I'm not much of a Kelhuss fan I don't read every post but banning him (if that's even what's being discussed) would be some pretty pathetic self-serving bitterness.

Who said anything about banning? I'm asking him to stop distorting things in his posting.

I never used the terms "storming" or "hordes" which have very strong emotional connotations that go way beyond my claim. So you are going to gaslight me by putting words in my mouth and then censoring me for not defending the things I never said?

Also, since I have defended the claims I actually made last night with video proof, are you going to take back the infraction?

You have never shown a shred of evidence that the protesters are rich white professionals.

I must have been seeing things. My apologies.

1. You made a clear distortion of fact in order to support your narrative.

2. It wasn't an infraction, it was a warning, to post better. It was also not based upon just 1 instance of this, so the warning stands.

Sorry if you don't agree, but that's how I see it. I think I'll move these posts to the mod thread.

Which I could definitely do by linking arrest repots from the riots that show lawyers, tech people, professors, etc..

Anyways,

This whole episode is an amazing display of bias, as the actual premise of this entire thread is pure speculation with no evidence at all to support it. And yet somehow the mods don't have any problem with this.

The same as when Max claimed that Ngo distorted evidence Luckbox asked him to document it, and he declined to do so, and I dont recall the mods having problems with this.

Anyways, a lot of provocative stuff is said in these forums, often with very little evidence to support it. If I am going to be singled out and have proof demanded for everything I said, where posters like Shuffle, Max and Victor get free passes because the mods sympathize with their ideology, than so be it. I will probably just stop posting.

To say only this is to give Kelhus far too much credit. ffs, he wrote this:

Asked to support it, he showed a literal Nazi and a woman who got between protesters and police. Uh, yeah, this post was totally made up.

Man he just lies about everything, it's wild.

I don't think I can ever be 100% bias-free in my decision making, as I readily admit. I am making a good faith effort to be to the extent possible, however.

You just sort of implicitly admitted you posted to provoke here.

I don't actually want that, despite what you may believe. I think the unnecessary embellishments actually detract from your arguments, and you do actually make good points.

Fwiw my opinion (not that you asked, or are obligated to pay attention to it) is that it's better to avoid making disagreements on the substance of arguments the subject of too much moderation, especially when one is involved in the argument. I won't say it's never appropriate, but I think it's hard to do well and probably should happen rarely in fairly extreme cases. This is mostly why I almost never took any moderation action around either bad faith posting or accusations of such. That guideline was more a plea than a rule.

I can easily understand thinking not only that someone is wrong but that they are egregiously so, arguing badly, and ought to know better. I have felt roughly that way about more than a few kelhus posts. But I also think a high tolerance for fundamental differences in how people perceive things is pretty important to a diverse forum. I think if you choose a moderation direction that leads eventually to kelhus' exclusion on this basis then that would be a fairly negative outcome. At least from my perspective. Obviously I'm extrapolating, and maybe too far for a warning. But I think there's an important principle involved, and also an important practical problem with moderating people because you think they are arguing badly with you.

Hey, look, WN is back to offer some THOUGHTS on moderation for the first time since his departure! Shocker, it's to promote the right of permabanned posters to spread misinformation to their hearts' content.

But you won't, because you made it up.

I don't think you are quite understanding what he received the warning for.

I have not taken any umbrage with any opinion or argument posted by Kel. I am not even taking a position on whether his argument is right or wrong. However there is a consistent pattern of presenting certain events as fact, that are verifiably not, in order to support his narrative.

We cannot and should not be arbiters of truth, but facts are facts. I think this is more akin to asking someone to stop posting conspiracy theory links rather than some sort of crackdown on dissenting opinion as you seem to perceive it to be.

Erm... so who wants to fill dude in on the last 4 years?

I think the distinction you're making might be a little too thin, given the normal vagaries of communication. I'm not sure there's much difference in practice. But I'm also just going by what you've said about things, so Im sure I'm missing a lot. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

This is not a vagary of communication issue.

He asserted two clear falsehoods in his post:

1. That the mayor was making up stuff about live ammunition while he was actually DEBUNKING those rumors.

2. That the mayor was encouraging the protestors to arm themselves.

I have also done little more than basically ask him nicely to please stop, at this point, and gotten this outsized reaction.

I hope my reaction didn't seem too outsized. I didn't mean to be too critical of you.

Basically my view is just that it's often (though not always) better to make the points you just did as a poster rather than as an act of moderation, particularly when you are involved in the argument. But it's just my opinion, you should do what you want.

He wasn't "involved in the argument" beyond asking, as a moderator, for Kelhus to cite the claims that he invented and stop making **** up.

Rather than hollowly saying "you should do what you want" for the 5th time as you offer up more criticism to the people who came in to salvage the forum you wrecked and walked away from, how about you actually let him do his job?

I think you have a point there, although I would still contend that I am not modding the argument, rather the intentional misrepresentation of fact.

I don't think that's altogether fair. Let's be nice please...

Come off it goofy. WN was very well thought of as the mod and as a poster.

Any reasonable person would more than welcome his continued input.

goofy, you missed the mark.

I sure hope WN didn't receive any books after that modding stint.

I got a copy of No Rules Moderation for Advanced Players: Emphasis on Tough Forums. It was OK, but could have used a more extensive discussion on how to get rid of moderators from other sub-forums.

lol, this is absurd even by your standards.