Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum
Comments
-
We may as well have renamed it The Pissing Contest thread. It had devolved to a point of being a back and forth between posters repeating the same old circular arguments over and over again, and was generating a ridiculous amount of reported posts due the squabbling going on there. It was rightly closed and shall remain so.
The "thanks" received on the post that closed that thread were from the people fervently defending antifa and contriving the back and forth circular arguments.
I'm sure you have threads that generate more reported posts and allow them to continue but that's your decision. I guess no future threads on the subject of Antifa are allowed from now on?
Antifa is both a terrorist organization, a political movement, some people that think it's strictly 'anti-fascism' etc.. all rolled into one. The fact that it has spun off in many directions especially as of late is no surprise as it has been in the mainstream news for the first time. It has as a political organization greatly affected the protests and demonstrations we're seeing in the US and all over the world.The premise of the thread went out the window;
Look at your last few posts in that thread, not one mention of Antifa or anything Antifa related, yet here you are saying you're happy that threads closed because it went off topic, yes because you brought it off topic.OverhealThis is a public access forum where users have a right to engage. If you don’t want to be called out for being hypocritical, well, that’s entirely avoidable on your end.
Well it seems not if the thread has been closed and all discussion of it ended.0 -
The "thanks" received on the post that closed that thread were from the people fervently defending antifa and contriving the back and forth circular arguments.
I'm sure you have threads that generate more reported posts and allow them to continue but that's your decision. I guess no future threads on the subject of Antifa are allowed from now on?
Antifa is both a terrorist organization, a political movement, some people that think it's strictly 'anti-fascism' etc.. all rolled into one. The fact that it has spun off in many directions especially as of late is no surprise as it has been in the mainstream news for the first time. It has as a political organization greatly affected the protests and demonstrations we're seeing in the US and all over the world.
Look at your last few posts in that thread, not one mention of Antifa or anything Antifa related, yet here you are saying you're happy that threads closed because it went off topic, yes because you brought it off topic.
Well it seems not if the thread has been closed and all discussion of it ended.
I think that’s an unfair analysis. Several people thanked the past several on thread warnings and the lock notice including people I had been opposed to ideologically on there, like Nullzero and ExMachina1000, who were far from defending Antifa.
As for it sliding off the topic of Antifa that’s a result of pages and pages of posts and dozens of contributors, with many, many posters not discussing Antifa in particular. As I said in my last reply here the situation in Portland in particular has gone far and away beyond Antifa, and now broadly includes veterans, moms, dads, Antifa, concerned citizens, BLM, anti-brutality protesters, etc. and even blue lives matter MAGA and other counter protester groups. And as far as Antifa goes the thread relied on baseless assumptions which led to circular arguments: Andy Ngo tweets hash tagging Antifa etc. does not mean everyone protesting in Portland is Antifa, and aside from a few smaller groups like Rose City Antifa there aren’t many among the swarms of people protesting these days who are affiliated with such groups. The core premise of the thread lent itself to this fallacy of assuming everything must be Antifa because of thin assumptions.
I’d prefer a simple broader thread on protests in general, as theres scarce evidence to drive the plot that it’s an Antifa issue (heck, there’s more concrete evidence/law enforcement corroboration of late to assert the Boogaloo Movement and White Supremacists are explicitly behind some of the violence). There was the George Floyd protests thread which fell off the radar, I think it remains open.0 -
In turn do you not think it would have been helpful of you to give him a chance to respond to a PM, or Report on his post, of constructive criticisms before making an on-thread swipe at moderation? I don’t find it helpful in the least, arguing on-thread is blatant derailment no matter what it’s dressed up with and is one of my bugbears. Even posting about it here is a far sight better but I wish more users would actually take the good faith approaches offered first before assuming deliberate negligence or promoting popular opposition.
I responded to his mod mote in thread and asked how it could be off-topic to talk about the Prime Time episode, which is a perfectly fair thing to ask. He deleted that post and didn't say anything, which is rarely done. I then PM'd him and waited say half an hour for a reply, so posted here.
