Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Baggly

Baggly wrote: »

This has been addressed in this thread but in case you didn't see it, I have not banned any phrase. I told one user not to use it, because it was being used to troll.

I have also said that I agree with what beasty posted here and on the election thread... That the insults aimed to troll that are anti trump have to stop too.

I have also said to another user to keep an eye out for any reports in this light.

So I don't know what else to say to clarify what's actually going on, because this has all been said in this thread and yet your post ignores it.

Considering you banned kid for claiming that the women being sexually assaulted automatically consented because the person assaulting them is famous, deleted the post and the responses calling their post for what it was, and then lifted their thread ban, I'd say that they have little to complain about mods being biased, I've seen people site banned for less.

Baggly

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can I share a pm YOU sent me yesterday that completely cintradicts this?

These ones?

Hi Kidchameleon, the issue with Sleepy Joe so far as i understand it is that its not based on any medical facts or evidence; so when its used, it simply acts to troll one side of the debate; and because its not based in any facts, it just causes to stifle debate.

We allowed it for a long time and ended up having to issue too many cards and temporarily close threads, so the phrase is being discouraged. There arent too many phrases that are banned to be honest - and this is a thread specific one. If you think a public figures actions are idiotic i personally dont have an issue with you saying so - as long as its part of a reasoned debate. If you call Joe Biden an idiot you have to be prepared to back that up with something.

Sleepy Joe has wider connetations than that - i believe you know it has been used (along with that video) to indicate mental decline, which has remained largely unproven. Ordinarily id just let people point that out, but its been pointed out so much now that the phrase is being used to troll.

No you may not refer to him as that. The matter is closed.

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

*Medical evidence there is an issue with their mental status.

Without actual medical evidence, its just a conspiracy theory. We have a separate forum for that.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Do you know what a conspiracy theory is? Because It doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you're using a buzz word instead of making an argument.

What is the conspiracy? That when I see Joe Biden being unable to tell what state he is in that there is a cabal of people making me write that in a post?

If you are going to make crazy claims expect to defend them. Lift the restriction if you don't want to defend the position then. It makes no sense.

osarusan

Baggly wrote: »

Well to be clear and honest (and i think ive said it previously in this thread), im not here to police opinions.

They are not opinions though. That's my point.

It's not threadbanning somebody for an opinion, it's doing so because they are using stupid childish phrases to make petty digs.


If, for example, the 4 terms I listed were banned: Sleepy Joe, Impotus, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Trumptard - nothing of any value has been lost from the thread. And if there are posters who cannot make a post without using the terms, then nothing of any value has been lost there either.

Baggly

osarusan wrote: »

They are not opinions though. That's my point.



It's not threadbanning somebody for an opinion, it's doing so because they are using stupid childish phrases.

Thin line between banning a phrase and policing opinions is my point (in terms of setting a precedent).

Baggly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If you are going to make crazy claims expect to defend them. Lift the restriction if you don't want to defend the position then. It makes no sense.

Initially yes - and that was the approach originally taken - but its at the stage where the claim is made and refuted umpteen times that it more often than not is being used to get a reaction and troll people, which is what happened in this case.

There is a stage where enough is enough and we have to moderate the conversation to keep it going. You may be posting in good faith, but you cant tell me everyone else is.

Ted_YNWA

This is it wrote:

Bad practice in my opinion. Let other users know where the line is, not just the offending poster.

Users should not need to be babysat & be shown what civility you should use to interact with the site is.

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

Initially yes - and that was the approach originally taken - but its at the stage where the claim is made and refuted umpteen times that it more often than not is being used to get a reaction and troll people, which is what happened in this case.

There is a stage where enough is enough and we have to moderate the conversation to keep it going. You may be posting in good faith, but you cant tell me everyone else is.

What has been refuted and how? Do you accept that calling it a conspiracy theory is you claiming you know that Biden hasn't and cannot be affected by cognitive decline. You claim that without any more evidence than someone who claims the opposite.

If Biden routinely says things like his running mates husband is her wife, forgets what state he's in, cannot enunciate whole sentences etc. almost every day, you are saying talking about that and drawing certain conclusion is forbidden. Based on no evidence, and again a lot of mind-reading. The fact that you know everybody's intent doesn't make a difference, the rules are being abused on a massive level. This isn't just about readability.

Call Me Jimmy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

What has been refuted and how? Do you accept that calling it a conspiracy theory is you claiming you know that Biden hasn't and cannot be affected by cognitive decline. You claim that without any more evidence than someone who claims the opposite.

