Not “you would only”, although I’m sure there would be some kind of blustery hemming and hawing about how it’s completely different, just as we saw from Bone in response to my examples upthread. But more to the point, I am willing to scan a few GD threads for examples, but not to undertake some kind of FBI level cyberinvestigation of posters to go back into their posting history and build a case.
Translation: You’ve got absolutely nothing to back up your claim, except over-the-top hyperbole and off-topic analogies.
If he ever accuses you of fisking, then know that your days are numbered.
In how many threads has Manson replied to completely unrelated posts of mine to accuse me of facilitating sex trafficking (because when strippers use Uber from the strip club to get rides home after work, I don’t refuse to drive them)? That’s one I notice because it’s aimed at me and it’s irksome; but I’m sure there are countless other examples in the many threads I don’t read. And that actually could justifiably be called harassment, unlike bringing up one’s pet theory of politics in various debate threads.
Any of them not in the pit?
If so, report it, that’s not appropriate.
If it’s in the pit… well… yeah.
Okay guys, maybe we should all admit it – yes, there’s a conspiracy to ban SlackerInc, and we’re all in on it. It’s been going on for years. Bone is the ringleader, and he recruited me with promises of gentle modding and reasonable discussion.
Pack it in, folks, we’re busted. Sorry!
Ima gonna guess 17. Unless this is like Price Is Right and I can’t go over, in which case I’ll say 15.
Oh! I know this strategy, I’m going with 1!
Yes, as long as that enforcement is based solely on the relevance of the post, not the political content or the response from others.
No. The idea that only certain people should be able to talk about a particular subject is unacceptable.
You bring race into every single unrelated topic, in fact you’ve already complained in this thread about not being free enough to call people racist.
Whilst libertarianism is obviously stupid, it’s at least an attempt to look at things through a proper analytical outlook based on economics, rather than the race/gender/intersection based nonsense that passes for thought in most threads here. Hell, even a Marxist analysis would be better than the sociological bullshit that most of the lefties here use to view the world.
And yet, I’ll keep reading it, and I’ll hope that you keep posting it - because the only way to meaningfully disagree with it is to understand it and know how it is used.
It’s a shame you don’t want to offer the same courtesy to those whose opinions you believe are wrong and harmful, the way most people (in the real world) see your views where feelings matter more than facts. This applies just as much to Trump supporters or religious people as to you, of course.
This. How long has that even been a thing, anyway? I feel like I’ve only noticed it in the past few months, but I don’t read the vast majority of the board and I never used to read ATMB at all, so maybe I was blissfully unaware.
ETA: Post #130 is sensationally on point.
Yay! I got mentioned! Also, it’s manson1972, thanks.
Besides, I’m banned from the Positive Gun News thread, and the Positive Abortion News thread.
Pretty much since the beginning. First instruction from manhattan for handy to stay away from medical topics was Thanksgiving weekend, 2000. First warning was Veterans Day weekend, 2001.
Yeah, my GQ geology and CS Pratchett and music posts are just *loaded *with race references :rolleyes:
I didn’t complain about jackshit.
I pointed out something about moderating factual insults, which was perfectly on-point to the post I was replying to.
I think this is probably a key point of contention. The moderation staff maintains that a topic ban or other restrictions as deemed necessary are available tools to be used in order to foster discussion. This is unlikely to change. It’s been in our registration agreement for quite some time - as long as I can remember since I’ve been a poster here.
Given that, we are probably at an impasse if you feel this is unacceptable. The moderation team will continue with this as an available tool, and you can choose how you wish to proceed.
Yes, I have been mulling that decision myself. It’s galling to think about giving the haters what they want, but…
It’s always somehow completely different when one’s own ox is being gored.
Blissfully unaware it is!
Or, you know, when it’s just completely different.
It follows a pattern. A vocal minority find a target and push a narrative. The volume of complaints make a small problem with easy to implement solutions into an issue that needs to be solved. Problem gets solved. It’s almost like it’s a long running game for certain posters.
Yeah, that’s would be annoying after awhile. But statism and authoritarianism in threads about politics and controlling speech? That seems at least tangentially related and what makes the very carefully crafted warning seem not so carefully used in this particular case. It’s feels like a subjective gotcha.
IM, not asked for, O I think yes and yes. But if it’s a conditional topic ban having a hair trigger on cases that aren’t even on the edge of the condition looks bad.
Topic bans do the opposite of foster discussion.
Wrong!