Dispute with mod

Why you think X will win is an opinion ultimately.

Stating as one of the reasons to back that up a percentage from a poll, or voter registrations or whatever metric is different. That is a statement of fact. You should provide a source for it. They may be misrepresenting the poll either deliberately or through misunderstanding, or the information may be out of date.
And if you have taken an excerpt of it from another source that should be attributed with a link as per the copyright guidelines I provided from previous Feedback thread.
This also allows other posters to assess the source information for themselves. Otherwise, what happens is threads get into mini derailments as posters query the source of the claim etc.

If the Boards guidelines have changed with regard to fair use, or the link I provided is outdated - it would be good to get clarification on that.

Because this was always my understanding of fair use both on boards and elsewhere on social media:

Copy and pasting a full piece of an article from a newspaper or blog etc will not be allowed. You may copy a paragraph of the piece and must provide a link to the source under what we hope will be seen as a common sense and fair use approach.

Lol.

"It's debatable that the rules are working well"

"No it's not"

Kinda sounds like it is.

To summarise my recent posts here.

Reduction in re-reg trolls good.

Clear ground rules on threads - good. I dont agree with all of them but as a concept good.

For the worse:

Increase in statements of fact being made without evidence, is a carte blanche to spread fake news. Maybe my perception is off but previously this was frowned upon.

Lifting of thread bans sees a lot of the same behaviour from those posters that led to the thread ban.

Increase in lifting of excepts from copyrighted sources without link provided. This appears to breach Boards fair use guidelines and is poor for threads as posters cannot assess the excerpt in context and leads to questions about the actual source that should be unneccessary.

I can provide examples by DM on request as based on forum charter this is not place to directly references other posters.

Future Concern:

Concern that warnings that are unappealable do not expire. I think given mod capacity is limited the shortcutting of DRP makes sense but in light of that the warnings should be time limited to 1 or 2 years and then expire. There is a higher chance of warnings issued incorrectly given the lack of appeal. Otherwise it has potential for disproportinately impacts long running posters who dont rereg.

This is the current warnings scale, prior warnings never fully expire but count towards future ones:

The warnings scale-

1. 1st warning = 1 day ban
2. 2nd warning = 3 day ban
3. 3rd warning = 1 week ban
4. 4th warning = 1 month ban
5. 5th warning = 2 month ban
6. 6th warning = 3 month ban
7. 7th warning = 6 month ban (can be appealed)
8. 8th warning = Permanent ban (can be appealed)

There's currently no time limits on the cumulative warnings on CA. It had automatic penalties that ratchet up X days after 1st, 2nd, 3rd offence etc

My point is that after 1 or 2 years the warnings should expire and not have a cumulative effect permanently. Otherwise it discriminates against long running posters over reregs. Do you want a warning you received 3 years ago to trigger a month ban now?

At the moment there appears to be nothing to stop posters excerpting paragraphs of copyrighted material into posts. It is happening. As per previous copyright guidelines on boards those excepts should be attributed with a link. Your issue appears to be with the excerpts themselves, if so, Im not aware of any prior or current boards rules against that - I will leave that with you so.

Expired bans aren't much use. Actions have consequences. Dont want to be banned dont collect warnings like Pokemon Cards.

Cant appeal a warning so dumb. it just always the harris crazied mods a easy way to stop people they dont link for "link dump" yet on the same page people posting anti trump stuff with NO text its perfectly acceptable.

The more rubbish people who “appeared” to be “good” posters posted, the more anyone who criticised their posts were warned or targeted by moderators.

It essentially means as long as you post pile after pile of b0ll0x and place a comment at the start, you’re “safe” - it’s not discussion it’s an echo chamber - we clearly lost an opportunity to discuss an impending and in my view a very real situation of Trump getting the presidency - all of that was knocked on the head because of mod bias -

they got sucked in to the sh01te being posted by certain posters and everyone who disagreed was treated as a disrupter to the thread /

despite Beastys re-write of history above, it was me that stopped the name calling of posters as “rapist sympathisers” by opening a thread on the topic - while he might have implemented a rule, I promoted that rule

Where are the “virtuous” Harris supporters now preaching about how there’s only one “right” vote and questioning how dare we go against their righteousness by even thinking that Harris might not be doing the right thing paying millions to “celebrities” to back up her campaign

I'm going on what was posted on the Current Affairs forum sticky, which doesn't seem to leave much room for discretion unlike the previous more informal setup.

The warnings scale-

1. 1st warning = 1 day ban
2. 2nd warning = 3 day ban
3. 3rd warning = 1 week ban
4. 4th warning = 1 month ban
5. 5th warning = 2 month ban
6. 6th warning = 3 month ban
7. 7th warning = 6 month ban (can be appealed)
8. 8th warning = Permanent ban (can be appealed)

At one warning a year it'd take 8 years to get a permanent forum ban. I'd wonder will the forum be around in 8 years, or boards itself for that matter

is it possible to plead a case for a sitebanned user? If so how does that go about?

I hope you did not interpret it as intended to imply anything with regard to any poster and that includes yourself. I have no idea of posters current warning level wrt to CA*, I was simply rolling the rules forward a couple of years to illustrate potential impact - that is the only implication I was trying to make obvious.

(Unlike site wide warning levels where there are bars on profiles Im not aware of any visibility on CA specific ones)