If Biden routinely says things like his running mates husband is her wife, forgets what state he's in, cannot enunciate whole sentences etc. almost every day, you are saying talking about that and drawing certain conclusion is forbidden. Based on no evidence, and again a lot of mind-reading.

It amounts to Trump campaign propaganda tbh....

This is it

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Users should not need to be babysat & be shown what civility you should use to interact with the site is.

It's not about babysitting, which is quite condescending, it's about deterring those that would do similar and helping those that may inadvertently cross an ever moving line.

Baggly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

What has been refuted and how? Do you accept that calling it a conspiracy theory is you claiming you know that Biden hasn't had any cognitive decline, you claim that without any more evidence than someone who claims the opposite.

If Biden routinely says things like his running mates husband is her wife, forgets what state he's in, cannot enunciate whole sentences etc. almost every day, you are saying talking about that and drawing certain conclusion is forbidden. Based on no evidence, and again a lot of mind-reading.

A conspiracy theory is a theory that is formulated without evidence. Do you have medical evidence of Biden's cognitive decline? If so, as i have said in multiple threads, please send it to me and i will completely reevaluate my position. I am acting as rationally as i can to base my opinions on evidence rather than the lack of evidence. If there is no smoke, it is logical to assume there is no fire. If there is smoke, it is not logical to assume there is no fire.

What you are talking about is supposition and im sorry but it doesn't constitute medically relevant evidence - im sorry but it just doesn't. If it did i would accept it.

Kidchameleon

Baggly wrote: »

These ones?

Yes the second one...

Re. Sleepy Joe

You said:

"I have not banned any phrase. I told one user not to use it, because it was being used to troll."

Yet you told me:

"No you may not refer to him as that. The matter is closed."

So you appear to contrdict yourself here... which is it, can we call him Sleepy Joe or not?

This is it

Baggly wrote: »

A conspiracy theory is a theory that is formulated without evidence. Do you have medical evidence of Biden's cognitive decline? If so, as i have said in multiple threads, please send it to me and i will completely reevaluate my position. I am acting as rationally as i can to base my opinions on evidence rather than the lack of evidence. If there is no smoke, it is logical to assume there is no fire. If there is smoke, it is not logical to assume there is no fire.

What you are talking about is supposition and im sorry but it doesn't constitute medically relevant evidence - im sorry but it just doesn't. If it did i would accept it.

No, it's not.

Baggly

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yes the second one...

Re. Sleepy Joe

You said:

"I have not banned any phrase. I told one user not to use it, because it was being used to troll."

Yet you told me:

"No you may not refer to him as that. The matter is closed."

So you appear to contrdict yourself here... which is it, can we call him Sleepy Joe or not?

Without posting your PMs....you ignored my explanation and asked if you posted on the basis of Joe being a sleepy guy, would that be allowed. I said no because i didnt have the time to police the thread if you were going to skirt the rules and troll the thread.

Baggly

This is it wrote: »

No, it's not.

1.a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot:
One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse.
2.a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group:
A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters.
3.the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public:
The more I learn about the activities of intelligence agencies, the less far-fetched I find many geopolitical conspiracy theories.

The third definition - events that are largely unknown to the general public - i.e without evidence.

Source is dictionary.com fyi.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory

Kidchameleon

Baggly wrote: »

Without posting your PMs....you ignored my explanation and asked if you posted on the basis of Joe being a sleepy guy, would that be allowed. I said no because i didnt have the time to police the thread if you were going to skirt the rules and troll the thread.

Feel free to post my PM's. I have no idea what your talking about but you appear to be trying to square a circle here

Ted_YNWA

This is it wrote: »

It's not about babysitting, which is quite condescending, it's about deterring those that would do similar and helping those that may inadvertently cross an ever moving line.

Mod team can generally see what is an inadvertent slip over the line.

If you need to know how far you can push it, it reads as if you want to push it as antagonistically as you can. Doing this only results in a tit-for-tat exchange which can derail rapidly.

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

A conspiracy theory is a theory that is formulated without evidence. Do you have medical evidence of Biden's cognitive decline? If so, as i have said in multiple threads, please send it to me and i will completely reevaluate my position. I am acting as rationally as i can to base my opinions on evidence rather than the lack of evidence. If there is no smoke, it is logical to assume there is no fire. If there is smoke, it is not logical to assume there is no fire.

What you are talking about is supposition and im sorry but it doesn't constitute medically relevant evidence - im sorry but it just doesn't. If it did i would accept it.

