As i said, it was a response to a deleted post.

Try reporting posts you have an issue with and you will find it's far more effective then complaining that nothing was done about the post you didn't report.

No, it quoted a deleted post. It was a response to something he's stated in his other posts as well.

And go **** yourself. You read that page, and my post was the bit you decided needed to go. Don't tell me to report ****. Try reading it yourself instead of just arbitrarily deleting stuff without reason.

My post wasn't deleted because it got reported, it was deleted because that's the thing on the page that you decided needed action. Do your ****ing job.

That 'President Trump' thread is really getting away from us. I think it needs a pizza party.

Is anyone else getting a vibe that ACEG is doing an impression of spank to see how chez deals with it as mod? I'm sure the current tangent will eventually fall down the rabbit hole until ACEG is asking "what is existence?"

ACEG seems to be on track to become a mod. Give it a few more months of relentless trolling and he'll be a lock.

Are you gossiping again? And in the moderation thread? Maybe you should self-regulate that?

Meh, I don't report posts, lefties do that. Chick-on peeps.

I have no problem discussing eugenics. Tesla, I believe, is an example. Found it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Of course, I have no issue with discussing any topic under the sun.

HG Wells and other notables of that era too.

Deeper philosophy thread is pretty meh. IMHO, and I started it.

I call for the immediate retraction of this statement. I would like to see 5ive severely punished for this false claim.

lol, maybe you should direct that post at the moderators who told you to cut out the bull**** you were posting because 5ive was right?

Hey mongo, maybe you should demand a retraction from this guy:

That is aimed at the moderators. You should mind your own business.

mongidig,

You are badly and intentionally mischaracterizing the forum's "citation" rule above, how it is interpreted and how it is implemented.

Generally speaking opinions and viewpoints are not subject to the citation rule. Refutable statements used to bolster an argument are subject to the citation rule. And if a refutable statement used to bolster an argument is challenged by others and the original poster does not provide adequate citation, then the original poster cannot repeat or defend the original claim in subsequent posts.

Also, while we are attempting to minimize the amount of name-calling and personal attackery in Content threads, responses to offensive posts may occasionally cross that line. My view is that this type of blowback is a natural reaction to offensive posts and will be tolerated to some degree and in small doses.

please link me to this new citation rule? thanks

I'm trying to understand why the rule exists. What purpose does it serve?

If it exists because there are vulnerable groups of people who are susceptible to offense, so people should make an effort not to offend these vulnerable groups, which is what it states..

Then what vulnerable group did I offend, and how did I offend them by criticizing Breitbart and linking to inaccurate articles that I claimed were inaccurate? That's what I'm interested in chezlaw.

Look chezlaw, if you just apologize and admit you banned me just because you could, and you just make **** up and impose it on other people arbitrarily as vague rules, I'll lay off you for a while.

ACEG

You didn't offend any vulnerable group - that would be covered by 1)

You did break 3) by linking to Breitbart.

The rule against linking to Breitbart was made up before you arrived so don't take it personally. As for laying off me - don't worry about it.

chez, thought of the drinking game!!!

I call it TROLL MANSION

Participants are asked to make a gimmick account of a previously banned poster. Then it becomes a whodunnit with questions and answers involving drinks. Last one remaining undiscovered is WINNER!!!

This can all be done in a separate thread. Also, if previously banned posters is not desirable then we could do gimmick's of each other.

So, Pinochez, any comment on whether you're going to try reading threads instead of just arbitrarily deleting posts that don't violate rules?

You in on troll mansion or not?

The fight for the liberation of my people is never trolling.

I am not sure if this is relevant, but when a decision is made that an offensive post needs to be deleted, then it is accepted mod practice to delete all subsequent posts that quote the original post.

The idea in that case is to remove the offensive words (post) in all of its incarnations. It is in no way a judgment on the subsequent posts that get deleted in the clean-up effort.

It's standard mod practice to read the page and delete offensive posts, but the mods don't do that here. They just arbitrarily delete the innocuous **** to keep up the gaslighting act.

To be clear, when I said "offensive" above, I meant it in the context and rules of the forum in question. Since I have become a mod of this forum a few weeks ago, I have read dozens of posts I found offensive in the general sense of the word, but only few actually merited deletion.

As this is a political forum in a highly charged time, many forum posts will be considered "offensive" by members of the other end of the political spectrum. If we deleted all of those posts, there would be nothing left.

To tie it all together, I find the charge that in my time as a mod here that I am in any way a participant in a "gaslighting act" highly offensive. I have no seen evidence of that phenomenon in my time as mod here.

If anybody really believes that any mod decisions are made in that spirit, they should report it in this thread, report it via the usual channel, PM me or chezlaw directly, post it in ATF, or PM/email MatS, and the issue will be investigated fully.