The mod note should have been more detailed, like I said. My question should have simply been addressed instead of being deleted and ignored. If he was ok with discussion of the episode but not with discussion of her, that needed to be explained clearly initially.
Modding is hard but that was just making it harder for himself.0 -
Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21377
There are a lot of 'shoulds' in that paragraph which would seem to imply that I owe you some form of better quality of service.I don't.
I deleted your post in the thread because it was directly questioning a mod instruction, which you are well aware of but chose to ignore. Something we do more often than not to give people the benefit of the doubt in cases where a mod instruction has been questioned but we don't feel the poster is being malicious about it. The fact however that you expect a reply to your PM within 30 minutes else straight to feedback in the middle of a working day is frankly absurd, but is somewhat representative of what the feedback forum has become to a certain percentage of posters.
I hadn't expected that I needed to spell out that the three pages of running commentary about Dr Ebun Joseph being "mentally unstable", "not all there”, "a fcukwit" and a "fcukin bimbo", crowned with "go back to Africa" were the problematic and off topic posts but I'll make sure to add that level of granularity in future.0 -
Your initial mod note compared to your edited one. The fact you edited it shows the initial one wasn't detailed enough and it justifies my question of how it was wildly off-topic. Hiding behind some rule that posters can never question a mod note, while having to edit that same mod note afterwards to make it more clear, is pretty bad form. All you had to do was reply and say "Discussion of her mental state is off-topic".
What's more is that your mod note was after directly after my first post in that thread in about four pages after I woke up, and it wasn't any of those negative things you mentioned. So yes, I think you do actually need to spell out what your intention is, because to follow my post talking about the Prime Time episode in general with a mod note saying the thread has gone wildly off-topic is confusing.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/7VtMzg1.png Your initial mod note compared to your edited one. The fact you edited it shows the initial one wasn't detailed enough and it justifies my question of how it was wildly off-topic. Hiding behind[/img]some rule that posters can never question a mod note, while having to edit that same mod note afterwards to make it more clear, is pretty bad form. All you had to do was reply and say "Discussion of her mental state is off-topic".
That is crap. You can of course question a mod note but doing so on-thread is bad form. Several ways to question it: report the post, PM the mod, or yes as you’ve done here, preferably when the first 2 options have already been explored and given reasonable time, post to Feedback or Help Desk. Doing so on thread in particular is derailment.
It’s also bad form of you to ask for clarification and then weaponize the very fact that clarification was offered.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70301
Feedback is for site-wide issues - Help Desk is where forum-specific issues like that should be raised, but before that consider PM'ing a CMod. CMods can of course chip into Help Desk discussions anyway, although like "regular" users their replies are pre-moderatedFeedback or Help Desk. Doing so on thread in particular is derailment.0 -
I hadn't expected that I needed to spell out that the three pages of running commentary about Dr Ebun Joseph being "mentally unstable", "not all there”, "a fcukwit" and a "fcukin bimbo", crowned with "go back to Africa" were the problematic and off topic posts but I'll make sure to add that level of granularity in future.
I could post numerous examples that are worse from the Trump thread or the Gemma thread with dozens of thanks which could easily be considered bullying, and quite frankly to my eyes reads as disgusting vile behaviour.
But there's only one side weaponizing the reporting of things on social media as we all know. Easy to end up being their pawn. Look how the other antifa threads ended up. All mod reports shutting them down.This thread kinda went unnoticed because, frankly, I don't think any of the mods knew what 'Antifa' was. But now it's started to get troublesome and generate reported posts. We've taken a closer look and it seems to have started off as a discussion on some sort of political movement and then turned into back and forth arguments about different political topics.
Well, we're not having it. There are two politics forums where you can discuss this Antifa thing and all other aspects of politics. I suggest you all cut out the bickering that's been going on in this thread when you post in either of those forums.
Not anymore no. You can find that post here.
