Dispute with mod

If someone posts something that can be easily dismissed, it doesn't require more than one dismissal. That's the point.

Threads are clogged with that type of crap.

If you posted that the earth was flat and I replied correcting you, there's no need for another ten people to post the same reply or to get snotty with you for having that opinion.

Christ, not this again.

If you think that only one poster can counter your point or argument or whatever it is, or commenting on your post, then I don't know how you think that should operate in reality. Should people started a PM chat and decide who is going to respond? Should they nominate someone on thread to respond to you.

This is a discussion forum, sometimes views will be unbalanced in terms of representation. I'm sure you know this from your time spent on various immigration threads or the likes over the years where the tone can predominantly come from one direction. But the argument to lots of people disagreeing with you is not to call it a pile on and demand that it should stop. Because then that just allows an argument to be painted as equal, which is a false representation.

If someone started a thread supporting flat earth theory, is it a pile on for several people to challenge them on that?

Besides, haven't you yourself said that you heavily use the ignore function to prevent having to deal with people challenging you? If you've 100+ people on your ignore list, I'm pretty sure there aren't enough left to 'pile on'.

If it was self evident, the original poster wouldn't make the same point over and over again.

You have a point, If you would admit the earth was a sphere after being challenged by one or two posters, which unfortunately is a rare occurrence.

Problem is that a lot of the posters in question 1: wouldn't admit they were wrong 2: Disappear for a while after claiming the earth is flat 3:Reappear on thread claiming the moon landings are fake.

If I would held a very debatable position I would expect a lot of people to challenge me on it.

I do have an issue with labelling from the get go. I posted somewhere that the US is the biggest destabilizing factor in the middle east and some geopolitics, neo conservatism etc. From the get go some posters didn't debate my stance but went straight into telling me I was a Russian mouth piece etc.

You're making the exact same point on here you made on the last one of these threads. That you think that if more than one poster responds negatively towards your argument, that is bullying and a pile on.

Several posters (and the site effectively) told you that this was not the case.

But here you are making the same argument again. Should me or other posters now report your post because it has a point that has been made, considered, dismissed, and yet you keep repeating it?

That point was made in response to your suggestion of limiting number of person replying to discredit a post.
A suggestion that is completely unworkable and impractical.

You had no real response to Tell Me How's post, and now seemingly have given a cop out answer by telling them to report it.
When asked to clarify that point, on what basis it should be reported, you have no actual answer. So it was obviously a cop out \ deflection.

If anything they should get rid off the ignore function, IMO Its a cheap excuse to use when someone is afraid to discuss issues on a discussion site.

If someone feels harassed by the same poster over and over and its determined this behaviour is against site rules just site ban the offender.

Putting people on ignore you disagree with but still posting in the same threads the majority of theses people are heavily posting in as well is not on, that is just a windup

It's enforcing the point.

It's each individual expressing THEIR opinion.

It's demonstrating a collective tone, not just a singular voice.

Not everyone may have read all other posts (they don't have to).

The problem can also be posters having an unpopular or controversial opinion and then continues to reply to multiple posters. If someone responds to me I will most likely respond back to them.

Way to drive engagement with the site. You're not allowed to post expressing your individual opinion on someone else's post, because someone got there first. If you do so, you'll eventually end up banned from the forum.

But it shouldn't matter.

To use your example. You claim the earth is flat, 600 people challenge you on that, your reply should just quote 1 or 2 of these people to convince the earth is flat, preferably with some collaborating evidence, you might get a reply, pick one or 2 of the first relevant replies and discuss, its your POV no one is expecting you to reply to the other 598. Provide the material that convinced you the earth is flat, reply to a few counter claims and that's it.

No one in the Trump/Harris thread is going to convince the few genuine MAGA posters that Trump is wrong, but every one can/should challenge the nonsense posted.

I had some very controversial opinions on this site but I always tried to defend my position and debate the topic against the vast majority

I'm 100% sure that posters aren't posting page after page of comments denouncing 1 singular post. What we see a lot of is a poster post several times in a thread across several pages which is countered by many others.

Say 1 poster posted something that people disagree with, and say 6 people respond and the original poster continues to post with the same argument, they are choosing to prolong the discussion. Should some or most of the 6 responders now not respond so as not to have a pile on? If that were the case, the thread would read like someone making a point and actually silencing others who disagreed with them. Which would tend to validate that argument.

Have a look at the Harris/Trump Thread from yesterday afternoon/evening for a working example of this. Lots of people disagreed with the argument one poster was making that what happened at Trump's rally Sunday night was just a singular joke, that poster kept insisting it was, should only one poster have been entitled to respond to these repeated posts?

You said I suggested one person should be nominated to reply to an unpopular opinion, which I never said.

I suggested that if Tell Me How felt someone was trolling they should report it instead of feeding the troll.