Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

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.

I am referring to posters on boards being labelled zealots. And regularly too. In general we are not Americans but are Irish people posting our opinions on an Irish discussion forum.

zealot

/ˈzɛlət/

noun

1.

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

This is a low blow and is used with the intention to antagonize and provoke reaction. Its insulting to posters

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I am referring to posters on boards being labelled zealots. And regularly too. In general we are not Americans but are Irish people posting our opinions on an Irish discussion forum.

zealot

/ˈzɛlət/

noun

1.

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

This is a low blow and is used with the intention to antagonize and provoke reaction. Its insulting to posters

There are certain posters that are pretty fanatical in their posts on Trump and exactly matching that description you've just posted tbh. Also, not being posted as frequently as you've claimed.

Overheal

I mean I've seen people claim the President doesn't lie, that he's just incorrect a lot.

I would consider that zealotry.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are certain posters that are pretty fanatical in their posts on Trump and exactly matching that description you've just posted tbh. Also, not being posted as frequently as you've claimed.

That's your opinion. It doesn't give anyone the right to insult people. You are trying to find an excuse to green light insults

It should be addressed by mods the same as any insult from the other side. But it isn't. Not a level playing field.

Overheal

As far as insults go, being called a zealot is multiple leagues left of being called an asshat.

I think this is becoming reductio ad absurdum at this point. Next we will ban 'brigade' etc? Clearly there is some reasonable balance between freedom of expression and sensitivity.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I am referring to posters on boards being labelled zealots. And regularly too. In general we are not Americans but are Irish people posting our opinions on an Irish discussion forum.

zealot

/ˈzɛlət/

noun

1.

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

This is a low blow and is used with the intention to antagonize and provoke reaction. Its insulting to posters

its a word with a meaning and is frequently appropriate

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That's your opinion. It doesn't give anyone the right to insult people. You are trying to find an excuse to green light insults

It should be addressed by mods the same as any insult from the other side. But it isn't. Not a level playing field.

Mods do action people when they make direct insults... Eg I was warned over something like that recently.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

As far as insults go, being called a zealot is multiple leagues left of being called an asshat.

I think this is becoming reductio ad absurdum at this point. Next we will ban 'brigade' etc? Clearly there is some reasonable balance between freedom of expression and sensitivity.

You know the definition of zealot. You are aware that it is aimed at posters on the thread. You have tried to justify its use. It's being used as an insult.

Freedom of expression isnt freedom to insult people. Isnt that part of the mantra used by some on the left?
Ironic no?

Call Me Jimmy

Stop arguing sh!te, do ye want to us all to call ye biden zealots, biden bots etc. all the time, if you search for trumptards trumpets, trump zealots etc. add them all up you'll find many more.

We can all write long posts justifying calling you anything too but for what?

Outlaw Pete

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

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.

And this is the crux of it, as by and large, it's only democrat / liberal politicians that get this protection on Boards, not just in CA, but in Politics also.

I remember the whole debacle when it was said that users couldn't say Obama spied on the Trump campaign, for example, but that changed when AG Barr went before Congress and used the term 'Spying' himself. Meanwhile, on the same forum, there was no issue with taking the view that Trump should be executed for Treason as he was clearly an agent of the Kremlin.

Same goes for all the talk over the years about how Trump was deranged and losing his mind. There was constant talk about how he couldn't even read a teleprompter and how it was a sure sign of his mental decline. Never an issue with that. Biden announces he's running for office though and suddenly talk of his mental decline is out of bounds.

It's quite clear that the sensibilities of only one side of the political aisle are catered to but why bother? We have the Politics for supposed serious discussion (although the fact that the Trump threads there read like leftist chat rooms tells its own story) and so can't CA be a little more relaxed and also, isn't banning such comments like Sleepy Joe, treating liberals like children, suggesting they can't deal with having the politicians they support spoken about dismissively? It's needless cotton wool treatment. People call Trump a man-baby non stop and it riles me not a bit. About time liberal users feelings weren't protected so much on Boards.

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You know the definition of zealot. You are aware that it is aimed at posters on the thread. It's being used as an insult.

Freedom of expression isnt freedom to insult people. Isnt that part of the mantra used by some on the left?
Ironic no?

Depends how it was used in which posts. Presumably you reported them.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

Depends how it was used in which posts. Presumably you reported them.

If a mod would just come along and clarify this could be put to bed.

Necro

This is it wrote: »

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.

Depends though. There are some posts you have to delete after sanctioning for various reasons.

Best practice depends on the situation would be my opinion anyways.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You know the definition of zealot. You are aware that it is aimed at posters on the thread. It's being used as an insult.

Freedom of expression isnt freedom to insult people. Isnt that part of the mantra used by some on the left?
Ironic no?

And posters do get actioned for things like that. I have been. Accusing Trump posters in general of being zealots is fine on the other hand. I'm not sure what the relevance of ranting about the left is tbh.

Necro

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If a mod would just come along and clarify this could be put to bed.

