forgot password / register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#not


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
778,417 comments by 11,476 users, 4 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, Goran_K, mell, Onvacation
new post
not

4
10

Goran should not be a moderator.

By PCGyver following x   2017 Nov 12, 6:46pm 1,049 views   94 comments   watch   quote     share  


#not politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 94     Next »     Last »

2 anon_6331c   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 7:09pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (5)     quote        

He’s clearly unsuited, but the fact he is still a moderator says all that needs to be said for the current state of this site.
3 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 7:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Since Politics has evolved into the biggest category, why not have 2 politics topics with 2 different moderators. One of the anons can come out of the woodwork and take the other politics topic, or justme or PCGyver. @Patrick what's your input
4 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 7:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

mell says
Since Politics has evolved into the biggest category, why not have 2 politics topics with 2 different moderators. One of the anons can come out of the woodwork and take the other politics topic, or justme or PCGyver. @Patrick what's your input


Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have no desire to be moderator. Moderation should be accomplished by strictly limiting the number of threads per user, and the number of comments per user per thread. If you cannot make your case without posting multiple dozens of comments per thread, that is just a sign you have nothing of value to say.
5 anon_8f6fa   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 7:53pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I’m curious on what basis your post was marked uncivil, Justme. Beginning to cross over an already blurry line into the realms of personal censorship.
7 anon_8f6fa   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 7:56pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

A 24hr ban? Seriously? That right there should be a wake up call for everyone on this site.
8 lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 7:57pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

One of the reasons I liked this site was no moderation. You give as good as you get and stand your ground-important life lessons -no running to mommy or daddy.
10 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 7:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

justme says
Moderation should be accomplished by strictly limiting the number of threads per user, and the number of comments per user per thread.


I liked that idea and it could give Patrick some extra money for those who want to pay to post more. Prefer it over moderation, but no moderation was fine w/ me. To be fair, it wasn't people like Goran who started crying for moderation.

lostand confused says
One of the reasons I liked this site was no moderation. You give as good as you get and stand your ground-important life lessons -no running to mommy or daddy.


Agreed.
11 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:05pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Ah, so now the Goran-bots are out in force marking all my comments on this thread as uncivil. I can only hope that @Patrick unmarks them. Some truths deserve to be told, even if they are not so pretty.
12 anon_8f6fa   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

What was wrong with just enforcing some basic rules before - against obvious trolls like CiC, for example? Use the uncivil button, and anyone who misuses it (say a couple of times within a week) gets a temporary ban. Repeated infractions lead to a permanent ban. Right now it looks like we already have a moderator stepping across the line, banning comments that appear perfectly reasonable and pushing for more and more grounds to ban people.
13 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

The "uncivil" button was not a good idea to begin with. I have used it VERY sparingly. But some people are using it as a tool to silence their opposition.
15 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 8:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

anon_8f6fa says
What was wrong with just enforcing some basic rules before - against obvious trolls like CiC, for example?


That sounds like the "I want people I don't like banned" argument. Both "obvious" and "troll" lie in the eye of the beholder. Whatever happened in the past where lines were or weren't crossed, but certainly more than temporary bans were enacted, is history. The rules apply for the current handles and I have not seen anybody taking over any topics or deliberately trolling (which again is a subjective term) to the point where threads became useless or uncomfortable (unless you're uncomfortable with uncivil direct personal insults which have come more from the side that wanted moderation). I didn't think this site needed any moderation. Btw. arguing that one is on the side of 90% of the scientists opinions - like say wrt climate change - doesn't make the opposite stance trolling. Many ideas and theories that were later proven started out being ridiculed and attacked by the vast majority, so we should embrace different positions (regardless whether one may or may not think they are scientifically valid as science is, has been, and will be perpetually moving and transforming).
16 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 8:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Here's a great example where a woman running a Column, Marilyn vos Savant, was ridiculed (by many PhDs!) for quite a while for giving the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem. Certainly a woman could not be right against a bunch of scientists! Well, she was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
" Paul Erdos, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999)."
17 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:35pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

By the way, insisting that it would be impolite and uncivil to point out the obvious shortcomings and misdeeds and various personal qualities of one's opponents is one of the most effective tactics used by the Republican party for many many years. The timid Democratic politicians fell for the strategy and as a result kept losing for years. Hell no, I say.
18 lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

justme says
By the way, insisting that it would be impolite and uncivil to point out the obvious shortcomings and misdeeds and personal qualities of one's opponents is one of the most effective tactics used by the Republican party for many many year

HUh-in an alternative universe maybe. Have you lived through the Trump era??