Firstly, you again don't understand the words you're using, that is not what a conspiracy theory is. If Trump notices something and I notice something too, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory either. The only evidence you profess to want is the evidence you know you cannot possibly get. There is no medical evidence Trump is a narcissist but you've never had a problem with that in all these years...

You are disingenuously trying to equate an observation that someone is cognitively declining with a medical diagnosis of some specific disease for the purpose of obfuscation. Did I, or anyone claim to be medically diagnosing him? The implications of what your attempting to argue are far wider than you seem to understand. You are asking for medical proof for any comment about the mental status of a candidate. If I say Joe is slowing down in his old age as is objectively true for him and everyone, you are trying to argue that requires documentation to be mailed to you from his doctor - and that it's a conspiracy theory!

And why can we not express our own opinions without irrefutable proof? Is it just this mental issue that you apply it to or is that the case for every aspect of the discussion?

This is it

Baggly wrote: »

The third definition - events that are largely unknown to the general public - i.e without evidence.

Source is dictionary.com fyi.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory

Sure you've left out half of the reference, the important part...

"products of deceptive plots"

That's the conspiracy

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

The third definition - events that are largely unknown to the general public - i.e without evidence.

Source is dictionary.com fyi.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory

No, that doesn't apply.

This is it

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Mod team can generally see what is an inadvertent slip over the line.

If you need to know how far you can push it, it reads as if you want to push it as antagonistically as you can. Doing this only results in a tit-for-tat exchange which can derail rapidly.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to imply anything untoward, twice now, you obviously have no interest in what was only an observation and was based on years of previous experience. We'll leave it at that, you seem to thing I'm attacking you personally.

Overheal

This is it wrote: »

you seem to thing I'm attacking you personally.

Not what I am reading from that at all. Point made was users are asking to know what the line is so they can skate along it to the effect of antagonizing users of a thread with it.

Baggly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Firstly, you again don't understand the words you're using, that is not what a conspiracy theory is. If Trump notices something and I notice something too, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory either. The only evidence you profess to want is the evidence you know you cannot possibly get. There is no medical evidence Trump is a narcissist but you've never had a problem with that in all these years...

You are disingenuously trying to equate an observation that someone is cognitively declining with a medical diagnosis of some specific disease for the purpose of obfuscation. Did I, or anyone claim to be medically diagnosing him? The implications of what your attempting to argue are far wider than you seem to understand. You are asking for medical proof for any comment about the mental status of a candidate. If I say Joe is slowing down in his old age as is objectively true for him and everyone, you are trying to argue that requires documentation to be mailed to you from his doctor - and that it's a conspiracy theory!

And why can we not express our own opinions without irrefutable proof? Is it just this mental issue that you apply it to or is that the case for every aspect of the discussion?

This is it wrote: »

Sure you've left out half of the reference, the important part...

"products of deceptive plots"

That's the conspiracy

Ah lads do you really think im accusing you of being party in a conspiracy theory or do you think im saying you are purporting there to be one about Joe. Thats the sleepy joe genesis - that his falling asleep represents his secret mental decline which is being hidden from the world. Come on now.

Baggly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

And why can we not express our own opinions without irrefutable proof? Is it just this mental issue that you apply it to or is that the case for every aspect of the discussion?

I have outlined this in this thread. With the greatest amount of respect is there any answer i can give you that you will accept? I have answered this already.

The phrase was fine before. It started to get used to troll people. Where this happened, we sanctioned users.

All that has changed now is that we have affirmed the same will happen for the 'other side'.

Baggly

Enjoy your evenings folks! Ive children to put to bed.

Overheal

Baggly wrote: »

Ah lads do you really think im accusing you of being party in a conspiracy theory or do you think im saying you are purporting there to be one about Joe. Thats the sleepy joe genesis - that his falling asleep represents his secret mental decline which is being hidden from the world. Come on now.

Not enough satanic ritual baby blood to keep him nourished.

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

Ah lads do you really think im accusing you of being party in a conspiracy theory or do you think im saying you are purporting there to be one about Joe. Thats the sleepy joe genesis - that his falling asleep represents his secret mental decline which is being hidden from the world. Come on now.

No, why we would think that? We are explaining that it's not a conspiracy theory to observe he is slowing down. We are not medically diagnosing him.

Look, it's a bad rule and it's indefensible so I humbly suggest you remove that part. As I said, I've no problem about the nicknames like referring to him as sleepy joe or calling people trumptards, a week or two I was complaining about people use them.

