Random Politics & Religion #01

Higher up on the last page.

Well, we should definitely make one for dealing with nonsense. I mean, you shut down anti-vax arguments really quick, and the last 8 pages have been nothing but nonsense. Nausi posts an article about an incident in October dealing with cameras in women's showers, then proceeds to attack the transgender bathroom rule without actually being able to connect the two, despite repeatedly being pressed to.

If you want to make a topic to talk about, (as in post a link and then create a conversation about it) you should have to actually talk about that topic or else just drop it entirely, as in, stop posting about it, like nausi should have done at least 7 pages ago.

I was debating basically this.
Same thing pretty much.

So you want Rooks to make it so you can't post anymore?

That's a fair point. That particular topic is quite personal to me, which is why I abandon my usual flimsy pretense of objectivity for it. But you're right, I should be consistent.

I don't think I have a particular answer beyond "report for Spam" or "block", though. People can't be forced to engage on the topic; all that can happen is either people block them (if they're being annoying but not actively disruptive) or call in Ackojo (if they are). Sorry I don't have a better answer. You get why I've gotta crack down on the targeted stuff though, right?

That's childish. Vic is now 100% justified in a response of "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm choosing to read this as a playful jest, because you can't possibly think taking a shot at someone who I am actively talking to about a shot they took is a great plan

Yup, I'm the childish one here.

Well, just last week Ackeron came in here and warned people for false reports, and threatened topic bans if they continued. Which, I support that, everyone has been told to have thick skin and to get over it.
So, we can't have one mod saying "Stop reporting ***" and another saying "Report ***."
Blocking doesnt work, it is a lost cause because of the quote function. I have deces blocked, which probably shouldn't be needed because deces should be banned, but its a useless gesture because people quote him.
I think we should be allowed to deal with nonsense topics like we did today, calling out nausi for his delusions and if he insists on continuing on, just keep calling him out until a mod comes and shuts down the conversation because he can't put forth any kind of point.

ok this is the SECOND time you've used this personal attack on me in the length of a day.

Just pointing it out.

/popcorn

So? What other conclusion can be made after you have repeatedly refused to connect the dots in your made up argument? I mean, Rooks just asked you to, and you still refuse. But, blame liberalism!

Yeah, we actually had an internal discussion about reporting after all that, so everyone could get on the same page. In the past, so much lockstep on what was report worthy and what wasn't, wasn't needed - I actually liked having mods with different thresholds, to give varying perspective. The problem was that some parties were reading "topicbans come faster now" as "maybe I can get my opponents expelled by just hitting report enough". It happened on both sides of the aisle, and that's what got Ack to step in here.

But, if we're going to crack down on fighting, that means report has to be the sanctioned weapon for dealing with miscreants.

Well thats good that you talked about it, but you should probably have shared the consensus with the rest of us, as of now I consider Ackeron's warning to still be in effect (which is fine because I know he wasn't talking to me).

If you can't answer direct questions, then delusions is being pretty generous. The defense against personal attacks is meant to protect people putting forth reasoned viewpoints; it's not a license to just say whatever and piss people off when you refuse to engage.

I gave you a chance to connect the dots specifically to clear that up, and you didn't take it.

Speaking of calling in one of us, not to discourage reports nor encourage abuse, but I see a lot of "it's harassing me/another user" reports and when I look, it's either just a simple name drop or it's some cheeky reference to some post the person being name dropped made a page prior or something like that.

I can't, in all fairness, start removing people over "he said my name" or some petty reference to a comment that you've likely made in the past. If it's something that crosses from snarkasm to blatant harassment then yes, we'll do something.

My main point here is that we DO read all reports and I just feel that I should give you some explanation as to why some seem to go 'ignored' P&R isn't exactly a safe space but it isn't the wild west either.


Oh, and before finger pointing starts, the reports come from and are flung in all directions.

Oh that's tough to read without reference to a specific law in question. Do you mean the current law? In any particular state? Are you really asking as a mod or just as your devil's advocate alter-ego?

I've mentioned the concept of "unintended consequences" (previously in this stretch) from simply removing the notion of sex segregation in bathrooms/lockerooms. Not my fault if the other side doesn't want to acknowledge said concepts.

Remove the stigma from men being in the women's room and big surprise more men will be in the women's room, including the ones women don't want in there.

I'm sure trans people have their own conflicts, but the rest of us don't need to give pervs more reason to enter women's locker rooms. So put on your big boy (or girl) pants and come back to reality when you use the bathroom.

It's still a work in progress, which is why it's not been shared. The working plan for now is to not go crazy on people using report, until we figure out what the real plan is, and communicate that.

I've been out of town (and really busy when I'm in town) so it hasn't proceeded that quickly. Sorry about that. I've had too many balls in the air, and things have slipped through the cracks. Mea culpa.

So wait, if person X is attacking person Y and person Y for that reason or whatever other reason doesn't wish to engage with person X then person X is entitled to sling as much mud as they want?

In my experience of being reported on; 9 times out of 10 the mod doesn't really even in look into the matter and just acts to satisfy the complainer. Also turns out 9 times out of 10 they're not satisfied.

It would be nice if mods at least skimmed and reviewed a few posts before and after the reported posts of the posters involved; in order to get some context. Cause we do have some chronic reporters who don't want the mods to see some of their posts leading up to a post they're reporting on.

Drama Torama's political stances are quite malleable, but that's a pretty direct question. I was referring specifically to this law, though.

Thank you for answering the question.

Re: the "conflicts" of the trans; these are people whose very sense of identity is vulnerable. They commit suicide at a significantly higher rate. Their mind and body disagree on who they are. If you want to restrict their pissing options, then that is your policy point, but don't trivialize it with "I'm sure they have their conflicts". You can be opposed to someone politically while retaining empathy for them, and since your argument is actually targeted at straight men who you expect to misbehave, beating them up on the way to making your argument is a fairly low move. You're better than that, or you should be.

Remember that time that one poster complained so much about having their name referenced you and cat mod had to police everyone of Jassik and mine posts..yeah lame ***.

Sounds like you just need a personal blog, because if you are pretending to be "Person Y," then persons X would consist of myself, Pleebo, Rooks, Zahrah, Josiahfk, Seha, and the last 2 people that I am sure I am forgetting that have repeatedly asked you to connect the dots in your fictionalized argument. If you don't want to talk to anyone, don't post.

If you hadn't been acknowledging them, your case here might hold some weight. You were, and just refusing to properly engage a discussion that you started. So no, they don't get to fling as much mud as they want - I called Vic out in public! - but debating in bad faith is no bueno.

You seem to be the only one wanting to restrict people from posting their opinions here vic. Do you realize that yet?

I think this forum has an advantage, in that our moderators actively participate with the typical users.

And I haven't been topic banned, despite a distinct feeling that a lot of reports were thrown my way over the course of last week.

That is what the block person was made for. I've made hefty use of it and I suggest you do the same.

No, I try my best to forget stuff like that. Either way, some approaches have changed since.