This whole thing was bought about by iwog and they successfully banned CIC. Patrick gave the power of ignore where they couldn't post on your threads and you couldn't see. yet the likes of marcus would all kinds of tricks. The elft is about silencing, hate and illogic and keep throwing at it, ban people, do this and when someone uses the same tactic against them-they explode. It is funny watching lefties-oh I banned the obvious troll-but how dare you call em out.
19 Strategist   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 8:41pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

justme says
By the way, insisting that it would be impolite and uncivil to point out the obvious shortcomings and misdeeds and personal qualities of one's opponents is one of the most effective tactics used by the Republican party for many many years. The timid Democratic politicians fell for the strategy and as a result kept losing for years. Hell no, I say.


Ha ha ha. Remember, both Dems and Reps need each other to slaughter. It wouldn't be a real fight if there was no one to massacre.
20 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

lostand confused says
HUh-in an alternative universe maybe. Have you lived through the Trump era??


You may have misunderstood. I said the tactic kept Democrats losing for many years. But no more. Now Democrats have understood they cannot play along with the Republican tactic. Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.
21 anon_ae030   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

mell says
That sounds like the "I want people I don't like banned" argument. Both "obvious" and "troll" lie in the eye of the beholder. Whatever happened in the past where lines were or weren't crossed, but certainly more than temporary bans were enacted, is history.

A ban is a ban. You either ban someone or you don't.are you seriously saying that CiC isn't a troll given his posting history? That isn't subjective. Everyone knows what he does.
22 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:02pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

justme says
You may have misunderstood. I said the tactic kept Democrats losing for many years. But no more. Now Democrats have understood they cannot play along with the Republican tactic. Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.


I'd phrase it differently. The Democrats have used their full scorn tactic for quite a while, but Trump was the first to fire back without being cucked by the mainstream Republican party members, and basically exposed the Democrats' identity tactics. I mentioned earlier that Ron Paul was attacked hard w/ Rayscyst allegations when he ran - although he was much closer to the Dems than the other contenders - because of some dubious newsletter publicized by some random dude loosely affiliated with Paul, really more like an 8th degree connection on LinkedIn. And it worked and caused Paul to go into the defensive and appear like a frail old man that had been run over by a freight train. Trump changed that game by not holding back and - for now - won, whether you like him or not.
23 anon_25c83   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Cic wasn't banned for trolling. Cic was banned for doxing and calling someone's boss to try and get the person fired via a fake weapons threat.

Mell, join the liars club.
24 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:19pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

mell says
Since Politics has evolved into the biggest category, why not have 2 politics topics with 2 different moderators. One of the anons can come out of the woodwork and take the other politics topic, or justme or PCGyver. @Patrick what's your input


Let's just try this for now.
25 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_ae030 says
A ban is a ban. You either ban someone or you don't.are you seriously saying that CiC isn't a troll given his posting history? That isn't subjective. Everyone knows what he does.


Yes it is subjective as not everyone knows or agrees what he does which is obvious by the fact that patnet has many users who do not care about this and do not perceive there to be a disrupting trolling force. Discussions simply go on.

anon_25c83 says
Cic wasn't banned for trolling. Cic was banned for doxing and calling someone's boss to try and get the person fired via a fake weapons threat.

Mell, join the liars club.


Yes, that was the narrative and it's ok since I wasn't there and Patrick is the one who runs the site and decided to take these measures (and the rules about doxxing and threats - of which Roberto made some himself btw. - were clear). However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective. Furthermore whomever one may suspect as a new handle of a former user, the site was running fine recently, esp. since most of the personal fights weren't going on much anymore. It just flared up since some here wanted to be judge and jury and this clearly doesn't work in a system with checks and balances. Nowhere did I say he was banned for trolling, only that I am against banning for trolling. I'm also against banning errc or justme or whomever vents once in a while, but I'm also against banning anybody else unless they risk breaking the law, one of the very few rules Patrick has always had. Can't be any clearer than that.
26 anon_25c83   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

mell says
However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective.