Not anymore.Politics....Trump...Antifa....Nazis.....more USA crap. AH has far too much of that OP, go find somewhere else
Interesting how the one thread in after hours 'positive' about Antifa is the one that stays open. Are we allowed to ressurect that thread which is here?Drag thread off topic by complaining about a thread being off topic.
#tactic
Here.0 -
I'd suggest you add at least one additional criteria in your historical analysis: namely around the level of discussion and / or did the discussion descend into bickering and facilitate multiple mod actions.
The threads that did were closed. The thread that didn't wasn't.
Honestly we have had 3 years of the topic being discussed and people losing the run of themselves across multiple threads, despite multiple attempts by multiple mods to keep the discussion civil and on topic.
People seem to see what they want to see, as evidenced by your post, imo.
And a lot of people can't distinguish between putting a point across and putting it across civilly: and as a result assume mod actions are about moderating opinions rather than what they are: moderating discussion.0 -
I'd suggest you add at least one additional criteria in your historical analysis: namely around the level of discussion and / or did the discussion descend into bickering and facilitate multiple mod actions.
The threads that did were closed. The thread that didn't wasn't.
Honestly we have had 3 years of the topic being discussed and people losing the run of themselves across multiple threads, despite multiple attempts by multiple mods to keep the discussion civil and on topic.
People seem to see what they want to see, as evidenced by your post, imo.
And a lot of people can't distinguish between putting a point across and putting it across civilly: and as a result assume mod actions are about moderating opinions rather than what they are: moderating discussion.
When the discussion devolves into bickering and such in other threads you(mods) threadban users and issue bans. Not happening in these Antifa threads though.
I suspect boards users know full well what the difference between civilized discussion is, or not, and are in fact doing it deliberately to get the discussion shut down. You guys are becoming a tool for the wokes, they know how to play you like a fiddle. They skate around just under the surface of the rules, annoying people,. bickering, and not getting reported because normal, decent people dont' believe in silencing others. They as soon as they evoke a reaction they report en mass and get any discussion they don't like shut down.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103317691&postcount=1018you literally argued against yourself there, yes its about antifas actions to disputes, therefore its not discussing immigration and doesnt belong in an immigration thread, ill ask again, why are you so adamant that this thread should be closed down?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103317712&postcount=1020Yes but I'm not trying to move the thread to immigration
You were one of the main culprits in the most recent Antifa thread. You were warned not to engage in bickering with another user and yet you received no infraction/ban/warning when you did exactly that same thing again.As for it sliding off the topic of Antifa that’s a result of pages and pages of posts and dozens of contributors, with many, many posters not discussing Antifa in particular.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114163643&postcount=9100I have no interest in a back and forth with you. Twice mods have said to cut it out . One even deleted posts. Stop trying to antagonize me. I do not consent.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114163878&postcount=9102I’m not antagonizing you I’m responding to your contributions, several of which are directly addressed/in reply to me. You even came into a forum I mod the other week, largely just to stir nonsense about how you didn’t like the moderation in this forum in regard to me, and have made unsolicited comments about me in feedback, and numerous other times in this forum since, many of which as you said have had to be deleted. So, your consent/victimhood argument doesn’t wash. You simply don’t like being challenged on this hypocritical consumption of Ngo’s tweets after you’ve been highly critical for others for their sources and virtue signaled about media bias - which is rich, when the reason you were Threadbanned from the trump election thread was trolling users to provide sources you proudly admitted to doing just to waste their time. Even here, you’ve made sniping remarks about me as ‘the protected one’ etc. - If you really want reprieve the problem isn’t me. The idea that suddenly now you don’t consent is farcical but sure if you want to stop stalking me around the forums finally I’ll accept your apology if you want to give it.
What exactly did the mod warning in that post refer to?
If two people argue about something, one party wanting the discussion to continue, the other side not wanting it to continue.
Then a third party arbiter turns up and says "if you don't stop arguing I'm shutting this discussion down" now the person who wants to shut down the discussion just has to keep on arguing to get what they want.
