Well obliviously not goofy with his nazi thingy.

But by most everybody else. Even where we disagreed with WN he is still held in very high regard.

FWIW, which should be near zero, from me, I think the defining line here is 'people representing positions that are opinion as if fact, and suggesting they have access to some facts but they are just not sharing them'.

That really irks some people while others seemed nonplussed by it.

I am of those who gets extremely irked with that and have called many people on this forum for it. It draws me in like a laser when if they simply made the same point but caveated as opinion, I would have zero issue. I might still disagree but would have zero issue with them holding a differing opinion.

On another forum, a long, long time ago I had other posters ask why it bothered me so much, why I took it so literally, and my view is, that it IS literal. Once you claim fact, substantiate it. Present.

Meaningful debate (whatever that may actually be on such forums) dies, IMO, if we all just site everything as proven fact (but I cannot cite) and are countered by other facts (they cannot cite). What is to debate beyond that.

So I agree with any moderation that addresses that, but then that is my bias and pet peeve, so of course I would.

Could the mods reopen... Would you rather be born in 1950 or 2000?... Thread?

I'm a bit curious if anyone has a different opinion now.

The posting in that thread is atrocious. It will probably just be more MAGA and SJW bashing? I think it's probably best left buried...

I have to admit that's prolly the correct decision. I'll let you get back to work.

Such a sore loser. I guess it’s inevitable when you spend so much time on lost causes.

I protest the closing of the protest thread and the failure of forum law enforcement to contain kelpus vile's disruptive riots therein. Van that violent anarchist!

Seriously though, open and keep kel the f out, imho. Take it FWIW.

Ironic that former mod comes in shares his opinion about moderating on here and then some members jump down his throat for sharing that opinion and they wonder why change was needed in the first place. You should all be wanting to hear what he says.

I understand the original meaning of gaslighting. It now seems a useless term because people mostly use it to mean blatant lying. I don't know. I'd like to see the current definition.



I am super happy you guys took over this duty. What's the over/under on resignation date?

Oh, so yer not going to bury the right?

In the original play, the man blatantly lies to his wife over and over about the level of the gas lights, the noises, etc. and insists she's the crazy one for saying it's otherwise. So, one blatant lie isn't really gaslighting, but repeated lying about the same thing, especially in the face of contrary evidence can pretty reasonably be described as gaslighting.

Gas lighting has to do with someone manipulating a target's sanity by distorting reality/truth in order to disorient the target. Disorienting the target is the purpose of gaslighting and they do it to gain control over the target.

Tuesday November 3, 2020.

I take the over. I think election night is going to be such a shitshow that you don't bother to get your resignation in until the morning.

Let me guess, you're the "target" in this scenario, right?

It is a famous date. It corresponded with the unceremonious booting of another infamous poster on here. Probably couldn't happen now but just signifies election day around here can be pretty hairy.

Life is disorienting. Requires no gaslighting, u goof

Just when he looked about to !!

So now kel busy polluting the George Floyd Murder by Police thread until it's locked? Man, I did not see that coming.

I don't think jwax' post in the Hitler thread should have been deleted, it was character evidence. And it was hilarious, I was going to offer OP to hit me up for porn tips.

Predictions on when it will be locked?

Answering this post from another thread, and a few PMs that have flied my way.

Exactly how to moderate the forum is something EADGBE and I discuss still. The transition was a bit abrupt. As I stated in the OP I am not personally very phased by aggressive posts, so knowing exactly when to moderate is very much a learning process. Perhaps we're on over-time for setting down an acceptable tone, and our waddle forward into moderating have probably been uneven. My goal is not really tone-policing as much as it is to stop 4-5 pages of back and forth slug-fests, since it generates a lot of extra work and my time here is somewhat limited.

I know many posters want us to intervene in factual matters. We crossed that bridge with a stronger clamp-down on Covid-19 denial, but how far we want to stretch a moderator being "an arbiter of truth" is an open question. The thought is definitely there, but at the same time many points that are factually questionable are born not here, but in a colossal political sphere with millions of followers and enormous reach. A reflection of the political discourse at large, if you will. So we end up with two sides so politically torn apart that the media they read or watch simply do not describe a similar reality, and therefore when they clash they presume the other side is an idiot, insane, lying or just trolling.

That is not an easy phenomena to moderate. And I certainly have the power to intervene, but is my bias speaking or is it actually about the facts? We have struck down some incendiary factual claims about specific groups or organizations (naming them terrorists etc), we'd had some dialogue with some posters regarding posting style on those matters as well. I think we can probably do better on assessing factual claims, and that was pretty much the subject of my last PMs with EADGBE.

Some have asked for a "cite or ban" policy. I think the reality of the internet these days is that you can cite pretty much anything. Just google "why is <opinion> true" and you'll find something you can link to. So if we go down that route, we're suddenly up to our armpits in assessing reference quality.

Hitler thread shouldnt be locked. No personal attacks. Almost completely on topic with the small exception of chez's outrageous trolling.

And debunking such garbage propaganda is important.

I don't often agree with Victor, but I do on this occasion. I even started a new ****-thread in protest.

Also, I did read you rationale for locking it - TD - hard to respond as you can't even quote posts from a locked thread. If I copy-pasted the contents to respond to, that seems a bit... well, like I feel more strongly about it than I actually do.

I agree in most respects. Its an impossible job if your goal is to please the posters.

When I talk tone and too much towards Mary Poppins IMO, I refer to things like when someone said something very dumb and i said 'that was a dumb thing to say. You are being dumb', and it got removed.

I was like wow, as I then thought to myself 'ok how would Mary Poppins deliver that same message so as not to offend'.

You not agreeing with their conclusions != their arguments being bad faith; just as their not agreeing with your conclusions != your arguments being bad faith. You are asking me to make a True/False determination on a subjective opinion and then moderate behavior based upon that, which would be problematic at best.

Also,

The posts you link are from several weeks before we started modding here.