How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?
Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?
What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?
Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.
Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
Interpretation of rules is a community endeavor. I proposed interpretations of existing rules that allow objective determination. If you think rules like "be respectful" are less prone to abuse than specifications like "no namecalling", you're free to participate in interpretation.
How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?
Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?
What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?
Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.
Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.
Walls of spam trying to "debunk"
Crying to global mods to censor opposition
It's that simple.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
You cross the line at trying to create new rules that you don't have the right to create.
Interpretation of rules is a community endeavor. I proposed interpretations of existing rules that allow objective determination. If you think rules like "be respectful" are less prone to abuse than specifications like "no namecalling", you're free to participate in interpretation.