Incentivizing dickish behaviour.0 -
Advertisement
-
So my issue with that set of theories is that you are again quoting ancient history. You are then skipping forward 3 years and saying things are linked.
Things from two different fora.
With a different mod team.
With different users.
You then suggest one side of the argument was trying to shut down the discussion. You haven't actually shown this. In fact I'm getting the feeling you are assuming the people you disagree with are doing this, and are assuming this based on no evidence.
I'll be honest I feel like you have a theory and are finding posts and facts that might seem to support it and ignoring other information.
It's a little hard to take your feedback on board because of this. If I'm wrong I'd be happy for you to correct me however. On review of the recent thread I don't think I am though.
Its a long thread and bans and cards which were used as a deterrant (some of which you might not be aware of) are not having the desired effect for some individuals, so closing the discussion is an acceptable course at that stage.
To suggest mods are closing threads on the topic from 'one side' based on the evidence you provided is very narrow and plainly wrong to be honest.0 -
So my issue with that set of theories is that you are again quoting ancient history. You are then skipping forward 3 years and saying things are linked.
Things from two different fora.
With a different mod team.
With different users.
You then suggest one side of the argument was trying to shut down the discussion. You haven't actually shown this. In fact I'm getting the feeling you are assuming the people you disagree with are doing this, and are assuming this based on no evidence.
I'll be honest I feel like you have a theory and are finding posts and facts that might seem to support it and ignoring other information.
It's a little hard to take your feedback on board because of this. If I'm wrong I'd be happy for you to correct me however. On review of the recent thread I don't think I am though.
Its a long thread and bans and cards which were used as a deterrant (some of which you might not be aware of) are not having the desired effect for some individuals, so closing the discussion is an acceptable course at that stage.
To suggest mods are closing threads on the topic from 'one side' based on the evidence you provided is very narrow and plainly wrong to be honest.
<snip> You have been told numerous times you have not been on the site long enough to post in Feedback. I'll enforce it with a ban if you do so again
Beasty0 -
So my issue with that set of theories is that you are again quoting ancient history. You are then skipping forward 3 years and saying things are linked.
Things from two different fora.
With a different mod team.
With different users
And same outcome, fancy that. I suspect you have many of the same users actually and the same mods.You then suggest one side of the argument was trying to shut down the discussion. You haven't actually shown this. In fact I'm getting the feeling you are assuming the people you disagree with are doing this, and are assuming this based on no evidence.
No, I haven't shown it; but am I right or not? You mods should know this easily as you can see which posts are reported and which people are reporting them. So either tell me I'm wrong or I'm right, but don't leave it up to me to 'prove', which can only be done by reading the whole thread. I was already checking for examples, but if I start quoting it will go on for pages and pages and pages, I'm happy to do so I have a few hours tomorrow if you like me to do that.
It's easier to see in the Trump thread which contains many of the same suspects from the Antifa thread. They are often happy to see posters banned and actioned upon, the way they 'thank' posts from moderators banning people.
I'll be honest I feel like you have a theory and are finding posts and facts that might seem to support it and ignoring other information.
It's a little hard to take your feedback on board because of this. If I'm wrong I'd be happy for you to correct me however. On review of the recent thread I don't think I am though.
You could just tell me I'm wrong, as you are the ones with all the information, not me, but no-one has told me that so far. Just tell me I'm wrong and that it's not the same people reporting posts over and over again, I could even PM you the names of the posters I think are doing it, I bet they correlate.0 -
What happened to the Autumn thread, dont understand why it was nukesd?
Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!
0 -
2u2me wrote:normal, decent people dont' believe in silencing others.You mods should know this easily as you can see which posts are reported and which people are reporting them.
Is the implication here you do not report posts? If you are reporting, and aren't happy with the results, or an apparent lack of action, I'd suggest PM'ing the mods and asking about their justifications for not taking actions.
I never understand why people pretend not reporting things is some badge of honor, yet then complain that mods, in effect, don't read their minds or exhibit other psychic powers.You were one of the main culprits in the most recent Antifa thread. You were warned not to engage in bickering with another user and yet you received no infraction/ban/warning when you did exactly that same thing again.
