His posts alone are 1.4% of the posts in the thread. That’s easy to count. More difficult to count is what percent are the responses to his posts. And what those percentages would be for the last month, rather than over the entire life of that thread.
Where does this 0.0000001 you quote come from?
That rather proves my point that there is no problem with the quantity of his posts. He has no control over who responds to him, so I don’t see how that matters.
It was a joke in response to the claims about the quantity of his posts being a problem and that putting him on ignore would make a poster miss half the posts in the thread.
This conversation is just silly. Rather than have the mods come up with a reason to stop him posting, just stop reading and replying to his posts if it bothers you so much.
People posting wrong stuff on the internet is not a new thing. You have no duty to read or reply to it. it really is okay if someone is wrong on the internet. The world will not stop, nations won’t crumble and politicians will not be swayed by 120 posts on the SDMB.
Do you at least acknowledge the existence of propaganda? What about deliberate disinformation?
It’s harmless apparently.
Of course, I’ve said so in this thread. I just don’t think there is a rule against it, nor should there be. Surely the brightest minds on the internet can handle one pro-Russia poster without asking for mods to make up a rule that only applies to one poster.
That’s all I have to say on this, my position is not really that difficult to understand.
So you think that the propagation of deliberation disinformation should be allowed?
Sometimes it amazes me what some of those on the right want allowed on this board that NO conservative-slanted board would ever allow.
Yeah, I know-none of you ever go to ring-wing sites so you have no idea how they operate.
I do apologize for wasting space on replying and replying early on to people disputing my opinions and cited stuff. Rabbit holes. Moderators pointed it out so I quit. Trying after that to only reply to actual relevant questions, replies, with little snark.
I will keep that in mind in other threads, aside from BBQ pits.
We’ve never not known your position. The problem was that, in order to defend that position, you keep on having to argue against things your opponents never claimed.
There is no new rule here. There is only the existing rule against hijacks, and the strategy of banning a poster from a thread if they hijack it too much. The other strategy is the one I mentioned, and declaring a certain thing offtopic–in this case, (Russian) propaganda–and telling them to open another thread to discuss that.
You can debate whether the posts are actually hijacking the thread. But people are not arguing that posts should be removed simply because they dislike them, nor is anyone promoting new rules.
I see no reason that a news thread should have to deal with propaganda at all. There’s no reason we can’t have a thread entitled “Debunking propaganda about the Ukraine–Russia War” or similar, and keep the breaking news thread about verified news and the discussion of such.
Ideally @Kedikat would post their pro-Russian news sources there, and no further moderation would be necessary. But, if they won’t, then I understand choosing a thread ban.
(And, no, @Kedikat, the issue isn’t that you keep arguing back. It’s that you post propaganda in a news thread at all. We’re obviously going to debunk it–it’s part of the mission of the board. And you should be able to counter that debunking. Just not in the Breaking News thread.)