⬆️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (114)
sorted by:
⬆️
I believe God is in control of it all and deferred justice is sweet.
Not at all, they outlasted them. The question is the community's sense of self-preservation, and it decides that deliberatively.
In your analysis I defined "didn't agree with" as "rejected". Only 2 agreed, the rest didn't. I granted that 10 of them "didn't vote against" it either, with is your statement that 2 verbally agreed and 4 verbally rejected. My phrasing was hasty, but it's a quibble not worth arguing over.
No, I don't agree that a mod should base a ban on upvotes on an informal question, because that's not what the upvotes mean, nor on what the community would support if they would also support other things. The purpose of blocking and ignoring is to leave enforcement to the clearest cases. A mod should ban (as I've said) based on objective criteria. A spammer should be warned twice at least, and then might be banned for crossing a clear published boundary line. (An egregious disruptor might get immediate action, but a sincere-presenting spammer need not.)
And assuming others don't follow my example is just as wrong, which is why I don't assume an upvote on an informal discussion is a ban vote. The same applies to assumptions about downvotes.
I spoke of active voters. Up and down are passive votes. The active voters clearly thought the username was more of an issue than the spamming, via their action. Since the passive votes are about content and not a request for mod activity, it's not about my misreading stats, it's about my general reticence to assume something on a community rather than to ask them to spell out their active concerns.
I didn't define "stable contributor" and you're making a strawman of it. Declining to post is not in itself a mark of insincerity. But stable would at least include dependable commitment to community goals, which Will has stated are collective and don't "inspire" him. So offhand his view would get less weight, but then of course he didn't comment or vote. Ultimately stability judgment gives the mod the option to invoke gut feeling in borderline cases by referring to secondary objective judgment if the primary ones don't give a clear resolution between two plural sides.
TLDR (for myself): The community now isn't the one that held this vote and you're trying to relitigate something the community got over long ago. You're free to host a more formal vote and advocate for your position but what you're doing instead is to revisit my comments of last week and analyze in great detail to try to win some debate of Great Truths. I'm happy to explain myself when I think it's worth my time, but I don't care if I win debate on very tangential hypotheticals. You don't have to agree with me. So if you keep pressing with this I might feel comfortable relying on what I've already said.
That's not replying at all to the fact that I disproved your position. Nice strategy to hide yourself behind God on this one, certainly a lot of believers would just shut their mouth here instead of remembering that you dodge the topic.
Do you truly believe that God will strike down Facebook?
That's a defeat still. You're simply contesting the manner of their defeat.
No, that is not the question. You want to turn this into the question.
Then your definition is clearly wrong. Didn't agree is never rejected, unless specifically saying they reject it.
2 agreed with OP = 3. The vast majority of the rest didn't even reply to it.
Play on the odds as much as you want, I'll disprove you every time.
I bet that every time you are caught in a lie, you use this argument... You downplay your fault, so it seems that you were kinda right to say those things. You cannot even admit you were wrong. Your ego betrays you. Do you know how I know this? Because it did the same to me.
I clearly stated: "It's obvious that "the vast majority" is done with fwoc, although they don't support a ban in majority (although votes do), they would support some action towards the constant comments of someone they ignore"
You reply to an imaginary comment, not mine.
Then tell me of another user, who upvotes a post that they clearly don't agree with. I will wait.
I can nitpick all your points, but the bottom line is that you can't take any useful decision towards progress in this community. Not unless it is backed by many users, so you don't feel attacked for taking this decision. But if you think about it, if the community does it, then what are you useful for then?
That's my point - with you, or without you, there is no difference.
I don't see that our disagreement about how to interpret a complex discussion amounts to "disproof". I stated how I would judge a similar case, and it's meaningless to "disprove" another person's statement of intent or thought or state of mind. De gustibus.
Yes, at the right time God will strike down Facebook if it remains evil and we don't do it as his agents first. We are to occupy until he comes and he is to do the finishing that we can't. If you're saying that position decreases likelihood that we'll get done what we need, when applied back here I've learned that I focus on what is local to me and everyone else does the same and God ensures it's sufficient. Since he hasn't revealed to me a War Plan to Right Great Wrongs at Conspiracies, I don't. What he did reveal to me at Christianity has borne much fruit.
If you're saying that infiltrators' power of outlasting good mods is an unexpected tactic, I already have that as their tactic if I decide to declare war of some kind. Sticking around at Christianity for 5 years with the same people might count for something like successful prosecution of a particular campaign. Once I recognized how Scored worked overall, 4 years ago I made a nice post at ConPro Defining The Relationship and emphasizing the statement (now nuked), "My boss taught Sun Tzu the art of war. Speculate as you please, my statement stands, if I declare war it will be epic and unnoticed." So I am very comfortable with the wars I've planned, and prosecuted. I'm a Swamp Ranger. If you don't like my victories you're not who I won them for.
Now then, you refer to a "question" without elaboration. Presumably you mean how the mod(s) should moderate to win some war and carry out some community vision. If I haven't answered, then ask directly.
I merely analyzed to help you understand my impression. You decline it, I have nothing more to argue with you about an unimportant interpretation that is a bete noire in your bonnet. Non est disputandum.
If a brother in Christ charges me with lying and refuses to negotiate with my explanation, I suggest that he hasn't learned much about Matthew 18:15-17 yet. Why should I waste time trying to defend myself against your charges when I gain nothing from it?
If some admission of wrong agrees with my conscience and is helpful to the other person, I offer it. Clearly I am generically in the wrong somewhere because you are unsatisfied. I can guarantee you I will work with your reasonable appeals to me about my alleged wrong and any reparation, but I cannot guarantee that you will be satisfied by your own standard, only by the commonsense standard.
That's a wonderful dare! Votes being so public and all. Okay, let's play face value. Yep, there's one or more users here, Christian, who has/have admitted to upvoting posts though disagreed with, whether it's because of affirming the right to speak, affirming the person and not the content, or for other reasons. Both for privacy reasons and because searching said comments would be prohibitively time-eating, I refuse to elaborate further.
Taking no firm position as usual.
:D
I'll just leave this as it is.
You don't understand God at all.
Bloopers reel commence.
Too late for you, friend. We've been holding the line without you too well. I don't see how you can be of any use.
So?
When have you defended yourself? All you did was twist the point, which is a form of lying. Your own fault, not mine.
It's best to expose the enemy, so others can understand your faults and never follow your twisted examples. Thank you for doing that for me.