And neither apparently did the other party. My only sin was being addressed directly, and so replying to users directly addressing me, who then pretend they were being bullied by the sheer outrage of my replying to people speaking directly to me. The same person has been violating the rules even here in Feedback, and I don't see a card, he's been given a lot of rope to break the rules here yes?
This running narrative that I am 'protected' or whatever is silly: I have 3 reds and 2 yellows from CA/IMHO in the last 2 months, and threadbans.0 -
Is the implication here you do not report posts? If you are reporting, and aren't happy with the results, or an apparent lack of action, I'd suggest PM'ing the mods and asking about their justifications for not taking actions.
I never understand why people pretend not reporting things is some badge of honor, yet then complain that mods, in effect, don't read their minds or exhibit other psychic powers.
And neither apparently did the other party. My only sin was being addressed directly, and so replying to users directly addressing me, who then pretend they were being bullied by the sheer outrage of my replying to people speaking directly to me. The same person has been violating the rules even here in Feedback, and I don't see a card, he's been given a lot of rope to break the rules here yes?
This running narrative that I am 'protected' or whatever is silly: I have 3 reds and 2 yellows from CA/IMHO in the last 2 months, and threadbans.
I've never ignored anyone on boards, so congratulations you're the first ever.
Not because I dislike your opinions but because your constant trolling of threads and people.
You completely ignore and sidestep the main issues that I brought up, how the shutting down of discussions has been weaponized by your lot.
Your response the people you'r arguing against should also be reporting you is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
I was making the point that dickish behaviour will be encouraged with these rules, just like we're seeing across the CA forum now. People being dicks and not honestly engaging in the discussion being presented.
Strawmanning everything they want to in instead.
I say that you are one of the main culprits in all of this Overheal and your defence is look how many red and yellow cards I have; are you for real?
Actually scrap that; I don't care. You argue in good faith less than 1<% of the time.0 -
You could just tell me I'm wrong, as you are the ones with all the information, not me, but no-one has told me that so far. Just tell me I'm wrong and that it's not the same people reporting posts over and over again, I could even PM you the names of the posters I think are doing it, I bet they correlate.
Its your theory. From my point of view it is wrong, but im not going to dismiss the theory without asking you to maybe develop it some more. Its yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Im trying to discuss your theory with you - which you presented as a fait accompli - but if what you wanted was my opinion, ive no problem sharing it when asked (and have done so now).
I'm not revealing info around who does or doesn't report posts - thats privileged info and who does or doesnt report posts is irrelevant to the discussion, tbh (mainly because reports are not the issue at hand here - the mod decision to close the thread is).0 -
I argue in good faith all of the time, actually, and that <1% comment and your 'im ignoring you now congratulations' tirade screams of petulance. Grow up.
I assume a portion of the posters you pretend to be a champion of needed to see that I'm not 'the protected one' the way they constantly moan about it in the threads, so I volunteered information that is otherwise nobody's business.
Your main issue "shutting down of discussions has been weaponized by your lot," is an entirely baseless accusation. What proof do you have that only one side of a debate reports posts? We only have your implicit admission that you do not report posts. I've already pointed out when these threads were shut down the action was as much thanked by "your lot" as your lot.Your response the people you'r arguing against should also be reporting you is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
Then get out more: you have often been told or seen said on this website, 'if you have a problem with a post, report it.'0 -
Its your theory. From my point of view it is wrong, but im not going to dismiss the theory without asking you to maybe develop it some more. Its yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Im trying to discuss your theory with you - which you presented as a fait accompli - but if what you wanted was my opinion, ive no problem sharing it when asked (and have done so now).
I'm not revealing info around who does or doesn't report posts - thats privileged info and who does or doesnt report posts is irrelevant to the discussion, tbh (mainly because reports are not the issue at hand here - the mod decision to close the thread is).
