In response to Bricker’s comments: while the general posters may give various opinions a “hard time,” the moderators are (I believe) even-handed in the administration of the rules. In fact, we often tolerate opinions that are very much minority (e.g., racist, sexist, etc) so long as those people are polite and courteous to other posters when expressing their opinions.
And, aside from closing a thread that had clearly lost its way, no Moderator action was taken in response to those calls.
I agree that this place can be hostile to conservative positions or right-wing politics. However, defending those positions does not jeopardize one’s ability to post, here.
You’re attempting to divine his motivation, which was not my take. I agree that he argued some of what was asked of him very poorly, but that does not a troll make. You decreeing him to “clearly” be trolling similarly falls short.
But look what was at the heart of it: he pissed off many a poster by playing devil’s advocate against many of the positions the pro SSM majority was putting forth. His “F- you, go ahead an ban me” to the Mods no doubt tempted the Mods to do just that. But he should have never been in that position in the first place.
Sure it does, when you take into account how one might defend them. and the Mods are not immune to the pitchfork wielders. They are human. Also, some of them are flatly hostile to some conservative positions.
He wasn’t playing Devil’s advocate. The only argument he put forth was a semantic one and virtually ignored all other discussions. Had he actually engaged other arguments, even to play Devil’s advocate, it would have been much less of a problem. His problem wasn’t his engagement of the other posters, it was his lack of engagement, while simply repeating his arguments over and over.
I think this is a desirable, but a fantasy. I agree that some Mods are able to be even-handed and push their personal politics aside, but not all. And given the small number of Mods, it only takes one or two, to tilt the scales mightily. The fact is that not everyone has the right temperament to be a Mod. And those that don’t, shouldn’t be given that badge.
The OP has actual questions about how the board works and is moderated. This is not the place to repeat (for the umpteenth time) complaints about posters who were banned years and years ago. Drop it immediately and stick to the actual subject of the thread.
That’s not how I remember those threads—at all. He simply refused to agree or to give the majority the benefit of the doubt that they’re accustomed to getting on these boards. He challenged the left’s conventional thinking, and it pissed off a lot of posters. Also, his claim to be playing devil’s advocate was challenged mightily and was a source of great consternation among the some of the more vocal of the majority.
No. Your tepid defense fails. He had plenty of opportunity to actually make a case or to simply drop it when he made no headway. Nothing he posted indicated anything more than a desire to continue to see more of his own posts appear.
You were not paying much attention to his career, if you believe that. His abrasive flouting of the rules began before he got involved in SSM discussions and continued in threads where that topic was not raised. Perhaps you only saw him in threads where you both participated, but his behavior was spread across multiple fora and themes.
Jeez, Mags, quit with the miserable whining already.
That last post was written without the benefit of seeing yours. I’ll drop it, because I see where you’re heading. I can’t tell you how shocked I am.
But lest I run afoul of your desires any further, can you lay out for me what is and is not allowed in the is thread titled "Banning, Pitting, etc. Are all mention of examples forbidden? If not, which are okay and which aren’t?
Thanks.
You misspelled “righteous criticism”. 
I can, but I won’t. I’ll repeat myself one last time and trust you’re smart enough to figure it out:
This also applies to people who are answering magellan01’s last couple of posts. Leave it be.
But why is it up to him to drop it? He feels he has a valid point. He’s fielding question from a dozen posters or so. If those posters feel that after multiple attempts that he really has nothing to say that interests them, then why isn’t it just as incumbent upon them to “drop it”.?
That may be the case, it was a while ago. I thought he was a good poster and was sad to see him ago, and not just for his SSM contributions. I actually had tried to get him to quell his "F- You. Go ahead and ban me if you want. " attitude. I do think that his participations in those SSM threads were the cause of his downfall though. Or at least finding himself in the crosshairs.
I assumed that answering a Mod (tomndebb) would be okay. I’ll leave mswas and Melchior out of the discussion now.
nm
That’s not very helpful. I said okay, but I would appreciate if you would share whether it’s okay to point to anyone who has been banned as an example, to illustrate a point. Forget Melchior and mswas.
If not, just say so. What’t with the big secret? I’m trying to comport to what you view as allowable or not.
nm
Simply being hostile toward conservatives would be a vast improvement.
You really don’t get any flak simply for being a conservative.