Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

From reading about 10 pages or so, you all have the patience of saints.

This is it

Baggly wrote: »

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.

Aye, similar was said by more than a few mods back then too. You'd hardly tell us if it was true in fairness.

Look, I'm not saying it's true or it isn't, only pointing out that there's history of it.

This is it

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From reading about 10 pages or so, you all have the patience of saints.

I consider it a curse.

Baggly

This is it wrote: »

Aye, similar was said by more than a few mods back then too. You'd hardly tell us if it was true in fairness.

Look, I'm not saying it's true or it isn't, only pointing out that there's history of it.

I don't think I'd be in here engaging and explaining my actions as a mod, it i was out to get anyone.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

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.

lol. I quoted the whole line in the previous post, why are you suggesting that I am trying to "trick" people? This is ridiculous.

Look, Baggly, if a user uses the N word tomorrow on a thread, then a mod will likely say:

"The N word should not be used here. Use it again and you will lose your posting privileges in this thread."

That is NOT a mod just talking to one user. That is clearly a mod pointing out that the N word is not to be used at all, by anyone, and that if that user uses it again, they will be banned, yes, but only because use of the word is not allowed. Just because the latter have of the quote specifies the individual user will lose his posting privileges, does not mean that the first half of the post wasn't suggesting that the phrase is not to be used by anyone.

You are engaging in mental gymnastics here to excuse the fact that you were wrong in what you said.

Baggly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. I quoted the whole line in the previous post, why are you suggesting that I am trying to "trick" people? This is ridiculous.

Look, Baggly, if a user uses the N word tomorrow on a thread, then a mod will likely say:



That is NOT a mod just talking to one user. That is clearly a mod pointing out that the N word is not to be used at all, by anyone, and that if that user uses it again, they will be banned. Just because the latter have of the quote specifies the individual user, does not mean that the first half was also.

You are engaging in mental gymnastics here to excuse the fact that you were wrong in what you said.

I have no idea why you cherry picked it. I'm not going to try to figure it out tbh.

If someone uses the N word they get a card or ban, and it gets deleted. No on thread warning, no personalised message.

I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I said. I think it's really unhealthy this has to be the way we discuss it, rather than, as an example already brought up, a pm to me to clarify. Which several users did, to satisfaction.

There is no conspiracy against you Pete. I doubt you will beleive me but its true. There you go.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

.. 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.

Utter nonsense. Here was my lengthy reply to one of that user's strawman arguments. How could I be ignoring their "points" when I replied to them in such a lengthy way??

That you categorize that reply as my "hijacking" and "disrupting" the thread is a disgrace. If that was the case, how come I had no cards on the thread or on thread warnings even?? Did CA mods really allow a user to hijack and disrupt a thread and not action them? Seems odd. You wouldn't be exaggerating for effect now would you, Baggly?

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.

I didn't break any rules and the reason there was so many PMs between us is because you kept on replying with stock mod answers and didn't engage in the specifics. You wanted me to apologize for ignoring a strawman (in a double strawman post) and for also making points via rhetorical questions (how dare I)/ You know, just because users (say via the report post function) that users are ignoring points made, does not make that so.

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.

The things liberal users generally get actioned for, I am not surprised they show remorse via PM. They should do. I, on the other hand, never engage in personal attacks. Never saw the point.

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.

Of course you have banned liberal users, never said nor suggested you hadn't, but no mod would ever threadban a liberal user for making points via rhetorical questions or ignoring a strawman argument a user made. It would never ever happen, nor should it.

You do not get special treatment.

What a snarky thing to say. Here is my quote:

... next time you threadban a user, could you at least card them,

I'm clearly talking about ALL users but you just had to twist it that I wanted special treatment. No, I do not. I just know how frustrating it is to be threadbanned from a longstanding thread and not get carded and have to post an appeal in the Help Desk.

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

Not fictional, has happened me before. Twice before. Another less rational person might develop a complex.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

I have no idea why you cherry picked it. I'm not going to try to figure it out tbh.

I didn't "cherry pick" it.

If someone uses the N word they get a card or ban, and it gets deleted. No on thread warning, no personalised message.

The N word was just used as an example. I can't even ...

I'll try again. Here's your post:

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.

And here's my point:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lJust because the latter half of the quote specifies an individual user will lose his posting privileges, does not mean that the first half of the post wasn't suggesting that the phrase is not to be used by anyone.

At least try and address that point, Baggly - it's a small one.

jesus is there really no way to keep these typing stamina contest vendettas off this shared thread tho

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I, on the other hand, never engage in personal attacks. Never saw the point.

