Dispute with mod

This is the warning in the OP:

And there are to be no link dumps. If you wish to post a link set out what it is about and your own views on it.

In a running thread with the previous 10-20 posts discussing a specific topic (the FOX Interview here), you're saying you expect a poster to have to spell out for the people at the back of the class:

The following is an embedded tweet which features a video of Kamala Harris taking down Brett Baier in the interview.

(Insert Tweet with the caption Kamala takes him down!!! And a still of Kamala Harris being interviewed by Brett Baier)

I enjoyed that, might make me watch the rest of it, she didn't put up with any sh*t from him.

And that wouldn't be a link dump?

When did boards get so dumbed down?!

I think this is the thing about "link-dumping" and when it's not really link-dumping: I can't stand people posting 20 minute long Youtube clips and saying "my argument is in there, just watch it" - or indeed the same with a link to a print article. I think that's not on: you make your own argument, rather than expect someone to read through some other person's thoughts and guess which part of it you meant.

OTOH a tweet which already has a visible comment about the accompanying link/video clip, if that is the poster's point, or if it is provided as evidence that something is real, is fair enough. Seems a bit pointless to requote the comment or title which everyone can already see on the tweet.

I got a ban or warning for being “uncivil” to you - I posted a joke reply to you as “Donald Trump the presidential candidate” not Real Donald Trump , a boards user- it obviously was lost in translation and someone reported it.
But sense of humour has totally gone from boards- everyone is just “on edge” now and ready to jump on posters for the slightest perceived slight.

I got a “link dump” ban myself too even though I clearly stated that there was too much statistics in the link for me to assimilate at the time of posting but also it would be beneficial for all posters to review - but that was deemed link dumping too .

What’s happening now unfortunately is that a certain few posters are just posting reams and reams of text from links and then a bit of commentary at the end as if they’re writing a college essay - it’s just as bad if not worse as it’s massively clogging up the thread and 99% of posters just scroll past this drivel - I don’t know what’s wrong with a short commentary and a link - some I click on some I don’t - but it’s much better than banks of text copied and pasted

Right.

Man, when I was a mod here I used to laugh at the posters who would say the mods circle the wagons, and yet here we are.

Well I got a warning for being "uncivil" about President Higgins, so maybe they didn't misunderstand you at all - I had always thought "uncivil" was only for being rude to/about other posters, but not in that case.

I replied to ask whether all the posts calling various people/groups scum etc was similarly sanctioned, but no reply.

Naturally.

I admit it's been a while since I was in the "grown up" Politics forum, but wasn't part of the reason for CA in the first place not that the moderation in the former took itself WAY too seriously with posters being sanctioned for not meeting some notional "standards" that some mods held?

Before it was deleted it had over 20 "likes" so there were quite a lot of people that were able to figure out the conundrum of an embedded tweet, with the headline, "Kamala takes him down!" And a still of the video of Harris being interviewed by Baier. They also knew that I liked it, as I had said so, and that it encouraged me to watch the full interview. This may have piqued some of those people's interests in clicking the play button on the embedded video. I also said it was "great to not see her put up with his sh*t". Anyone following the story, or indeed, the thread would be aware that one of the attacks on Kamala Harris is that she is weak in interviews.

But I suppose if you were to stumble onto boards, and randomly click a thread, and just happen upon my post, while a post it note is inconveniently stuck on the screen hiding the picture of the freeze frame, yes, yes I can see how the post could confuse someone.

I guess we should all start posting that, "descriptive alt text" that you see sometimes so it can be read to blind people. It could even make the political "satirical" thread humorous.

Would it be as quick for you just to post up a few samples of what’s good what’s not good?

I get the feeling the link dump ban is stolen from Politics forum where essays backed up with references were the norm.

Whilst I accept I “link dumped” as per this rule and how it’s been interpreted by mods now, I don’t think posters need to wade though an essay either or indeed have to read half the article the link refers to.

My own view is that if you’re going to write a short post with a link you should:

State the essence of what the article is saying so that people don’t necessarily have to click on it- 1-2 sentences max should do this.

State what you believe or the point you wish to make that the article supports or indeed that the article disagrees with, if that’s relevant to your argument

Post the link.

Not a Trump supporter at all, but there's a huge difference in legal terms in calling someone a rapist (he wasn't convicted of rape since it was a civil case) and calling someone kinky over allegations about their private life.

Removing potentially defamatory comments should be a priority. "Rapist" comes under that. And calling someone a rapist really should never be considered "just" a nickname, IMO.

Rules about fair comment for public figures make the "kinky" comment possibly acceptable, but it really is a hateful nickname to give someone, and such nicknames are banned so I think removing the Kamala one is fair enough.

OTOH, by that logic me calling Michael D a lying twat (with evidence) is fair comment on a public figure, and that was sanctioned, so what do I know I guess?

The problems with the moderation on the site are well-known and have had multiple threads with many contributors over the years. If it was just me I'd say you have a point, but minimising the issues isn't the answer either.

Except of course, the judge explained in his judgement that in any other jurisdiction it would be rape, which is why it is not defamatory, but a statement of fact to call him a rapist.

The argument of “you don’t get to play if you didn’t read/watch the whole article/video I posted “ holds absolutely no water - why should I have to go down one your rabbit holes in order to participate in a discussion?

Theres no guarantee posters are going to read your entire post , especially if its lengthy but even if they do give you that time, If you can’t make your argument yourself on the thread and in your post and the confines of this website without having to force people to read an external link, then sorry but you’ve absolutely no right to tell them they can’t participate .
Links have always been traditionally used to back up opinions expressed - as a poster, I don’t want a discussion or argument with the internet or a website or a commentator, I want that discussion with another poster. Forcing me to read or watch the content of a link is just completely unrealistic -