I can't speak to intent, but I can describe a way chez will frequently rile people up.

He doesn't allow people the right to disagree with him. When faced with a sharp dispute he will deny the other person is sincere. He insists they don't mean what they said but are just trolling (except he'll say something like being kids instead of trolling). There is no combination of words that convince him the disagreement is real and sincere. Since he believes all disagreement is insincere, he doesn't answer it.

It's very frustrating for me, and I'm just a reader. It has to be incredibly tilting for the people engaging him.

His insisting he -- and everybody else -- knows what people really mean is quite disrespectful. You can have your opinion, but you can't decide what my opinion is too when I strenuously object.

As I describe it, there is a real similarity between chez and fly, who also is quick to explain what people really mean. Certainly some important differences though. Politeness, game selection, and politics they couldn't be more different.

Sure I see the problem but that's because they're not good at it like I am.

Honestly I was riding the wave as there was a utooob tangent already taking place. I get that there's a utubz thread here but they all ran away from that one.

I hope I mostly only do that to posters like Fly, Trolly and the departed LG* and even then not when I'm modding. I've no doubt that others have long been frustrated by those arguments which have long since become very silly imo.

*I do tend to talk to people like they talk to me (within limits). I sincerely hope I would never respond to you the way I respond to fly

As a person I can agree but I don't think I can take it into account as mod.

DUCY?

There is a huge difference between me accusing people of being full of ****, which is an absolutely necessary part of a conversation with bad faith interlocutors, and chezlaw's gaslighting and trolling, Chips. My way continues a conversation, you can just push back and say that you aren't full of ****. (I'm right ~all of the time though, so lol that doesn't happen)

chezlaw GLEEFULLY trolls any conversation he's involved to an absolute ****ing stop with the same ****ing playbook, for a decade.

1) Accuse the other person of making stuff up.

2) Refusing to identify what stuff is made up.

3) When pressed on his refusal to answer any questions or make any point, he gets manic and patronizing and says that he'd love to talk about it but not with whichever person is dunking on him today. Eventually he "puts a pin in it", which in this forum is literally enforced with bans and deletions with his absolutely insane "don't mention posters prior written statements."

I mean, chezlaw does that **** as a THIRD PARTY, he'll intercede in a conversation between two people to ****ing troll whichever one is more liberal by lying about the views of whichever racist is getting stuff made up about them to be mean. That was literally the BruceZ fiasco, chezlaw furiously gaslighting and trolling the race traitor libtards.

is a typical shameless lie. But just look at the words this dude uses! "I hope"? What the ****, he's talking about his own goddamn conduct.

Though that's again the sort of thing that maybe should've been considered before modding someone who clearly disagrees with the concept of empirical reality. When I was clowning on chez for that time he offered unsolicited post coaching to a ****ing Nazi and goofy asked him to explain himself, it was super ****ing obvious that chez treated that like a creative writing prompt instead of just remembering what he did and explaining himself. No wonder he lies about why people get banned.

That bad faith interlocutor thing is actually super key to the issue. chezlaw literally will disclaim the concept when a right winger makes a bad faith post, he demands everyone treat it with the utmost respect, but he goes from zero to 'making stuff up to be mean' and 'surely you don't mean that' and 'do you think FoldN disagrees with that?' and all the rest in one post against any of his enormous enemies list, which has a way deeper depth chart than just me, Trolly, and LG.

lol

Original Position- It might be helpful if you shared your personal opinion about the BruceZ incident and chezlaw's conduct during that. Because that's where the animus started, chezlaw led a ****ing ****posting expedition from SMP to politics to avenge Dear Leader.

This

makes it appear that you're entirely unaware of it, but you have a 2009 reg date. So thinking emoji time over here about that.

There's a lot of leeway here Fly but no we are not going back over Bruce.

If you really feel the need to continue your venting at me then feel free. I wont be responding to most of it as it's so divorced from anything relevant.

Queen Chezzabeth II up in here using the royal "we."

uh yeah we know, you never respond to anything

Original Position does THIS answer your question?

Leonid Chezhnev, have you made any moderating mistakes, if so, can you voice some?

The "it's only a 2 day timeout" only works as a defense for the times you unjustly punish someone, which you are not admitting to here, right? So even if it's a 1 minute timeout then the right thing to do would be to send an apologizing PM to the receiver of the timeout and make a public post about it here.

Kinda seems like you just made up a reason to ban someone and are now having trouble with owning it due to what is possibly an unhealthy ego, which is pretty much the one thing you need from a mod.

Lmao

It's judgement calls and I except some judgements will fall on the wrong side whoever makes them. I'm sure I get it wrong on occasions. The point about timeouts is they aren't a very severe punishment - that is a good thing when there's judgment required in handing them out and it's part of the reason I prefer them to temp bans.

Yes if I think I get a timeout wrong I will have no trouble saying so publicly and saying sorry.

This is a typical chezzy discharge of pablum that completely fails to answer the question that was asked.

you spelled 'lying about' wrong, there's no 'x' at all

Nevertheless, it has to be better to have a dialogue with mods than what happens in P. I picked up a temp ban there for merely suggesting that it might be beneficial for the USA if Trump was assassinated, without any explanation or justification for the ban at all.

I think the mods just figured you were smart enough to provide the explanation and justification yourself, even if you disagree with it.

I understand the distinction you think you're making, between evaluating the consequences of it and condoning it, but imagine if someone had showed up in P in 2009 suggesting that it might be beneficial for the USA if Obama were assassinated. I highly doubt that any of us would be willing to give that poster the benefit of the doubt on the distinction. It seems pretty fair to just have a blanket "don't talk about political assassinations" kind of rule.

Also the US would probably we worse off with Pence. Would have been better off with Christie as VP.

Either way I didn't find it listed as a proscribed subject, so expected some sort of explanation instead of silence.

Standard temp ban for any calls or wishes for assasination and always has been. Mod prolly figured you knew. Puts the lie to the people who suggest only pro Right posts get modded in P.

Cheers, I can see how this would tilt people. I haven't seen chezlaw do this much here lately, but I don't know his record in the Politics Prime. Mostly my comment here was in reference to his tenure as moderator in P7.