Mods aren't at your beck and call in fairness. Have a bit of patience given you only posted it 30 mins ago.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And posters do get actioned for things like that. I have been. Accusing Trump posters in general of being zealots is fine on the other hand. I'm not sure what the relevance of ranting about the left is tbh.

Let's hear a mods take on it. Thanks

ExMachina1000

Necro wrote: »

Mods aren't at your beck and call in fairness. Have a bit of patience given you only posted it 30 mins ago.

I'm in no rush. It's the feedback forum. I asked a question to the mods but responded to other posters in the meantime.

They might not even answer

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And this is the crux of it, as by and large, it's only democrat / liberal politicians that get this protection on Boards, not just in CA, but in Politics also.

I remember the whole debacle when it was said that users couldn't say Obama spied on the Trump campaign, for example, but that changed when AG Barr went before Congress and used the term 'Spying' himself. Meanwhile, on the same forum, there was no issue with taking the view that Trump should be executed for Treason as he was clearly an agent of the Kremlin.

Same goes for all the talk over the years about how Trump was deranged and losing his mind. There was constant talk about how he couldn't even read a teleprompter and how it was a sure sign of his mental decline. Never an issue with that. Biden announces he's running for office though and suddenly talk of his mental decline is out of bounds.

It's quite clear that the sensibilities of only one side of the political aisle are catered to but why bother? We have the Politics for supposed serious discussion (although the fact that the Trump threads there read like leftist chat rooms tells its own story) and so can't CA be a little more relaxed and also, isn't banning such comments like Sleepy Joe, treating liberals like children, suggesting they can't deal with having the politicians they support spoken about dismissively? It's needless cotton wool treatment. People call Trump a man-baby non stop and it riles me not a bit. About time liberal users feelings weren't protected so much on Boards.

Are you pretending that the vast majority of such posts were not in direct response to Biden is Senile posts?

Considering CA/IMHO hasn’t been around longer than Biden has been a candidate in 2020 speaks to your claim that ‘Biden runs and suddenly etc’ seems absolutely out of bounds.

The forum launched in June 2019 while Biden formally announced in April 2019.

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/zealot

zealot

noun [ C ]

UK 

 /ˈzel.ət/ US 

 /ˈzel.ət/

 

a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too:

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Considering CA/IMHO hasn’t been around longer than Biden has been a candidate in 2020 speaks to your claim that ‘Biden runs and suddenly etc’ seems absolutely out of bounds.

The forum launched in June 2019 while Biden formally announced in April 2019.

Sigh. You even quoted this part of my post but yet then ignored it:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And this is the crux of it, as by and large, it's only democrat / liberal politicians that get this protection on Boards, not just in CA, but in Politics also.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh.

Your melodrama always impresses

You even quoted this part of my post but yet then ignored it:

Yeah it's a CA/IMHO feedback thread. Not a politics thread. Attacking the CA/IMHO mods,

Baggly, Beasty, dudara, hullaballoo, Ken., Kimbot, mike_ie, Mr E, Sephiroth_dude, Skylinehead, Ten of Swords

...for complaints regarding the moderation of Politics?

ancapailldorcha, Chips Lovell, johnnyskeleton, Quin_Dub, Seth Brundle

What do you hope to accomplish here? There is no overlap. Your complaints about the Politics forum are off topic here.

Outlaw Pete

I never attacked anyone, much less the list of mods/admin you dramatically listed as my having done so.

In fact, some in that list are thoroughly decent mods and absolutely have shown they have the ability to moderate without bias.


@Baggly, at 19:06pm tonight you wrote:

Baggly wrote: »

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

Yet, at 8:10am yesterday you wrote:

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

The phrase 'Sleepy Joe' should not be used here. Use it again and you will lose your posting privileges in this thread.

Don't you think telling users they will lose their posting privileges if they use a particular phrase is tantamount to banning it?

No rush with the reply ...

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I never attacked anyone, much less the list of mods/admin you dramatically listed as my having done so.

In fact, some in that list are thoroughly decent mods and absolutely have shown they have the ability to moderate without bias.


@Baggly, at 19:06pm tonight you wrote:



Yet, at 8:10am yesterday you wrote:



Don't you think telling users they will lose their posting privileges if they use a particular phrase is tantamount to banning it?

No rush with the reply ...

While i entirely think trump is a gowl and the fangirling of him (or biden) by sections of this site is weird

That is quality internetting right there kudos

Baggly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I never attacked anyone, much less the list of mods/admin you dramatically listed as my having done so.

In fact, some in that list are thoroughly decent mods and absolutely have shown they have the ability to moderate without bias.


@Baggly, at 19:06pm tonight you wrote:



Yet, at 8:10am yesterday you wrote:



Don't you think telling users they will lose their posting privileges if they use a particular phrase is tantamount to banning it?

No rush with the reply ...

I quoted and spoke directly to one poster. Not everyone. I have clarified this in this thread Pete.