When did that happen?
27 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 9:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_25c83 says
mell says
However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective.


When did that happen?


It hasn't yet and I think that's good. The rules that were put up and decided upon were around non-civility, personal attacks/insults etc. (which some implied as part of trolling but likely much easier to define for most and to come to a consensus for a definition than trolling) and have been enforced, more or less across the board, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of those rules, I'd prefer no moderation as mentioned above.
28 anon_d394f   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:03pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_25c83 says
Cic wasn't banned for trolling. Cic was banned for doxing and calling someone's boss to try and get the person fired via a fake weapons threat.


That was proven to be lies and fake accusations by iwog. When iwog was tasked to produce factual evidence of that, he ran from the questions to produce.
29 lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:12pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

justme says
Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.

Double Huh-did you live through the Bush era?? Trump won because he turned the democrat tactics against them and called them out for the trigglypuffs they were. That they think they are finally rising up is odd-when they have been screaming banashees for decades. Nobody dared stand up to their racism/sexism charges -until trump.

trump belled the leftist cat and now nobody cares and the left is acting like the crazy fool stripped of their legitimacy. It is interesting looking at their viewpoints.

Many thanks to trump for saving this great republic from the zombie-err leftie hordes.
30 anon_25c83   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

PCGyver says
We should each get to moderate our own threads.


Iwog tried that with one thread and there was screaming like the banshees. Patrick fixed it in minutes. It's clear we have a forced agenda at work here.
31 anon_ae030   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:51pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

mell says
Yes it is subjective as not everyone knows or agrees what he does which is obvious by the fact that patnet has many users who do not care about this and do not perceive there to be a disrupting trolling force. Discussions simply go on.

Oh come on, are you seriously saying that you can't look at CiC's posting history and come to a logical conclusion that his intent is destructive? The whole point is that with him in full flow that discussions did not simply go on. They were invariably derailed, which was entirely his purpose.
32 anon_ae030   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 10:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

mell says
It hasn't yet and I think that's good. The rules that were put up and decided upon were around non-civility, personal attacks/insults etc. (which some implied as part of trolling but likely much easier to define for most and to come to a consensus for a definition than trolling)

And that obviously applies to CiC whether you're a fan of those rules or not. He is both a troll and invariably highly uncivil with it.
33 anon_ae030   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 11:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PCGyver says

@patrick the idea of moderator is good. but I think it should be done in a different way. We should each get to moderate our own threads. Whom ever starts the thread is the moderator. If they want personal attacks then it goes, they moderate as they see fit. If people don't like how one moderates then they won't post on said moderators thread.

That would be fine if everyone's intentions were sincere. They aren't and would leave the site open to the potential for abuse. I think moderating each thread is fine in essence, but culling of posts can't simply be arbitrary, or characters like CiC would have a field day.
34 anon_ae030   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 11:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

anon_d394f says
That was proven to be lies and fake accusations by iwog. When iwog was tasked to produce factual evidence of that, he ran from the questions to produce.

How do you propose he go about proving that? The weight of evidence squarely pointed at CiC based on the posts made at that time. Were you there? If you were, then you know that and are just playing games.
35 anon_ae030   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 11:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

lostand confused says

Many thanks to trump for saving this great republic from the zombie-err leftie hordes.

FFS, do you laugh when you post stuff like that?
36 lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 5:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_ae030 says
FFS, do you laugh when you post stuff like that?
37 anon_44ed6   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 5:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?
38 lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 6:10am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

anon_44ed6 says
That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?

Liberals-how dare you call me out-how dare you-you liar-blah, blah, blah.
39 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 6:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

lostand confused says
anon_44ed6 says
That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?

Liberals-how dare you call me out-how dare you-you liar-blah, blah, blah.

Is that supposed to mean something?
40 anon_08dee   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 6:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Patrick is killing his own site.

Why ?

Mostly it comes down to how much he likes and respects Trump as President. So he's allowing Iwog to be pushed away from the site.

The right wing cesspool this site has become is something that Patrick can't see, because he halfway agrees with some of the worst of it.

Patrick probably has some ambivalence about Iwog going way back, you know because of times that Iwog insulted some of his right wing troll (alt) alter egos.

Comments 1 - 40 of 94     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