Your unsupported opinions do not magically turn into facts when you post them. Not only were the opinions you posted not actually facts, I specifically noted claims you made that were factually in error. Since you have drawn conclusions based on errors, there is no reason for anyone to accept your opinions as facts.
Ahh! A True Believer with all the marks of a Conspiracy Theorist.
I will not bother wasting my time, further, trying to help you understand the difference between facts and your opinions.
As i said in my earlier post, if the post deserves a warning, then give it a warning.
But you understand that we can actually read what you post, right? It was YOU you used the fact that he should have seen your previous warning as one of your reasons for giving him a warning. Here’s your post again, in case you forgot what you wrote just under 4 hours ago:
You explicitly state that the poster in question should have been aware that his post was inappropriate “[s]ince [he] quoted a post that had already received a warning.” You understand that putting those two clauses together in the same sentence suggests a connection between them, right? I’d be happy to explain the mechanics of related clauses, and the connecting power of the word “since” (def: for the reason that: because) if the point i’m making here eludes you.
If the fact that he should have seen the prior warning is irrelevant to his warning, why mention it at all? The fact that you did mention it, and that you did so in such a way as to indicate its relevance to the warning, suggests that it was a factor. And, as i said before, it’s a crappy thing to consider, because while you know that he saw the post, you have no way of knowing whether he saw the warning, especially if he hit the “Quote” button straight away, without reading the rest of the thread.
It’s also nice, Colibri, to see your consistency on this.
Here’s a post you made a bit earlier today:
So, another mod had explicitly ordered people to keep political shots out of GQ, and 50 minutes after that order, a poster took a political shot in direct response to the post that received the admonition.
And in that case, it was “No warning issued” from you.
Were you in a better mood at that time? Had you just had lunch? Maybe a beer? Was there something else that distinguished these basically identical cases, and justified a warning for one poster and no warning for the other?
You have yet to specify anything you actually disagree with, just that my statements aren’t supported by enough cites for *you *to consider them factual.
Give me some specific points instead of throwing your hands in the air and waving them around. Your use of “true believer” and “conspiracy nut” is especially telling.
The evidence here is pretty strong, regarding incarceration rates and comparing them to the rest of the world. (pointing out individual cases where the justice system failed because while I can cite hundreds of innocence project cases, you can just argue that these were the exception). It would be like you denying the existence of UFOs when one crashed on your street, leaving a massive flying saucer with little green men bodies outside. “well, uh, the authorities say it’s just a weather experiment…”
As I said, what makes a non-political, non-professional, non-trolling statement about “count your blessings, at least the courts just stole some of your money” a violation of that rule? (to summarize my post)
You have yet to establish this in any way. Certain other posters seem to be taking your side, but I think some of that is because they just want to stay on your good side, and others have decided that since we live in the Land of the Free, it can’t be possible that’s just a saying, like the “People’s” Republic.
I don’t think Habeed’s posts were all that bad (translation: I tend to agree with him), but instead, the problem was the ranting tone, as well as being a ways off-topic. The thread is about traffic tickets, and the various offending posts mostly weren’t.
Did I get any warnings (or even mod notes) for my two posts?
If so, I didn’t see them. I think the differences are (1) I stuck to the topic of traffic tickets, and (2) I supported the immediate claims in the post with some personal observations.
Maybe those are the reasons (that perhaps Colibri forgot to mention?) beyond the reasons he did mention for the warnings?
Because I mentioned it as a factor, doesn’t mean it was the only factor. The post was warnable whether he saw the previous one or not. That was an exacerbating factor, not a necessary one.
See, I also would agree that a third party might see my posts as “ranting” in tone or “off topic”. Part of the reason I opened up this thread was getting slammed with “Political” was way off base. In retrospect, I do see that I could have chosen my words more carefully, staying closer to the topic and not “ranting”, but I’m not asking people to vote for Trump/the Republicans/Democrats/Third party or talking about any issues that specific political parties actually intend to ever address. That’s my problem.