I have never once asked you to grovel but I did ask you to consider the possibility of being incorrect. A request you chose to ignore repeatedly. If I was looking to not engage with you there are easier ways for me to do so than to repeatedly respond to your pms.

Baggly

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If a mod would just come along and clarify this could be put to bed.

As always, of course context matters. My 2c but each case is judged on its merits. If its used to describe a general group of die hard fans, that's one thing, if it's used as an obvious insult to a poster that's another.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

I quoted and spoke directly to one poster. Not everyone. I have clarified this in this thread Pete.

Here you are yet again refusing to admit when you're wrong, Baggly. You said, and I quote:

Baggly wrote:

The phrase 'Sleepy Joe' should not be used here.

That is not merely speaking with one user. You are declaring that the phrase is not to be used, period.

I have never once asked you to grovel but I did ask you to consider the possibility of being incorrect. A request you chose to ignore repeatedly.

This is a lie and a provable one as I have the PMs to show that I absolutely considered your view. It was you who did not once consider mine, and refused to engage on the specifics. You just kept repeating that you would be willing to lift the threadban if I showed remorse. On a point of principal I did not as I had not done anything wrong. I shall start a Help Desk thread in the morning on the matter.

If I was looking to not engage with you there are easier ways for me to do so than to repeatedly respond to your pms.

Oh please, stop acting like you were doing me a favour by replying to my PMs when you know very well that you are obligated to. Indeed, it's the first question users are asked when they raise a dispute.

Baggly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Responded to this previously so on we go.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Thats a very simplistic and, frankly, incorrect summation of our (thats right i counted) 28 message conversation. But to get to the point in it, you were disrupting the thread and deliberately ignoring users rebuttals to your points, repeatedly. Its a discussion site and as part of that you have to discuss things with users. Its not a one way system. This is, by the way, the same thing i say to all users who ignore others posts and continue to soapbox.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

The thread was locked because the same discussions were being had in 2 different threads. The same issues and the same reports on largely the same group of users (across both camps) was coming up. In retrospect it was madness to have more than 1 thread dedicated to the topic. And the other thread is the bigger one, given its a sequel thread. I had no idea Beasty was closing it and in fact posted a mod warning at the same time he closed it. Ill screengrab it tomorrow for you (as i deleted it) if you cannot take me at my word. I have no idea why you consider it a coincidence, but i can imagine its something to do with the mods being out to get you/and or your side, somehow. If you are suggesting the thread was closed to directly inconvenience you, then with the greatest of respect i can confirm to you that you are not so central to modding that we consider how a procedural piece of modding applies to you. I didnt even realise you were posting in that thread tonight (or in general) Pete.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

You posted feedback, then returned to a thread and broke rules. What did you think was going to happen? If ANYONE had done that they would have been met with the same mod actions.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Examples have been raised where i have actioned 'non-liberal' posters and then reversed the decision. People posting in this thread can attest to that. I always aim to be fair and engage with people who engage with me. I hold everyone to the same standard and i think the issue here is that you cannot see every action that is made. They have been made. If, again, you cant take me at my word, then thats a shame, but nothing can be done about that really.

By the way, i did not twist anything. I tell every single poster that asks me 'never mind what i did, what about XYZ, why arent you punishing them' the same thing. Why would i discuss any action against them with you - would you like me discussing the action against you with them? Its a matter of common courtesy and respect to keep private discussions private. I have no business discussing actions against someone else with you or anyone else except them and / or the forum mod team.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

No. Help desk works. DRP works. You do not get special treatment.

You are some man for the fictional narratives that have the mods persecuting you, i will give you that.

Baggly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here you are yet again refusing to admit when you're wrong, Baggly. You said, and I quote:

That is not merely speaking with one user. You are declaring that the phrase is not to be used, period.

This is a lie and a provable one as I have the PMs to show that I absolutely considered your view. It was you who did not once consider mine, and refused to engage on the specifics. You just kept repeating that you would be willing to lift the threadban if I showed remorse. On a point of principal I did not as I had not done anything wrong. I shall start a Help Desk thread in the morning on the matter.

Oh please, stop acting like you were doing me a favour by replying to my PMs when you know very well that you are obligated to. Indeed, it's the first question users are asked when they raise a dispute.

Yeah only using part of a quote is a neat trick.

"The phrase 'Sleepy Joe' should not be used here. Use it again and you will lose your posting privileges in this thread."

The full quote shows i was talking directly to the user.

I am obligated to respond to your PMs to attemot a resolution, but if you think i am obligated to go to the lengths i did to try to resolve the situation, you are incorrect. In fact, i feel we have reached that junction again. Thanks for the feedback Outlaw Pete.

This is it

Baggly wrote: »

You are some man for the fictional narratives that have the mods persecuting you, i will give you that.

It's not like it hasn't happened to him before...

Baggly

This is it wrote: »

It's not like it hasn't happened to him before...

Well funny thing is that, as the mod in this scenario, i have a unique insight as to whether thats whats happening or not.

Its not.