This…is not great, damuri. You put in quotes something that’s obviously against the rule. You said “stuff like,” so it’s clear you’re not actually saying the things in quotes are a quote. But since we’re discussing moddable posts, the way that they’d be “stuff like” that quote would be if they were similarly moddable.
If what he said wasn’t a clear rule violation, you’re misrepresenting him.
Ok I hear what you are saying, here is what he actually said.
The first group falls into the category of using the word ignorant where the word unaware would be better and less insulting. I hace been told that i get moderated for an insulting tone as much as for the actually insulting someone, and the use of the word ignorant seems right up the same alley. Which of these uses of the word ignorant do you think is an example of arguing in good faith? These are just from that one thread.
-“I think it is clear you are an ignorant of the latest changes to their proposal.” [of course I can’t be sure but ignorant is not the first word i would think of using there?]
-“Ignorance spotted there again.”
-“More ignorance”
-“your arguments are mostly ignorant.”
-“that rant is just a very ignorant opinion.”
-“Oh well, more arguments from ignorance. As pointed before there is a lot of history being ignored to make your sorry arguments fly”
-" it is clear that you ignored history to continue to make ignorant arguments."
-“This is also an ignorant statement, it was a concern for a long time.”
-“Of course the statement quoted from you here is an ignorant one.”
-“Well thanks for showing you really do not know history, some people thought that after Dred Scott the slavery issue did not matter anymore. 20 years later we found that the best laid plans of mice and ignorant statements from men often go awry.”
And it’s not just his repetitive use of the word ignorant to insult posters under the veil that an accusation of ignorance is not an insult.
He doesn’t even use the concept of argument from ignorance correctly.
Note how he never called you an “ignorant fool” or anything of the sort, just pointed out posts that he considered ignorant and then pointed out why. Seems like the definition of “attack the post, not the poster”.
You’d have been banned for hate speech years ago by neutral mods. You are proof that this site is biased towards the left, or the “woke”.
Except when “conservatives” do get banned and people get how long that leash was rubbed in their noses.
Did you report him?
I disagree. Conservatives have always been given very long leashes, I can think of a couple who were given over a decade of overt trolling before they were banned. I’ve always figured that there was a policy of affirmative action for conservatives here.
You’ve, of course, got examples of my “hate speech”, right?
Not just conservatives, also liberals and progressives who have conservative views on particular topics. Offensive views are often given a pass for the sake of balancing out the viewpoints on this board. And posters who are the target of those views can do little about it without getting punished themselves.
Yep. No response for the mods, as it seems attacks on people for their sexuality or health issues are acceptable. This was a while ago, maybe it would be different with the new mods.
I try to look at every flag. I try to respond to any in my forums that are flagged “Something Else” and has an explanation.
Keep in mind rules are a lot looser in The Pit than everywhere else and tightest in GD, P&E and GQ.
As far as I know the Game Room allows a little more mockery that the other forums though it needs to stay basically PC. This is so sports rival fan can rib each other. Or for some of the other games covered.
Absent an admission of guilt, establishing trolling might require some mindreading. You are assuming that extreme conservative views are not genuine while extreme progressive views are.
You are making the mistake of assuming a troll cannot troll using sincerely held beliefs, which the mods have weighed in on many times before.
Either produce examples of this “hate speech” or admit you’re making it up.
And it better not be some ridiculous Pit-only thing, like me ribbing SlackerInc for his apocryphal futanari fetish…
Perhaps.
I’m not sure what trolling even looks like.
Do you have a link or something that might explain this further?
There were right wing trolls on here that operated for years. There was one who ended his posts with a closing that he admitted was meant to be insulting (regards) to those he disagreed with. Another one would derail any conversation that was bad for the GOP and it went on for years and years.
That’s weird. In what way is Regards supposed to be insulting. He used it when responding to people that he agreed with too. Was he just insulting everyone equally but in a way that only existed in his own mind. Do you have a link to this admission?
Did you think “regards” was trolling? Is it really trolling if noone else thinks you’re trolling?
No, but it might be trolling if a lot of people think it is trolling but you don’t.
You’ve literally just admitted you think it’s fine to insult people based on sexuality. That’s all that needs to be said.