Dispute with mod

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

Most of them are in hiding after the election. They got it completely wrong with their predictions and pontification.

The posters they derogatorily accused of pushing and spreading conspiracy theories were the ones shown to be correct and vindicated. It was they who were pushing conspiracy theories and lies.

Some knowingly in bad faith so as to provoke a response. Hatred clouded other's judgement so badly that they couldnt see what was right in front of their eyes.

They won't admit they were wrong. No apologies will be issued. No lessons will be learned.

No its the 76m people who voted for Trump that are wrong in their minds.

I think it was me that brought it up before, but it wasn't the final ban I was concerned about.

From the pm I sent you:

Have a look at my record, the last warning would be a two month ban, the next one a three month ban, potentially over a misreading of a post if context isn't taken into account, mods only act on reported posts, and users cant engage over pm or dispute resolution.

I've had two warnings overturned by PMing the mod that issued them. That's just not possible anymore, going by the rules as they are written anyway.

Stop posting minor things that can earn you warning and there will be no problem

Its not that simple, context is everything.

Alot of the minor things being sanctioned are dubious to say the least while other blatant sanctionable posts are unpunished.

You'd see some of the warnings handed out and think 'who is reporting these posts?'

I do think it's better in some respects. I have one major criticism though, the link dump thing seems inconsistent and just odd. Eg posters still dump inane videos to prove their point and invariably don't get actioned. Meanwhile just based on what's been shared on thread, it seems like far more innocent linking with a comment can get actioned. Plus given the fact it's current affairs, I think it's far better to link with info rather than claiming something without providing a source, it's basically wide open for users to say "can't share a link, cause I'd be banned".

Other one is thread bans. I think contentious threads would still benefit from them. It's reverting to users trying to piss people off for pages and pages in certain threads.

I do think it's generally a bit better and the extra mods seems to be helping.

I dont know much about the politics forum.

However I did see the Politics moderator posting in the Political meme thread on a regular basis and it struck me that pretty much every every post he made was making fun of Trump in a derogatory manner.

I think that spoke volumes.

It wasnt really dealt with in the previous thread. You seemed to focus your response on it being unlikely I would be banned rather than consider the implications of the general point I was making.

I posted it because its a thread discussing the new rules and possible negative impact. Current Affairs has been around for several years and therefore it is reasonable to consider rule impacts several years in. Yes I mentioned someone could pick up a lengthy ban just for a single 1 point warning a year. That doesnt seem reasonable to me. Under the rules as stated that can occur. And after 6 unappealable warnings someone is banned for 3 months. Nothing in the declared rules about occasional warnings not leading to a ban. No option for mods to give a day or week ban instead, no "up to a maximum" wording - automatic 3 months. I am going based on what is in the sticky post stating them.

To call that "oddly fixated"? Nope. If I did have warnings would your response be making reference to that instead? So you cant bring it up if you have warnings and you cant bring it up if you have insufficient warnings. Catch 22.

You are wrongly assuming my only concern is how the rules directly affect me when I am considering its impact on CA as a community.

Outside of CA pointed warnings accumulate and can lead to temporary site bans. But the warnings expire after X period. Mods may reference the history but the automatic permanent ratchet effect of points is not there.

Several other posters have also raised concerns about it. One of the new CA mods posted expiry after 2 years would be reasonable (paraphrasing).

It shouldnt come down solely to the moderator on the day in the heat of the moment. Not with unappealable warnings. Discretion should be within certain bounds as it reduces the onus on mods and inconsistency between mods. There should be clearer processes for dealing with old warnings and expiry after 2 years would therefore be reasonable.

Feedback was requested on the new rules, I have provided it for consideration. Ive no wish to make further repeated posts on the matter.

You do realise that this is most people's view of him in Ireland and the UK? He's a deeply unpopular criminal. Expecting a moderator to have a level of respect for a man who shows no respect to anyone is a pretty big opinion. Should moderators have an inherent respect of all world leaders? Cause I can't imagine many are fans of Bolsonaro or Orban either.

I would agree with your assessment of CA or politics where posters have their camps are sometimes fanatically supporting their side but alot of the site is posters being positive about their hobbies or interests such as weather or transport. Boards only becomes toxic in threads that are naturally "us versus them". I'd say alot of mods outside politics or current affairs never give bans.

Honestly your last few posts appear to have been personal grudges about posters.

If a poster states that they are a centrist and that statement is then contorted into "well that's just shorthand for being far right" by someone else that should be a bannable offence.

Misrepresenting another poster or trying to make them look unreasonable is uncivil and shouldn't be tolerated.