You are clearly extremely resistant to any changes to the forum and clearly resent the fact that an "outsider" is the one initiating the changes. But changes are almost always driven by a "new set of eyes" looking at things. You think the forum is just fine the way it was a month ago. So you can't see why anything needs to change, and seem to have taken any mention of problem areas as a personal insult.

But this forum has not been thriving; the number of people who regularly post here is tiny; few if any new people start posting here and stay because they enjoy the "localized culture" that you cherish. I have actually made comments pointing out good discussions when they have occurred. But I really don't understand what you expect me to do when you say talk about the good things more.

I'm not some sort of forum magazine review writer outlining the good things and bad things I see in this forum. I'm a moderator whose job it is to ensure that the rules of the website are followed and disputes between members are addressed. Should I decide to post my own personal opinions in the threads, that is doing it, as we say, by taking my mod hat off. You seem to feel that I must somehow prove myself as a regular poster in order to be able to moderate this forum. I don't. Some mods chose to never post in the forums they mod in order to appear neutral in any dispute. Some participate fully. But mods of both styles can equally address rules infractions and poster disputes. Whether I eloquently post about the pros or cons of solar panels is immaterial.

Well, obviously there is a problem then, if you have been posting the exact same quote that I did for years and referring to it as the Carlin meme. Because your other post had a different Carlin quote, with a completely different meaning, yet you also referred to that as the Carlin meme and said everyone knew what you meant. That's like posting a picture of an elephant, then a picture of a tiger, calling them both the animal meme, and claiming everyone knows exactly what you're animal you're referring to.

Obviously not everyone here knows exactly what you are referring to. And clearly any reader visiting our forum would not. And when, exactly, was the last time you posted the image and the quote? Likely not in the last month, since I've been reading the forum, though I guess it could be in a little used threads. Two months. Six months? I wonder how long someone is considered a noob who must ask for the code book to decipher the meaning you attach to an undefined term. It seems to me that it is a better communication technique to use terms everyone can understand.

i am happy for changes and have suggested many (such as rid the forum of empty posting) for ages now. I agree, generally, that changes are needed to stop the trolling type exchanges that form with no rules. And I think we are on the right path and i can see signs of that now.

But uke is for changes as well, but very specific changes only. Ones that would empower certain people to be able to get away with the worst forum practices, imo, of not being able to be called out when they do something wrong.

There are certain people here who have weaponized that type of 'hit and run' tactic and they see, in Moderation, a potential path to protecting that practice, when it should be instead, held to account.

When you see me argue against moderation, is is near universally me showing and demonstrating where it will fail, or can easily fail, and i do so as many people are not good at that skill. They would impose rules only to run into an 'oops, who would have thought of that' type situation where their rule hits a dead and falls apart. I happen to be excellent at identifying and seeing those type of 'down the road', pitfalls or failures and will continue to push for sound reasoning and rules that will not fail or cannot be exploited because 'oops who would have thought of that'.

Did I miss it, or were you about to make a post saying "you're right browser" ? Or was your reply to my third post explaining my position going to be the same as your first two? I wasnt making that as a generalized statement of all arguments. I was specifically addressing our current discussion.

No. Because the moderator wont be there in real time to make that call. So it's up to the posters themselves to make that call. They will know if they agree to disagree or not. If they do, and move on, there is no problem with clogging the thread. If they don't and continue to argue over it with no resolution, then that's potentially a problem. If they go a couple more posts then stop, fine. Beyond thst they need to shift their heads up battle to the clog thread. But if I show up hours later and find a dozen more posts clogging the thread, I'll likely delete them.

[/QUOTE]There is even a difference just in tone. If you said something like "I think I've said all I'll say on it for now" that's one thing. But "If you post any more it will be deleted" is quite another. It's a power dynamic.[/QUOTE]

Here's what I actually said to end our back and forth in this thread:

"So it's time to move on from this point. I'm not going to have a middle category for modding insults. I've told you why. You dont agree. Nothing will change if we make a dozen more posts on it. But if you wanted to make another point (or repeat the same point using other words) then by all means do it. But over in the clog thread."

Doesnt seem like a power trip to me.

In an earlier exchange, I did say this:

"If you wish to respond again on this topic, do it over in the stop the clog thread. Do not respond to it itt or it will be deleted."

So unlike your example that I said "if you post anymore it will be deleted" I actually make it clear that you can continue to respond, just put it in the other thread. I put the comment about deleting responses itt so you would know that if you insisted on putting it in this thread despite being told it belongs in the other thread that I was not going to move it for you, and it would be deleted.