Were Colibri to admit fault and just say “look, it wasn’t political, but you were off topic and ranting, I’m changing the reason for your warning”, I’d be fine with that. He’s not, though. He’s made a half dozen errors in this round of moderating alone, and as you can see in this thread, he doesn’t believe he made any mistakes whatsoever.
First, I didn’t regard the post as severe a violation of the rule as Habeed’s. Second, I have previously specifically discussed the “no political jabs” rule at considerable length with Habeed, so I know he is aware of the rule.
po·lit·i·cal
pəˈlidək(ə)l/
adjective
of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.
Huh. I have never actually seen the term used that way. The original topic is also “political”, so why isn’t the original poster being warned for asking about speeding tickets? You’re actually able to say that any post related to a country or government is political.
Anyways, I’m not sorry. I genuinely didn’t know that was what the word meant, but I’m sure I’m going to eventually get banned anyway. I’ve made 3000+ posts here, but you dun me for a tiny number regardless of the total. I’m sure nobody here actually accepts a ban, ever, and just quietly fucks off without making a fresh account, but this is why pretty much every poster in those old threads from 2001 has been banned by now.
I was not talking about Habeed’s warning. I was talking, as i have been over my last few posts, about race_to_the_bottom’s warning.
You have not indicated that you had any prior discussion with race_to_the_bottom about the issue, and yet you gave him a warning but let Alex from CB slide (in the second thread) in basically identical circumstances.
Here’s how they played out:
in both cases, a poster began by taking a political potshot in GQ (Habeed in one thread, Oddball_92 in the other)
in both cases, a moderator came in and made clear that there were to be no political potshots in GQ (Colibri in one thread, **engineer_comp_geek **in the other)
in both cases, a second poster then came in and took a political potshot in GQ (race_to_the_bottom in one thread, Alex from CB in the other)
in one case, Colibri gives the second poster a warning, in the other case Colibri says “No warning issued.”
Is there something i am missing about these essentially identical cases that would justify them being treated differently, just a few hours apart, by the same moderator?
This is incorrect. The vast majority of posters from 2001 never received any warnings and have not been banned. In fact, only a small minority of posters ever receive a warning for any reason.
This is a rhetorical question, right? The mods occasionally snipe a post made by a poster. There’s a 5 minute edit limit and no opportunity to take anything back, nor are there clear rules. Eventually, the posters they don’t like accumulate enough hits they get banned. This is why most of the old accounts on this board are banned.
This doesn’t even accomplish anything because all those old posters just come back and troll, rightfully angry about their bans…
This is why we get troll threads like that Social Justice Warrior poster and the various involuntary celibate threads and others. Bet those were all formally banned posters.
As I said, proportionately very few old accounts are banned. Many posters who registered in 1999 are still active and have never received a single warning.
Actually, most banned posters don’t come back and troll.
Then why do most Zombie threads have intelligent, coherent posters in them where it says BANNED on their names? Your staff has clearly nailed an incredible number of innocent posters. Only way I can see this is if you gradually accumulate negative marks on them.
Like my case. I genuinely did not have the slightest idea my post would get warned. Yet you claim that I’m a career criminal poster and “this close” to getting a ban. (paraphrasing). That’s because you don’t like me and are itching for an excuse.
Who should get banned? People who constantly make completely offtopic posts. Mine was related to the topic at hand - an offtopic post would be saying “9/11 was an inside job!” in a thread about cat behavior. People shilling for a commercial product. People who post gibberish. Not coherent, insightful posters who eventually - after years of good posts - accumulate too many negative marks.
Debate school tricks aside, this was wrongful moderation, and you should know you were wrong.
This is flat out false not just in one ways, but two:
Most of the old accounts on this board are not banned, you’re wrong.
Posters are banned for many reasons, usually because they actually break rules (although it’s possible an old account was banned because they spammed, trolled, or socked as well). Claiming we ban posters just because we don’t like them couldn’t be farther than the truth. If we were allowed to ban posters just because we don’t like them, I didn’t get that memo (and I really wish I had… a ha ha ha…get it?
Just kidding).