The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)

I still have no idea what you're talking about and you apparently couldn't read my post that you replied to.

It seems like you're quoting me but replying to some posts in another forum that kicked you out? You need to be kicked out of here too for out of place gibberish.

BGP thinks that the world needs to work their way not others. While also claiming that the kremlin has never heard of game theory.

Thats makes ZERO SENSE.

Yes, it does make sense that the Politics forum is for politics, and not for whatever BFI-related topic you weren't allowed to post about there. Also, if you have an issue with a moderator, that's what About the Forums is for. Start a thread there if you have a moderation issue you want to discuss; don't go around other forums making every second post about your issue with a moderator. Thanks.

If the math is good it should be allowed to be discussed.

Not sure why you'd want to deny good math just because a poster might be annoying.

You're the only one who mentioned the poster being annoying. I'm talking about the politics forum not being the place for someone to bring their issues with the way they were moderated in a different forum.

no ****ing kidding man!

what is 2 + 2?

I asked what the definition/disambiguation of GTO vs NE was in the theory sub and got told I'm crazy.

Jbouton has been temp banned after insults to posters in another thread and continuing posting about issue in another forum in this forum

well you should be consistent, quite a lot of insults being actively ignored by mods in the trans visibility thread right now

gangsta did ironically just pop in to clarify the "not a mental health issue" rule while ignoring all the insults

Because of 12 hour time difference I am just getting up. I saw your post reports and will review them. At first glance some appear to be snide remarks that don't rise to the level of a personal attack warranting mod action. But I don't know if those are the posts you are referring to or not.

Your assessment of insults being actively ignored by mods is incorrect. If a mod sees a post they believe warrants mod action they take it. More likely is that a mod hasn't seen it yet. Just bc a reported post is still up doesn't mean it has id approval. It can be many hours or even days before a mod takes action.

oh i have no doubt they weren't not looked at

feels pretty weak to make a rule and then only enforce it when its lobbed against people you like

fwiw doorbread is the only one i don't think should catch a temp ban because he was at least courageous enough to finally admit he was indeed beating around the bush with cleverly worded insults that wouldn't look as if they were - sadly, i feel like his confession will lead to him being the only one getting a temp ban whereas he's the only one i take no issue with because he at least had the courage to admit it

it's quite clear that they are engaging in creative ways to insult to avoid the ban as karl max is the example that if you straight up call someone names directly you will get banned

so now it's all done with transitive insults

i'm been accused of a number of terrible things, none of which there is any evidence of it, my favorite is that i'm apparently a white supremacist and all other kinds of nasty things

Well I'm out and on my phone now but took a quick look at some posts. But can't really carefully review them on a tiny phone screen. I agree with ganstaman that a brief cooling off period would be good. I also intend to delete the posts where you bring up the trans is a mental health issue in a way that attempts to circumvent that rule.

As far as the white supremacy thing if the only quote you are basing that on is the one you quoted where he references Meisner then that's a stretch to get to that conclusion. I see a bunch of accusations but few concrete post backing them up. For example if you are going to accuse Bryce of saying lia and Jackie Robinson are analogous then you should be able to quote him when he denies saying that.

Quotes are important when accusing someone of saying something. Often people paraphrase instead and change one word that totally changes the meaning. For example yesterday I saw an exchange (I don't recall if you were involved or not) where one poster claimed another said Zelenskyy was a nazi. The other poster claimed he said Zelenskyy was backed by nazis. That is a very different thing.

I could say the Trump is backed by white supremacists. That's true. But it is not at all the same thing as claiming I said Trump is a white supremacist. That's not just a semantic ploy.

I've seen lots of arguments here were the basis is a paraphrase changing the meaning of a persons statement and then the whole debate revolves around a false premise. That's why quotes are important so people can see if they interpret the quote in the same manner you do.

I'll have more later but I again recommend people take a step back for a while to cool down as ganstaman suggested

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Bryce said you supported a poster who is racist, not that you support racism.

Bobo, have you stopped beating your wife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_que...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I've not asked you a question, and neither did Bryce.

Saying you supported someone who is racist doesn't necessarily mean you are a racist. If we agree that poster X is racist, poster X suggests that all Americans should receive free health care, or rickroll should get a free Tesla, and I support that, that doesn't mean I'm racist.

Now if Bryce was saying poster X is racist and you support poster X's racism, or that you support everything he says, that's something different. I don't recall that being what he did, but again, perhaps you can correct me if I have that wrong.

Can we put an end to this rickroll pity party and just ban him for stating he thinks transgender people suffer from a mental illness and he thinks it's gaslighting to claim otherwise. You put this rule into place, invited comment on it, erased all the posts about it and now just let people dance across the line in a succession of posts, instead of a single one. But in post 2840, RR just lets it fly again, like the rule doesn't exist.

I have created a new moderation thread to alleviate the mod discussions in here. But it has a very different purpose and ground rules compared to the old mod thread. So please read post 1 carefully before posting in there.

Thanks

is that a thread where wife beaters and sex trafficking pedophiles are welcome?

wholly unrelated and not germane to you guys at all, i'm just asking questions and thinking out loud

You really should stop trolling.

Crossnerd got it right - you can alleviate by jerking it. You don't need a new thread.

i'm doing exactly what was done to me to you guys as an example and you now take offense to it and yet still don't see anything wrong with what the others did, only with what i'm doing

funny how it works like that

just admit that this no insults rule has backfired tremendously, you guys went into this thinking those advocating against teen transition were the mean ones throwing out insults and now that it means temp bans for posters who you agree with you suddenly find yourself reluctant to enforce your own rules

i've said this many times, if you are going to moderate with extreme bias where rules don't apply to one half of the field then just permanently close all those threads because you're doing more harm than good leaving them open where one side is free to attack others and only one side

Rickroll, why don't you just chill out a bit? It's not a huge deal.

agreed, any other thread who cares

but this is a systemic bias that needs to be addressed and I 100% would have been banned already had I done the same because I am not on the "correct" side of things according to moderation

either enforce your own brand new rules that you made a big deal out of or close all the trans threads completely instead of allowing them to be a safe haven of one sided slander and insults