP was definitely a red flag, but I don't think I've seen any openly hostile posts towards the new mod in unchained. It's mostly a situation where the new mod makes a statement that's totally at odds with how chez has run the place, and people point it out. So whosnext is basically the kellyanne Conway to chez's trump.

You need to give the whosnext thing a break. Sure, we don't know much about him. But if he turns out to be a ****ty mod that everyone has a problem with it doesn't seem like Mat is opposed to changing the scenery of that place.

Maybe they have greater aspirations in mind about what they want to become for this site.