forgot password / register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#patnet


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
778,417 comments by 11,476 users, 4 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, Goran_K, mell, Onvacation
new post
« prev   patnet   next »

11
13

New: moderators per topic

By Patrick following x   2017 Nov 5, 7:59pm 7,091 views   767 comments   watch   quote     share  


At the suggestion of the late Turtledove I'm trying to separate the site into distinct topics with a moderator for each topic.
#patnet

The first moderator is Iwog, who is in charge of Investing.

Currently, the only power a moderator has is ability to delete comments in that topic. But soon (like within the next week) I hope to implement these other abilities:

ability to delete whole posts in the topic
set or edit "About ${topic}" page
acceptance or rejection of posts waiting for moderation in topic
acceptance or rejection of comments waiting for moderation in topic
ability to free jailed comments in topic
user blacklist by ip or username for that topic
user whitelist for that topic (only those users would be allowed to comment)
ability to set a background image for the topic, and color scheme
ability to set up own donation link for the work

Anyone care to moderate a specific topic? @Dan8267 would you like #scitech or #science?

#patnet

« First    « Previous     Comments 601 - 640 of 766     Next »     Last »

601 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_84d68 says
Yeah, except he never said he wanted to moderate politics.

He wanted to moderate EVERTHING!
602 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Patrick says
anon_04cbc says
your

anon_04cbc says
you

anon_04cbc says
you're

anon_04cbc says
You

anon_04cbc says
You'll

anon_04cbc says
you


That is the kind of comment I'm trying to get rid of on the site. Obsessed with the user alone, not discussing any particular point of view or facts.

Yeah right, that must explain why you let CiC back.
603 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says
earth.....SEX?
Who moderates SEX?

Wives and girlfriends.
604 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Onvacation says
anon_84d68 says
Yeah, except he never said he wanted to moderate politics.

He wanted to moderate EVERTHING!

No, he didn’t. He didn’t want to be moderated by Goran. There’s a bloody obvious difference.
605 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 8:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Patrick says
anon_04cbc says
your

anon_04cbc says
you

anon_04cbc says
you're

anon_04cbc says
You

anon_04cbc says
You'll

anon_04cbc says
you


That is the kind of comment I'm trying to get rid of on the site. Obsessed with the user alone, not discussing any particular point of view or facts.

Yeah right, that must explain why you let CiC back.


He won’t respond because he knows. Patrick isn’t stupid, he’s just spineless. It’s absurd to ask for the same people who have been abused with the CiC/Sniper/Ironman incessant harassment for years, to now act in good faith and civility, while leaving CiC to exist. The guy went far overboard by trying to harm Roberto personally in real life.

If Patrick truly desired that his site change course from all the personal attacks, that would only be possible if he banned CiC, and any of his alts.
606 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says

No, he didn’t. He didn’t want to be moderated by Goran. There’s a bloody obvious difference.

No. He wanted control of the whole site.
607 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Onvacation says
anon_98513 says

No, he didn’t. He didn’t want to be moderated by Goran. There’s a bloody obvious difference.

No. He wanted control of the whole site.

Don’t be daft. How many times have you posted this same shite? Repeatedly posting it doesn’t suddenly make it true.
608 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:47am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says

I'd like to continue with this experiment, in fact if Patrick would let me moderate the entire board for a week, you'd see an amazing change.
l
609 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says

Don’t be daft.

Define daft.
610 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:52am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Onvacation says
iwog says

I'd like to continue with this experiment, in fact if Patrick would let me moderate the entire board for a week, you'd see an amazing change.
l

Good grief. Context. Ever heard of that word? I thought you didn’t think moderating meant control. So I take it you do now, though apparently it depends on who is doing the moderating. Strange that.
613 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

I see, so expressing how stupid someone’s OPINIONS are is now counted as being uncivil. There’s going to be an awful lot of moderation going on in this site if that’s the new approach.
614 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 9:09am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
I see, so expressing how stupid someone’s OPINIONS are is now counted as being uncivil. There’s going to be an awful lot of moderation going on in this site if that’s the new approach.


Unless you’re a Trumpcuck, then anything goes
615 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:09am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote        

You can say someone’s opinion is stupid as you want as long as you don’t say they are personally stupid. Big difference here.
616 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Goran_K says
You can say someone’s opinion is stupid as you want as long as you don’t say they are personally stupid. Big difference here.

Apparently not.
617 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

I just said his opinions on climate change are stupid, which of course they are, and that got deleted, so...
618 anon_25c83   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

A really hateful attack against iwog yesterday afternoon was left up until this morning while a bunch of mild stuff is being taken down. its all biased and ridiculous now. Ironic that cic is running the site now.
619 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

anon_25c83 says
A really hateful attack against iwog yesterday afternoon was left up until this morning while a bunch of mild stuff is being taken down. its all biased and ridiculous now. Ironic that cic is running the site now.

Don’t worry, everyone’s free to post up as much misogynistic and racist claptrap they like without fear of being deleted. Not to mention any and every variation on the libtard theme, because hey, all those things are perfectly civil on this site. It’s the bantz.
620 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can say someone’s opinion is stupid as you want as long as you don’t say they are personally stupid. Big difference here.