Cuepee is actually a young earth creationist as well. We've gone back and forth about it for years. I'm not going to supply any quotes and if he now says that he understands the Earth is billions of years old he's joined my team and finally agrees with the view I've always held.

It is not the equivalent, because some people believe that Trump is a lot of liar, and I don't think anyone believes you show anything with the use of the Carlin meme.

Also, a question cannot be equivalent to a statement. I asked you if you think anyone learns anything from your use or if anyone agrees with you.

You didn't bother to answer either of my questions, which speaks volumes. I think you're having a moment of cognitive dissonance because on some level you know that no on here agrees with you on your usage, and it makes you look foolish, not them.

Yet I have never seen an instance of its mention accomplishing anything.

Do you really think the references to Carlin meme create a "fun culture"?
I think it is exactly the opposite.
After I figured out what it meant, it just comes across as a brutal insult.
QP just said he uses it in an attempt the make people embarrassed and go on rants.

And there is almost nothing likable about the previous state of this forum. It was about 90% hateful pointless insults and 10% productive discussion. It's a case in which the bathwater was so fetid, that it really isn't so bad if the baby gets thrown out with it. You can always make a new baby.

Power is necessary to drain the swamp.

Ahhh so the differentiator in your view is who agrees with whom on what accusation.

You and others think accusing 'X' is fine as you think many agree with you.

You think it would be wrong for me to asset same about 'X' if you do not think i am correct nor any of the people, if any, who agree with me.

Is that right?

is that what you think should be the modding line?


(i wonder if you can see how you are treading on the Carlin Meme here btw?)

That ratio is about right imo.

And I admit that I was a big part of making that culture "fetid".

I think things are now headed in the right direction under Browser's moderatorship.

No, I'm just saying that if no one agrees with you, for a very long time, you might legitimately start to wonder if you could be the one who is wrong.

At least twice in the last week alone QP has said 'I'm was/am right...as always'.

Proving your point imo.

No. This is an identified and clear dynamic in SM and forumland.

Simply because someone goes in to mostly partisan turf where people are quick to support friendlies or those perceived to be on their 'side' generally while never acknowledging anything from someone generally opposed, does not mean the partisans are correct. it just means they are generally partisan.

You can google all sorts of articles discussing this development.

For instance a person who would get a warm reception here for being mostly 'right' would have had got the opposite in the BFi thread for the exact same stated views. They are not 'right' here and 'wrong' there based on how many agree with them.

don't hate on my accuracy.

We would welcome it with the most open of arms.

Exactly which party do you think everyone is on here? It seems to me that there are people with very different world views from near communist to Trumpistas. The only thing they seem have in common is thinking that your arguments add nothing to the forum.
I probably share more political opinions with you than anyone else I have seen here, but I think your arguments in support of those opinions are generally terrible, you try to antagonize others every chance you get, and you repeat yourself over and over.

Where do you generally get a warm reception?

Given that I also often agree with Cuepee, he can't really play the "Partisan" card.

Having said that, I disagree with you about the merits of his arguments. His arguments are generally fine; it's his going out of his way to turn virtually every thread into a mud-slinging match that gets tiresome.

I usually have a hard time parsing the actual arguments amidst the accusations of gaslighting, discussion of ice cream flavors, and references to the rotten tomatoes forum,

Granted, it can be difficult. But it's usually worth the effort imo.

There are many forms of the expression that when you are getting criticism from both sides, you are probably in the right place, position wise.


People in the BFi actively stated there views would not be welcome in Politics and they would get banned in this 'cesspool' if they posted here. And that APPARANTLY was true, as the split forced each into their own camps.


I have never seen that type of approach in Forumland, as typically bannable thoughts, words, etc are bannable anywhere in the forum. Instead here things that then the BFI posters could state freely in that forum, would be reason to ban them in politics and they called for the same when I and few from here posted in the BFI.


It is very odd to have first know which forum a thing was said in, to then determine if it is bannable or not and that is because of the partisan lines that were drawn.

Another point reply in which you failed to address either of my questions.

And a lot of talk about an acronym which don't even know the meaning of, yet you're telling me about it as if it is somehow relevant to me.

Cupee, no one’s here cares what goes down in BFI.

Cuepee is turning almost every thread into a discussion about gaslighting.

In my opinion, it's getting ridiculous.

Or Rotten Tomatoes.

I'm actually feeling sorry for Cuepee right now.

I won't say more on the gaslighting&etc. topic until Browser makes his "official" statement on the matter.