Well a theory explains the facts. Gravity is a theory but it explains the facts we see around us; that objects always fall towards the earth, the moon orbits the earth etc... The fact is that every Antifa discussion has thus far been shutdown on boards(That wasn't positive about Antifa).
Another fact is that the people happy to defend Antifa were also the ones happy to see the discussion shutdown. Just look at the responses in this thread, and the people who liked overheals' posts. The very same people from the Antifa thread.
My assumption is that those defending Antifa were the same ones that were reporting the posts, but I guess I will never know that.
I can only go on what other social media sites say and are doing, and they are experiencing the same problems on facebook, twitter et al, people are forming groups and reporting en mass to have discussions shutdown. Groups of woke people, some call it 'cancel culture'. They believe they are fighting against nazis or something they are the most deluded group of people to have ever existed on this planet IMO.
I can post dozens of pages of evidence for my theory, but I will never be able to prove my theory, since a theory can never been proven, only disproven.
Would you like me to provide examples of where the woke users were being needlessly aggressive and illogical to the point of appearing like trolls? That has happened thousands of times in the Antifa thread. I can either PM you or reply in this thread, I only ask that if I do that, you don't dismiss me at the end of it and say 'that proves nothing; that is only evidence'. Because it is impossible for me to prove a theory.
I submit that:
Moderators will shutdown discussions when there are too many reported posts: fact
Users are well aware of this: fact
Users who want to get a discussion shutdown know they only have generate reported posts and will continue on the thread 24/7 until this happens: fact.
My theory that explains these facts is that people are using these rules purposefully to shutdown discussions. A theory that you know whether is true or not because you can see the reported posts.0 -
I argue in good faith all of the time, actually, and that <1% comment and your 'im ignoring you now congratulations' tirade screams of petulance. Grow up.
I assume a portion of the posters you pretend to be a champion of needed to see that I'm not 'the protected one' the way they constantly moan about it in the threads, so I volunteered information that is otherwise nobody's business.
Your main issue "shutting down of discussions has been weaponized by your lot," is an entirely baseless accusation. What proof do you have that only one side of a debate reports posts? We only have your implicit admission that you do not report posts. I've already pointed out when these threads were shut down the action was as much thanked by "your lot" as your lot.
Then get out more: you have often been told or seen said on this website, 'if you have a problem with a post, report it.'
This is absolute garbage. You do not argue in good faith all the time. I’ve been given several warnings due to you blatantly and ADMITTEDLY trolling current affair threads multiple times. While
I don’t always agree with every poster on here you’re a terrible example to have on this site. If anyone else acted like you they’d be gone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »This is absolute garbage. You do not argue in good faith all the time. I’ve been given several warnings due to you blatantly and ADMITTEDLY trolling current affair threads multiple times. While
I don’t always agree with every poster on here you’re a terrible example to have on this site. If anyone else acted like you they’d be gone.
Wow. Where did I 'admit' to trolling? That's a bold accusation and I assume you have some sort of evidence???
If I'm the troll what is this post of yours: choir boy shyte?0 -
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »I must apologise.
For a second I confused you with another mod on here.
You just accused me of "ADMITTEDLY" trolling. Where is your evidence? I assume you must have some to make such a bold accusation?
Do you mean to say you are walking back that accusation or what, I'm unclear tbh.0 -
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »I’m confusing you with another mod. That is all.
Fair enough so. I think you are remembering Faceman a few weeks back:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113785709&postcount=4370 -
Fair enough so. I think you are remembering Faceman a few weeks back:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113785709&postcount=437
Yeah you’re spot on. I had to do a search for the thread. Sorry.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70301
Back on topic, which means you should not be personalising anything. Discuss the forum but do not discuss any individuals. If anyone has a complaint that can be dealt with in Help Desk0 -
Well a theory explains the facts. Gravity is a theory but it explains the facts we see around us; that objects always fall towards the earth, the moon orbits the earth etc... The fact is that every Antifa discussion has thus far been shutdown on boards(That wasn't positive about Antifa).