Apparently not.


Show me the post that was marked uncivil and if it was unfairly deleted, had no NSFW/personal attack content, I would agree it should go back up.
621 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_25c83 says
A really hateful attack against iwog yesterday afternoon was left up until this morning while a bunch of mild stuff is being taken down. its all biased and ridiculous now. Ironic that cic is running the site now.


We are not on the site 24/7. However when we are and if we catch it, no personal attacks will stay up.
622 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can say someone’s opinion is stupid as you want as long as you don’t say they are personally stupid. Big difference here.

Apparently not.


Show me the post that was marked uncivil and if it was unfairly deleted, had no NSFW/personal attack content, I would agree it should go back up.

Eh? Just look in the comment jail.
623 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can say someone’s opinion is stupid as you want as long as you don’t say they are personally stupid. Big difference here.

Apparently not.


Show me the post that was marked uncivil and if it was unfairly deleted, had no NSFW/personal attack content, I would agree it should go back up.

Eh? Just look in the comment jail.


You talking about this one?


As my last post got censored, how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change? I think that would a pretty good definition of daft.


I agree that’s probably not a personal attack in my estimation but I don’t have the power to take comments out of jail. I would for this one if I could. It is pushing the limit though. Isn’t there a much less aggressive way of saying the above?
624 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.
625 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Onvacation says
Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.

It surely depends if it’s true or not, and in your case...
626 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 9:38am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Onvacation says
anon_84d68 says
Yeah, except he never said he wanted to moderate politics.

He wanted to moderate EVERTHING!

No, he didn’t. He didn’t want to be moderated by Goran. There’s a bloody obvious difference.


Oh so bigsby is back. It’s funny how all these accounts are all of the sudden posting again. I once accused IWOG of “rallying the troops” via email. He denied it, but It’s a super common troll tactic. Considering the recent emphasis on how popular IWOG was and his friends list, there’s literally zero chance I’m wrong.
627 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can say someone’s opinion is stupid as you want as long as you don’t say they are personally stupid. Big difference here.

Apparently not.


Show me the post that was marked uncivil and if it was unfairly deleted, had no NSFW/personal attack content, I would agree it should go back up.

Eh? Just look in the comment jail.


You talking about this one?


As my last post got censored, how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change? I think that would a pretty good definition of daft.


I agree that’s probably not...

Probably, but seeing as it’s Onvacation...
628 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Fucking White Male says
there’s literally zero chance I’m wrong.

Iwog is that you?
629 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Talking about changes, maybe Patrick should increase the length of what you can quote...
630 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Onvacation says
Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.


Good point.
631 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Goran_K says
Onvacation says
Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.


Good point.

Except everything he posts on climate change is moronic.
632 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says

Except everything he posts on climate change is moronic.

Off topic, but do you have specifics?

Didn't think so.
633 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
Onvacation says
Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.


Good point.

Except everything he posts on climate change is moronic.


But that could easily be seen as a blanket attack without the “because [well rationalized argument].

So I see how that could have been marked uncivil.
634 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
Onvacation says
Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.


Good point.

Except everything he posts on climate change is moronic.


But that could easily be seen as a blanket attack without the “because [well rationalized argument].

So I see how that could have been marked uncivil.

That’s ridiculous. How about the fact that scientific consensus makes a nonsense of his views. His views are daft and the scientific community agrees.
635 Goran_K   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
Onvacation says
Goran_K says
how about every fucking moronic view you’ve expressed on climate change?

Arguing over a specific point would be civil. Calling everything a person posts moronic is not.


Good point.

Except everything he posts on climate change is moronic.


But that could easily be seen as a blanket attack without the “because [well rationalized argument].

So I see how that could have been marked uncivil.

That’s ridiculous. How about the fact that scientific consensus makes a nonsense ...


See, that’s what you should’ve typed. That’s a non personal attack rebuttal.
636 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Onvacation says
anon_98513 says

Except everything he posts on climate change is moronic.

Off topic, but do you have specifics?

Didn't think so.

Specifics? I was entirely specific. Everything you post on climate change. Ask the actual scientists who do the research. But hey, I guess you’re an expert on it, mountains of reasearch, university grants....
637 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says

See, that’s what you should’ve typed. That’s a non personal attack rebuttal.

I didn't realize it was necessary to type the blatantly obvious now.
638 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Didn't think so.

Specifics? I was entirely specific. Everything you post on climate change. Ask the actual scientists who do the research. But hey, I guess you’re an expert on it, mountains of reasearch, university grants....

There is a 97% consensus among people that believe in manmade global warming that the climate is changing.
639 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says

I didn't realize it was necessary to type the blatantly obvious now.

Just argue the points and stop the personal attacks. That would be civil.
640 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:11am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Onvacation says
anon_98513 says

I didn't realize it was necessary to type the blatantly obvious now.

Just argue the points and stop the personal attacks. That would be civil.

There’s no need to argue with someone who holds idiotic views. It’s obviously a waste of time.

« First    « Previous     Comments 601 - 640 of 766     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_d18a7 or log in at top of page:

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail   old posts by year  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home