Slavery
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
My comment was asking JosephGoebbel5, not you.
Also, I expressed my position about your unwillingness to take action against an obvious etymology bot account, and you still defend it. Bending words of silver don't constitute a bright mind.
Do you know why JosephGoebbel5, or me, or others are so fed up when someone doesn't take a decisive action towards progress? Because we have been dealing with shills and bots for years... And we have received the worst of insults anyone can get... Can you believe that makes us a little bit annoyed when we fully express our position, and someone is still against us with phony arguments?
We are at a war. A war requires warriors. Our enemy is well-prepared for combat. We don't need a poet on the battlefield.
A warrior must be sure in his action, he must be ready to combat the worst case possible, not run away from a debate with indecisive words of silver...
I have not seen anything decisive from you so far, but I haven't checked all your activity... If I ever see you fighting the real the fight with the expense of your own reputation, then I'll consider it. You seem willing to do the work, but your actions betray you. Until you take any decisive action, than that idealism would still be far from you.
P.S.: I would upvote you here, because someone downvoted you and I don't want you to think it was me. I would downvote only lies that I can disprove easily, this is not the case. And I don't disagree with your current comment, so I CAN upvote it (a discussion we had in another comment chain). That's me revealing all my cards on the table... Can you do the same?
What does the "side" of c/Conspiracies mean to you in this war, other than just "fairness and transparency"? What is the enemy side, other than violation of published rules?
Should we delete all contributions that are not objectively transparent or fair, all attacks including indirect, all obfuscations including those clearly adopted to evade censorship? That sounds easy to abuse, especially if the mod(s) should be tempted against fairness and transparency personally in the process.
Should we ban everyone whom we can quickly label unfair or opaque?
When I do mod I give transparent objective criteria and enforce them evenly and usually swiftly. I gave you evidence that I've done this with Will before and kept him restrained without needing to ban him because he honored the boundaries given after being told.
If I'm changing community rules I get community buy-in. It looks like you didn't weigh in on my attempt to assist the eventual mod(s) here with objective rules.
Oh yeah my reputation has been shot, I've been banned from ConPro and some NatSoc fora. I've modded and by God's grace maintained a prayer and Bible community with many of the same people for 5 years. I've alluded to some of the strategies I used, but it's not my job to commend myself.
There is no decisive action I can take as a contributor that is different from action anyone else can take. I've posted threads like others have. I can't force consensus but I can work to help coalesce it. We have a lot of indications here that a lot of people silently agree to not being interested in consensus-building. By God's grace I know how to redirect this with objective moderation if he wants me to. But it's not been evidenced that that's where I should go, so when you and others raised concerns with me I backed down from more direct action, the same action you are now using to check my temperature.
I downvote for a number of reasons, including personal taste, which incidentally is unrelated to moderation via objective behavioral criteria. Sometimes I upvote what I've deleted! If you have specific questions about my voting I give general principles and sometimes specific answers. I've upvoted and downvoted you when I think you've been helpful or unhelpful to advancing the forum goals; you may be hinting that you want more info, so you're free to ask. I also don't sweat what votes I get. So I'm upvoting you on this one because it's rational though I have concerns and questions.
To the degree you want to see a broader, transparent, fair community here, I trust you'll also be active in consensus-building and critical mass toward a moderation "mandate" (i.e. clear consensus). The fact that many contributors like anarchy makes it difficult to decide among everyone when competition arises; that is why clearly promulgated rules are so important. So we can keep looking forward to each other contributing more, or more wisely, to the better future.
Perfect.
I'll let this comment stand on its own. I also screenshoted it, so you can't pretend that you never wrote it.
It shows how you don't reply to me, but to imaginary topics that you pose. It's how you dodge a topic.
I don't blame you. But without you, nothing of value is lost.
Your ego doesn't allow you to admit that you lost an argument. And your ignorance doesn't allow you to win one.