On second thought, this post makes it perfectly clear that well named has no business being a mod either. Start fresh with P Beta or burn it to the ground.
well named has no problem coming up with nonsensical, long-winded excuses (which suggest he believes himself to be telepathic) to allow violent language to be directed at some forum posters

My response to the post you linked was to

1) agree with tilteddonkey that the posts he quoted were unacceptable (here)

2) apologize for having missed them, because they weren't reported and I skimmed over them (here)

3) warn the posters involved (by PM, but also in the posts linked above)

4) explain why the posts are unacceptable (here, here, here, here, and here)

I don't know how you got the impression that I was arguing for allowing violent language to be directed at some posters, but that impression is completely wrong.

being a politics moderator is fun, ain't it?

your efforts are much appreciated.

by me.

I got out of bed to respond to this :P

(Moral: stop looking at your phone after bed time. Other moral: use less words, don't bury the lede)

I guess it could be because the posts are still up and that, in your own words:

when the post is:

The strange part is that you feel the need to lie about "missing" this post, for example, when the very next post is from you, replying to Wil's post above.

Also,

still up, but somehow not against the decorum of the site. I mean, not blatant enough to actually be deleted, but there IS a note shortly after from you reminding people that it is absolutely unacceptable to mention family members in posts. Wishing posters get killed or were dead is peachy keen it seems.

If you're going to quote me, I think you should quote the entire post, since by taking one part of a sentence out of context you've completely misrepresented the actual point of the sentence, as well as the entirety of the post you are quoting. Here is the full post, emphasis added:

The word unacceptable is repeated in many of the other posts I linked for you above.

I didn't claim to have missed that one specifically. I claimed to have skimmed over "a few of those". That few being the last 3. I didn't make too much of the first one in isolation at the time. That was a mistake that I won't repeat, as I also tried to clarify in the links I provided above.

I didn't delete any of the posts. Nor did I claim to have deleted any of the posts. I issued warnings to the posters, and told people not to post like that any more. You're correct that I also warned other posters not to bring up family members. And some other posters besides that not to wish other people dead in creative ways. All of these things happened.

I can see how maybe some of that could have been a bit clearer (re: "moral: don't bury the lede"), especially because there were 3 different types of posts I was telling people to stop making at approximately the same time. But, everyone else seemed to understand it, whereas you appear to have not even bothered to read to the bottom of the post you're quoting back at me, even after I pointed out to you that you were misreading it. Wil and Sushy came into the thread to argue with me that Wil's posts should be allowed. If they understood me to be saying that they were already allowed, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

I'm sorry for the confusion, and let me be clear that in the future the penalty for that kind of posting will be more severe (there will be no more warnings), but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to actually read and understand what I've said.

If a post is unacceptable why is it left on the site? I think that is noodles point.

Correct

For real, this wil guy has some issues.

I'm not sure about that. I think noodle honestly thinks I have no intention of moderating those posts at all, ever. Which is wrong.

As far as not deleting the existing posts, it seemed sort of pointless to me. Everyone had read them, we were having an entire conversation about them in the moderation thread. We're having a conversation about them here, now. I'm more concerned that no similar posts get made in the future.

However, I've now edited the originals in the Trump thread, so if someone reads through that (hard to imagine) without knowing about this they won't get the wrong idea. I'm going to leave them as-is in tilteddonkey's post, because it will be a lot less clear what I'm saying is unacceptable if I edit them all out.

Let me criticize myself a bit. I think I made several mistakes here, and here is what I think about them

1) I should have been paying more attention. It shouldn't have been necessary for someone else to point the posts out

2) I should have written my posts about this in the mod thread more clearly

3) I probably should have given more than a warning.

4) I should have done the editing job I just did yesterday. As a general rule I think if I don't delete a post for unacceptable content I should leave a note in it that makes clear that the post was subject to moderation. People dislike having a lot of posts deleted, I've been trying to avoid doing a lot of deletion. In this case I think just editing out the objectionable parts was fine, and that's what I should have done.

If you had given more than a warning to wil it would have had to have been a two month ban, that being the next increment he was on. I suspect this is the reason no stronger action was taken.

Up until these posts, your definition of "unacceptable" appeared to be "acceptable", so can you blame me?

I have always enjoyed kerowo's passive aggressiveness. kerowo, where do you work?

as for wil, i think he's been pretty honest about what he thinks, got bullied, and now thinks a worse version of what he thinks.
i think wil emodies what lot of trump supporters think and nw you've created a new
muSINOlini

It's so hard to extend an olive branch on here . O well.

Wtf is this bull****?

Like, do you have any idea how ****ty of a post you have to make to have ME OF ALL PEOPLE come out and defend wil? In fact, until just right now I didn't think such a thing was possible. And I still don't want to as I think it's hilarious that he's finally being taken to task for those dumbass posts he makes over and over with some variation of 'we will wipe you people from our society' but saying well named was lying is the sweetest plum.

So, of course he didn't mean murdering people, are you insane?


I can blame you for thinking that because you know how to program a computer that means through some bizarre transitive property you also know how to read well.

p.s. Apologies LK that was a bit harsh. But, wil has been repeating that same derp for months, this time is nothing new. He's not trying to talk about violence and murder, he's trying to say something that sounds 'epic' because there's no substance behind it. The correct play is to ask 'what do you mean by that' then sit back for the lolwil.

To dive into the psychology a bit more, wil imagines himself to be a former liberal who was swayed to conservatism but he never really was, rather he was just a spineless jellyfish. But, he believes everybody else is the same way so that's a big part of where the 'annihilation' comes from.

He posted this just today, for the Nth time:

Wil uses violent language and imagery when talking about those who oppose him. If he doesn't want people to seriously think he wants to physically annihilate people when he says he wants them to be annihilated he should make that clear. He is such an awful poster he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from anyone but chez...