But an entire Sunday fighting for the right to say "Sleepy Joe" for 3 more days is productive?

Is this how y'all PM? It seems deliberately exhausting.

Baggly

I've been more than fair in responding to you Outlaw Pete. I have responded in good faith and each response hasn't satisfied you. I honestly don't think anything I will say will actually satisfy you, as I don't think you can take my posts at face value or in the spirit intended, which is a shame, becuase I am being honest with you.

As such, no I'm not going to engage with you on those points again. Mainly because I've already done so. Repeatedly.

Thank you for your feedback.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Is this how y'all PM?

Oh, don't act you don't know what it's like to PM with me. I still have the receipts.

Baggly wrote: »

I've been more than fair in responding to you Outlaw Pete. I have responded in good faith and each response hasn't satisfied you. I honestly don't think anything I will say will actually satisfy you, as I don't think you can take my posts at face value or in the spirit intended, which is a shame, becuase I am being honest with you.

As such, no I'm not going to engage with you on those points again. Mainly because I've already done so. Repeatedly.

This is EXACTLY what it was like to PM with you. You completely ignore points made to you and reply as if you haven't.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh, don't act you don't know what it's like to PM with me. I still have the receipts.

... all 3 of them?

I can't say in any of them you were this combative or exhausting. Though I will say in one of them you said something quite revealing about your core view on liberals. May I share?

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

I can't say in any of them you were this combative or exhausting.

Really, well you must have caught me on a good day.

Though I will say in one of them you said something quite revealing about your core view on liberals. May I share?

Leftists, you mean. Sure, work away.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Leftists, you mean. Sure, work away.

"I despise leftists and EVERYTHING they represent," you said.

I think that's a very clear admission of animus and bias that permeates your posts here.

Outlaw Pete

Yeah, sounds like me alright - not a fan of leftists:

Just one thing though: I have a ton of integrity and so whilst I might have a bias, I would never allow it to impact how I treat others.

You see, I just want all users held to the same standard of posting and apply the rules evenhandedly, even when they're leftists.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, sounds like me alright - not a fan of leftists:




Just one thing though: I have a ton of integrity and so whilst I might have a bias, I would never allow it to impact how I treat others.

You see, I just want all users held to the same standard of posting and apply the rules evenhandedly, even when they're leftists.

Yeah but anyone who has interacted with you for a length of time knows that while you may think that of yourself it's not true in practice. Also, you ascribe "leftists" to everything, eg. "The Leftist Media" to broadly refer to everything not Pro-Trump. It's as though you can't identify anything moderate or liberal as being valid, it's all lumped into the leftist label, and therefore in your own view despicable, which is heavily reflected in your posts and attitude towards users you attribute the label to, either explicitly or implicitly.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah but anyone who has interacted with you for a length of time knows that while you may think that of yourself it's not true in practice.

If that was true, I'd have a litany of cards/bans for personal abuse, but yet in 15 years, not a single one.

Also, you ascribe "leftists" to everything, eg. "The Leftist Media" to broadly refer to everything not Pro-Trump. It's as though you can't identify anything moderate or liberal as being valid, it's all lumped into the leftist label, and therefore in your own view despicable, which is heavily reflected in your posts and attitude towards users you attribute the label to, either explicitly or implicitly.

Well, the liberal media today is largely made up of leftists and I think for sure they have become more and more radical.

Interesting subject, maybe start a thread on it in CA on it, but meanwhile I'm trying to give some feedback here, on what I see as the inconsistent and unfair moderation of non-liberals in CA, and would appreciate it if you'd take me out of your crosshairs for two minutes. Either that or nominate me for the next AMA, happy to oblige.

KyussB

There is zero doubt that there is policing of an Overton Window, that mods are probably largely unaware of even when they themselves are doing it - as that is precisely the type of bias that mainstream news sources instill in people.

The level of this society-wide/internationally-reaching bias is incredible, coming up to the US election this year (and all tipped in support of Biden).

It's a perfectly human thing, but when stuff like that becomes evident, then people need to recuse themselves of being mods - and admins need to enforce that when mods don't themselves.

If you look at what happened to Glenn Greenwald on his exit from The Intercept, he describes incredibly well how the editors there have gone through this bias.

Baggly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is EXACTLY what it was like to PM with you. You completely ignore points made to you and reply as if you haven't.

Ive said thank you for your feedback twice and you are still trying to bait me back into discussion? Accept i have taken your points on board and leave it at that. Or does your integrity not extend to me/mods?

Dial Hard

Mother of god, some of yis really need to put the phone down and go out for a walk or something.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

Mother of god, some of yis really need to put the phone down and go out for a walk or something.

