follow PCGyver following
follow PCGyver 2017 Nov 12, 6:46pm
3,082 views 92 comments
Comments 1 - 40 of 74 Next » Last »
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
Moderation should be accomplished by strictly limiting the number of threads per user, and the number of comments per user per thread.
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.
What was wrong with just enforcing some basic rules before - against obvious trolls like CiC, for example?
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.
HUh-in an alternative universe maybe. Have you lived through the Trump era??
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.
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.
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.
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.
However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective.
mell saysHowever banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective.When did that happen?
Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.
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.
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)
@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.
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?
That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?
anon_44ed6 saysThat’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?Liberals-how dare you call me out-how dare you-you liar-blah, blah, blah.
or just put him on ignore and never see him at all
anon_ae030 saysThat 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.Well then, at the very least, we would see who is a good moderator and who is not. In CiC's case either you'd enjoy his style or just put him on ignore and never see him at all.
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.
The bottom line."Ignore" solves everything.You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.PCGyver saysor just put him on ignore and never see him at all
That’s a lie. I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread
In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting.
It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.
Who is that? I searched the user list, which one is he?
In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.