Another fact is that the people happy to defend Antifa were also the ones happy to see the discussion shutdown. Just look at the responses in this thread, and the people who liked overheals' posts. The very same people from the Antifa thread.
My assumption is that those defending Antifa were the same ones that were reporting the posts, but I guess I will never know that.
I can only go on what other social media sites say and are doing, and they are experiencing the same problems on facebook, twitter et al, people are forming groups and reporting en mass to have discussions shutdown. Groups of woke people, some call it 'cancel culture'. They believe they are fighting against nazis or something they are the most deluded group of people to have ever existed on this planet IMO.
I can post dozens of pages of evidence for my theory, but I will never be able to prove my theory, since a theory can never been proven, only disproven.
Would you like me to provide examples of where the woke users were being needlessly aggressive and illogical to the point of appearing like trolls? That has happened thousands of times in the Antifa thread. I can either PM you or reply in this thread, I only ask that if I do that, you don't dismiss me at the end of it and say 'that proves nothing; that is only evidence'. Because it is impossible for me to prove a theory.
I submit that:
Moderators will shutdown discussions when there are too many reported posts: fact
Users are well aware of this: fact
Users who want to get a discussion shutdown know they only have generate reported posts and will continue on the thread 24/7 until this happens: fact.
My theory that explains these facts is that people are using these rules purposefully to shutdown discussions. A theory that you know whether is true or not because you can see the reported posts.
Most of the facts you have presented are half true.....Not all objects always fall towards Earth. Look up centrifugal force. Look up magnetism. Both cause objects to sometimes not fall towards the Earth.
Re: Every discussion being shut down - well this is a biased conclusion of facts. You assume the reason for closure is the 'popular' sway of the thread rather than the behaviour of those who hold that 'popular' sway. You are giving anyone who abuses the rules but is 'negative' towards the subject matter a free pass.
To be clear: discussions get shut down because of rule breakages and poster behaviour; not poster opinions. I cant be more clear on that.
Re: Theories cannot be proven....well thats not right. Theories can be disproven having one been proved; but if you dont prove something in the first place; how can you establish the validity of gravity, as you attempted to do before? Any theory can be proven to a reasonable degree; and can then be disproven by further research and testing. Thats scientific theory.
The first "fact" in your 'submission' is not correct; the other two fall apart as a result. You asked me to tell you if you are wrong; i have done so.
'that proves nothing; that is only evidence'
Evidence helps prove things. The above sentence doesnt make any sense whatsoever and i wouldnt say that (for your own clarity).
Im sorry but your post seems disingenuous to the point that you trying to put words in my mouth is offputting. As with every pm i get as a mod, i look at them and assess them. You will be no different if you do indeed PM me on actual unbiased evidence.
Having said that; my stance as things stand is that, based on the evidence you have provided to now, your theory and submissions are wrong. You would do well to actually take my comments on board before sending any further 'evidence'....because what you are posting here isnt proving what you claim it does.0 -
To be clear: discussions get shut down because of rule breakages and poster behaviour; not poster opinions. I cant be more clear on that.
You can say how clear you're being but at the end of the day it's simply untrue, and I know that having seen behind the scenes.
Left wing posters get away with far more than right wing posters, not due to rules being broken but because a majority of mods, and the site itself, are left leaning.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is it wrote: »You can say how clear you're being but at the end of the day it's simply untrue, and I know that having seen behind the scenes.
Left wing posters get away with far more than right wing posters, not due to rules being broken but because a majority of mods, and the site itself, are left leaning.
I dont know your experience but ive been modding multiple fora (including the busy ones) for years now and im only seeing rule breakages being actioned.
Its how i mod and i would greatly enjoy you trying to prove otherwise for me. If there is any effort to moderate opinions, i have never ever seen it discussed or encouraged or coordinated in any way. And as ive said here in this thread previously, if i did see opinions being moderated, you can be damn sure id be calling it out / quitting as mod / leaving the site.
I would further request of you to give an examples of someone being actioned for their opinion(s), rather than behaviour. If its as common as you are suggesting, it should be fairly easy find some examples?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement