It wasn't asking that question I had an issue with, but the way in which he did so. I'll comment on this further below.

JFC. I'd suggest that you're being disingenuous, but it seems bizarre to me that you'd be doing this intentionally, knowing how easy it is to demonstrate the massive flaws in your argument, so hopefully it's just that you're not bothering to read everything thoroughly. No, that's not all he did - here's the post he made, and quoted when he was accused of lying about doing nothing:

Now I get that you may not consider that to be sufficient, or you might feel that he wasn't serious about it, or you may have a whole lot of reasons why this wasn't the action he should have taken. But it's not "doing nothing". In spite of that, even when chez quoted this post for you guys to read again, you continue with the lying nonsense. Then I spell it all out for you, and you try to hand-wave it away with "I guess we have a legit difference on semantics". No, it's not semantics. Words mean things - you accused him of lying, and it's pretty clear that he wasn't.

That doesn't change my point. If you like, let's assume I 100% concede that point, and change my post to this:

"Obviously chez made a deliberate effort to defend white supremacists. You guys had a good point there. But apparently that wasn't good enough, and you've tried (and failed miserably) to make that into something other than what it was. Why?"

My point remains exactly the same.

I have. I've in no way passed any kind of judgement on the overall situation. I'm commenting on a very specific event that occurred entirely within this thread - you guys accusing someone of lying when he wasn't, and then continuing to do so when it's been clearly demonstrated that he wasn't.

No, that's not especially accurate. Here's what actually happened:

Noodle asks Mat a question about whosnext in one moderation thread. Not having an answer in a couple of days, he posts in another moderation thread, asking if whosnext knows there are two moderation threads. Not getting an answer there within several hours, he posts in here saying that whosnext is "explicitly avoiding answering this question". And then whosnext does answer the question, and gets this awesome response from you: "Seems like you could have actually answered Noodle's question instead of writing all of that?" You guys sure know how to welcome a mod and motivate him to see your point of view.

Haven't had a lot of interaction with him, so I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Can I just add in that a few post later I did give the threatened timeout to that poster

So there's no possibility that I wasn't serious.

Can you clarify, who are the 'actual 2p2 politics posters' and who we have mischaracterized? You are viewing this from in a partisan way and your arguments are lacking content.

afaict the question hasn't actually been answered: why was someone who doesn't ever post in politics interested in becoming a mod of P7? Not saying that it's a bad idea or a big deal or whatever, but it would be interesting to know why an apparent rando got picked for the job. So far he seems like an okay guy.

Wtf are you talking about? I don't recall ever using mischaracterization of posters as an argument. That is something you do.

Trolly has a bigger sample size of Chez than you do. There's a reason people are skeptical of Chez.

to people still confused about whosnext:

how is this not answering the question? he was reading the forum a lot, had some ideas about moderation and offered to help out.

Skeptical is fine but this isn't anything to do with being skeptical

You have reinforced peoples attitudes yourself by swatting down fly, me, and others but flippantly tapping your boy Foldn's wrist when he makes inflammatory remarks.

When things get serious in the Milo thread you want to change the status of it to a serious topic thread, but when your boy Foldn turns a thread into something no one can take seriously you don't want to change it to an offensive posting thread.

You're not consistent, Chez. So, yes, it is a level of skepticism that puts off people like Trolly, Noodle and others. No matter how they may express it.

I don't know how you expect posters like fly to be spoken to and we've seen Noodle and Trolly's performance here. They have still all been treated fairly and the moderation has been overwhelmingly against people they consider on the other side.

The Milo thread was getting very serious with regard to the content and my instinct was to treat it as such, I then decided to hold back and nothing has changed re the status of that thread. There's no comparison with a content thread getting out of hand - which I also clamped down on.

Of course it looks inconsistent when the things I do are selectively ignored or exaggerated to make the case - that's not skepticism.

#GasLighting

You can argue semantics as much as you wish, but this statement isn't accurate as a total sum.

We've seen it in action here Paul. They insist nothing was done when it's clearly not true.

It's not an accident.

Also Paul. I'm well aware that we all have our biases and especially so given the history. I also know many of the accusations are false (often ridiculously so) and that I've tried very hard to be fair - even so no-one can avoid all cognitive biases.

This was one of the reasons for welcoming whosnext as co-mod

Just curious, as a guy who doesn't frequent the forum who happens to be talking to someone who does, is it possible that you don't have the full backstory here? Might not have all the information?

I ask because it seems you're more concerned with the tone of the discussion than the actual facts of the discussion.

Personally, I really don't care how polite someone is if they're lying to me all the time. I'd prefer someone speak harsh truths than comforting lies. Maybe I'm unique in this way.

Obviously.

The mistake you made here was caring about facts instead of teams. Despite simply caring about the facts of the situation, you're now "on my side", no matter how much disdain you've expressed for me in the past.

Doing stuff like that is how I've ended up pissing off a lot of people on both teams. (To say nothing of my terrible initial posting in politics)

Yes, he does. That's why I haven't gotten into the discussion of whether or not chez is doing a good job over in P7.

No backstory required when you accused someone of lying when they didn't. None whatsoever. And yes, I had all the information required; I've already laid it all out. Feel free to point out anything I've got wrong, and if you can't, perhaps a retraction of your accusation is in order.

The only time I've concerned myself with tone is the really ****ty way you've started off with whosnext. I assume he was added to try to improve the way things are running, but you seem uninterested in giving him a chance, and I think that's a shame.

If this is about chez, I assume that for you to still be talking about it, there are other times when he actually did lie.

This is the most cheziest chez thread I've ever seen.

Feel free to check the time stamp, because unlike chez I have no way of doing modifications to posts months after the fact

I'll agree that LK and I were needlessly abrasive in tone toward the new guy, or at least left that kind of impression. He seems sincerely interested in doing the right thing and hopefully he'll counter chez's serial dishonesty.

lol

Bobo (by all evidence, a normal human being) appears to be encountering noodlelogic for the the first time. Lets see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Bobo, meet noodle.

Thanks for those kind words.

I admit to whatever culpability I may share in the miscommunication as well.

Let's move on and never talk of this again.

Probably wouldn't have happened if I still had my link avatar.

He's already got the script memorized!

jk


I know I don't post much, but I punish myself by reading pretty much all the posts in that forum. Thank you for coming on and doing thankless work to make it a better place.

Yes, that turn of phrase was a shrewd tongue-in-cheek call-back (or at least it was intended to be).