But you have to on some level agree that if another video comes out and he's called kamala's husband her wife again that we should be able to come to our own conclusions. Or do you literally believe we all should believe what you assume, i.e that all the video evidence of him having mental ****ups is in no way reflective of his old age.

Trump has ****ups too, I've no problem with the compilations of him either, I certainly wouldn't want someone to be forced to agree with me that it's a sign that he's all perfectly right in the head.

ExMachina1000

I find the term Trump zealots to be offensive .

zealot

/ˈzɛlət/

noun

1.

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Posters are being labelled as fanatical and extremist if they post in favour of Trump or Republican views.

If a poster was a Muslim and posted his views would it be ok to label him an extremist just because he is a Muslim?

The term zealot is being used intentionally to antagonize people.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

People only stay thread banned because they refuse to engage with moderators in good faith and accept the reasons the mods give for the threadban.

I engaged with you. It was YOU that did not engage with me. All you wanted was me to grovel to you and show remorse for something I had not done and there was no talking to you. I wouldn't mind if you addressed my argument and made a counter one. I could deal with you taking a different position, but you refused to even consider that you had made the wrong call.

I've thread banned multiple users today and overturned the threadban after discussion with the users. It happens all the time. It's a function of modding that allows us to get users to take stock of their posting when there is an issue. I'm loath to get into that threadban with you Pete because thr last time I did it spanned 1000s of words of how I'm a bad biased mod and how you had done nothing wrong, without any admission that your posts in that thread could have been an issue at all.

You wanted me to apologize for ignoring a strawman argument that Trump was not a Republican and was a paid democrat. The "point" had nothing to do with anything I said. You kept on repeating over and over again that I needed to apologize to you and show remorse for ignoring that strawman argument, it was like I was on Candid Camera. It is impossible to engage with a mod like you quite frankly and besides, threadbanning a user for ignoring someone's point (even IF it was a legitimate one) is absurd. If they've done it multiple times before, and were carded for it, maybe, but otherwise, it's absurd. Do you have any idea how often users on my side of the aisle have our posts met with one line sneers that ignore ALL our points? Never once saw a mod jump into a thread and ban a user for ignoring a pro-Trump users views.

Its a funny auld site that we want an echo chamber yet you have been free to post in a duplicate thread concerning the election since the last issue you had.

Not today though, eh, Baggly. Just a coincidence that thread was locked today though of course.

Funny auld site that there is a feedback forum where your grievances are not only aired but responded to by the mods you put down. Do you have an explanation for why an echo chamber would behave like this?

If giving the feedback went unpunished, you might have a point, but you put a target on your back by pointing on moderation inconsistencies and biases in here. Oh and please don't try and suggest my remarks were/are aimed at all mods/admin, they're not. Just those mods/admin who clearly do not mod impartially and are clearly easily swayed by those who are determined to get users banned or have threads locked.

The fact of the matter is you don't have the full picture of how the forum is moderated, and the only ones that do are the forum mods. So by all means dismiss our responses before we make them, but you would be much better served, in my opinion, if you would post more in good faith and take our responses on board.

There are only so many times non-liberal users can be expected to turn the other cheek. Time and time again clear examples of biased moderation gets posted here and it gets dismissed. Show me just one of the liberal contingent that was threadbanned in CA for ignoring a user's strawman argument or asking a rhetorical question? It would never happen, because, like I said, you hold only one side of the aisle to a ridiculous standard. The last time I asked you for such an example you sanctimoniously twisted it to be my asking you to drag other users into a dispute. No doubt you'll do similar again.

Oh, and next time you threadban a user, could you at least card them, as otherwise they are left with no option but to post in the bloody Help Desk where disputes go to die and rarely if ever get resolved in a user's favour. Not to suggest that happens all that much in the DR forum, but at least there, users have a chance. Cheers.

Overheal

Zealots is not a term I frequently see in the thread, but a search pulls up 19 results out of almost 8,000 posts. Most of them from the same user frequently using the hashtag #IMPOTUS (Timberrrrrrr)

The term seems apt semantically. Supporters of trump in the US at least are fanatical and indeed compromising, willing the forsake norms they previously held dear to support their political ideal, eg. stacking the supreme court with unqualified pro-lifers to end abortion, flouting norms and rules they themselves used to further that agenda, ie. not holding confirmation hearings for a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, even pledging to voters afterward someone like AC Barret would not be seated or confirmed if an election was already underway. As well as tolerating scandals in the White House that are several orders of magnitude more apoplectic than a tan suit. Whether it should be applied in loose reference to other users is not my wheelhouse.