Yeah no matter how bad things might seem if you're feeling a bit down, the last few pages show that things could always be worse.

Outlaw Pete

It would be nice if mods here would do something about the endless snipping from some suggesting users are posting too much here or about how people should put down phones and go outside. It's hard enough to have this conversation without this constant cheerleading of mods/admin from the sidelines.

Baggly wrote: »

Ive said thank you for your feedback twice and you are still trying to bait me back into discussion? Accept i have taken your points on board and leave it at that. Or does your integrity not extend to me/mods?

Yes, Baggly, you have thanked me for my feedback, you have, but you have not for one second taken my points on board and have in fact, ignored them, all of them, repeatedly, which is why I said that this was exactly what it was like trying to speak with you via PM (re my theradban), as no matter how many times I tried to explain to you why I ignored one strawman argument within a user's post, you not once responded to that point, not once, and just kept reverting back to absurd accusations that I had "hijacked" a thread and needed to show "remorse" for it. That is not "engaging" with a user, no matter how many PMs you send. It's berating them and belittling them.

With regards to the 'Sleepy Joe' stuff, last night I used the 'N Word' to try and illustrate my point and you went off on a tangent about what would happen if a user used the N Word on a thread. Are you really that incapable of taking a user's point on board? Again, I would appreciate it if you would at least try and see this from the perspective of users:

If a Mod says to one user (whilst moderating them): "The phrase 'X' should not be used here. Use it again and you will lose your posting privileges in this thread" can you really not see how that phrasing understandably leads to ALL users thinking that they also must not use that phrase on the thread either? I'd appreciate it if you'd address that point as, so far at least, you have not.

Now, with regards to this:

Baggly wrote: »

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.

What amazes me is that you think speaking to me in this way amounts to you taking my feedback on board. It does not. Although, you're not the first mod to take the 'Pete's crazy' route and no doubt you won't be the last and ye i absolutely think you threadbanned me from the Trump vs Biden thread out of retaliation for giving negative feedback about your moderation. Sorry, but you never modded me once before and so to theradban me within hours of my highlighting your poor moderation is just not something I am willing to pass off as coincidental, particularly given the pettiness of it, that I ignored another user's point, please. You can suggest I have a persecution complex again if you like but not a chance that threadban wasn't retaliatory.

As for the locking of the 'Who thinks Trump will win?' thread. You're wrong, I do NOT think it was a coincidence the thread was locked, that's the point, and in fact Beasty admitted, on this very thread might I add, right before he locked the thread in CA, that he was now in a mind to do just that:

Beasty wrote: »

TBH we already have too many election threads but each one has already gained a log of traction. Once one reaches the 10k limit I think it best to move subsequent discussions into one of the others (and create a Megathresd). I suspect they are all going over similar ground (but that's only based on the reports I have seen)

And as can be seen, Beasty even references reports informing what he thinks about those threads, which is also something I highlighted, that certain users want those threads locked and will try and manipulate the locking of such threads by reporting them and saying that they are not needed etc.

So yes, that thread WAS locked yesterday in response to the negative feedback that I (and other users) gave in this thread, it was not a coincidence, and you can post the likes of the following again if you wish ....

Baggly wrote: »

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

... but it won't make it so.

All I want is to able to post my views on Trump in the context of the US election and now I have no way to do so. My detractors will of course say it's my own fault, blah blah blah, but can users honestly say that I have posted in a manner which warrants my being unable to post on those threads?? In Politics it was said my views on the liberal media were a conspiracy theory and so that's why I am no longer free to post in the Trump thread there and in CA apparently ignoring strawmans and making points via rhetorical questions is the crime.

Meanwhile, as we speak, there are users that have personally abused me (one going as far as to say I should be sectioned) happily posting away on those threads (given they only received a yellow card for their transgression) and this is the problem with Boards, overmoderation of views and opinions (banning users from calling Joe Biden 'Sleepy' is ludicrous, particularly in a forum that derived from AH) whilst being soft handed with those who partake in personal abuse and can't have a debate without resorting to constant ad hominems. The latter is far more of problem on Boards than the former.

Kidchameleon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Meanwhile, as we speak, there are users that have personally abused me (one going as far as to say I should be sectioned) happily posting away on those threads (given they only received a yellow card for their transgression) and this is the problem with Boards, overmoderation of views and opinions (banning users from calling Joe Biden 'Sleepy' is ludicrous, particularly in a forum that derived from AH) whilst being soft handed with those who partake in personal abuse and can't have a debate without resorting to constant ad hominems. The latter is far more of problem on Boards than the former.

I have been called an 'idiot' several times, a 'trumptard', a 'clapping seal' and 'stupid' among other hurtful things. I have been refered to as 'racist' for simply supporting the president. I did report these incidents for a while but gave up when I saw no mod action being taken. I can tell you now, if I went into the thread and called someone an 'idiot' just once, I'd be gone. One thing Boards.ie always did in the past was protect its users from personal abuse, not any more it seems... I believe it is because I support President Trump. The mods can deny it all they want in this thread, they are fooling no one.

Outlaw Pete

Yup, 100% and the other day a CA Mod edited one one of my posts and removed the following comment I made in repsponse to a liberal user who disagreed with my saying that the host of the 60 Minutes Trump interview was "uninformed":

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, of course she seemed well informed to you, given the nonsense you believe.

There is not a snow's chance in hell that a Mod would delete a comment like that made by a liberal user about a pro-Trump user. Sure I (and others) can link to stuff all day that is far worse.

So not only are users being threadbanned for ignoring strawman arguments made by liberal users (as if they are entitled to response no matter what they say) mods are also editing posts removing comments made about them when someone so much as suggests that they believe nonsense.

Yeah, no bias in the moderation of CA at all like.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have been called an 'idiot' several times, a 'trumptard', a 'clapping seal' and 'stupid' among other hurtful things. I have been refered to as 'racist' for simply supporting the president. I did report these incidents for a while but gave up when I saw no mod action being taken. I can tell you now, if I went into the thread and called someone an 'idiot' just once, I'd be gone. One thing Boards.ie always did in the past was protect its users from personal abuse, not any more it seems... I believe it is because I support President Trump. The mods can deny it all they want in this thread, they are fooling no one.

I'd be the last person to be claiming the mods are biased against yourself missus, if I was you.

You said in the thread that's still open that any woman that trump might have grabbed by the pussy wasn't sexually assaulted because in your warped opinion they automatically consented because he was famous.
Apart from the mod deleting the your post and the replies calling it what it was, a scummy comment, you were allowed stay in the thread after a two day thread ban.
I've seen people site banned for less. That doesn't even include the number of fake videos and and articles you posted and commented on as gospel.
.

Chips Lovell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In Politics it was said my views on the liberal media were a conspiracy theory and so that's why I am no longer free to post in the Trump thread there and in CA apparently ignoring strawmans and making points via rhetorical questions is the crime.

Meanwhile, as we speak, there are users that have personally abused me (one going as far as to say I should be sectioned) happily posting away on those threads (given they only received a yellow card for their transgression)...

I've already gone through this once with you via PM and again on this very thread as recently as August. The fact that you continually misrepresent the circumstances that led up to your threadban leads me to believe that you aren't engaging in good faith here and are instead trying to waste moderators' time.

TheRepentent

poor old misunderstood Pete.


Going from what the mods have been trying to say , its a case of "it's not us , it's you " and like a messy breakup , one partner just doesn't get the fukking message.

Outlaw Pete

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I've already gone through this once with you via PM and again on this very thread as recently as August. The fact that you continually misrepresent the circumstances that led up to your threadban leads me to believe that you aren't engaging in good faith here and are instead trying to waste moderators' time.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, you are - in an attempt to excuse the Politics forums' disgracefully biased moderation.

It's a lie that when I was banned from there for posting that Trump tweet (which I am shocked you have the gall to defend) that it was because my post only contained a tweet and no discussion. It's a lie because in that post I asked would the liberal media also now fact check the obvious joke from Trump as they had with him the week before for another joke and I made that clear in my DR thread.

As for cards, you are talking about cards from years back for photobombing, and are you really citing them as an excuse for labeling my views a "conspiracy theory" now?? Views, might I add, that have since gone on to be proved correct given big tech and the mainstream media's actions in the interim re the Hunter Biden emails story.

Oh I know, I know, that's all just Russian Misinformation, right - that's the view of the Politics forum consensus and this is the issue, you are moderating views in a manner you were never supposed to. As long as someone as a legitimate reason for believing something, it is not your place to just come along and label it a "conspiracy theory" and then threadban a user as you did to me.

That is why the Politics forum reads like a liberal echo chamber right now. It's impossible to have a discussion there as users are perplexed at the very notion that someone could disagree with them and who can blame them when mods are willing to jump in and label users they disagree with conspiracy theorists.

You should be ashamed of what you did, not on here trying to excuse it.

Smee_Again

It’s just so hard to know who is the more trustworthy poster, the mods or the person who posts edited clips, links to easily proven lies and even Tommy Robinson’s website.