I'm generally in favor. Insulting groups "not here" makes assumptions about both contributors and lurkers, and because it's dehumanizing can fall under either "be respectful" or "[no] calls to violence", but it'd be interesting to see if the community disagrees with me. A vote about mods should, as I said originally, have a clear binary and presumably the alternative should include some path to retaining an active community-approved mod, which hasn't been proposed; I interpreted the last votes as saying that we do want a mod but we didn't have strong consensus as to who.
Hi, since you're alluding to me: (1) You're obviously ban-evading and u/Thisisnotanexit said that's two weeks, but I'd propose you might be able not to get banned if you contacted her privately instead; if you think the discussion should be public, then privately ask her for early release for that purpose. (2) You should probably report u/DresdenFirebomber privately since you don't list any public rationale for specific mod actions. (3) She's already agreed on rejecting the word nazi. (4) I appealed a number of post removals that were reversed, appeals work, they work with bans too if the person recognizes and amends the behavior banned. (5) I'm sure she would want to work on not being condescending, patronizing, etc. and will take it to heart. (6) Neo1 brought up the need for organization and between him and me there were discussions about getting a new mod and many names proposed; it was after that that admin informed TINAE she was the likeliest candidate based on the community response. (7) I'm all for criticism of Christianity on a level playing field, accusations that Christians are taking over Conspiracies are a proper topic if not made into excessive meta posts (right now meta posts would need review); I even join in on posts that certain Christians really messed up if it's constructive. (8) I affirm a community vote on the meaning of Rule 1, and have said so for months, but I probably shouldn't be the one to post it (a neutral post on the topic from a ban evader might not get deleted, but I can't say).
Your ban is deserved JG5. All you do is troll and engage in bad faith attacks and astroturfing.
You should continue to be banned along with DresdenFirebomber and any of those new characters that talk about antinatalism nonsense.
Bad faith alt spam -> https://media.scored.co/post/LqJBvKHIL3bD.jpeg
Bad faith replies worth nothing-> https://media.scored.co/post/5XlawD1nQMb7.jpeg
Now you're all about reason and "let's talk things out!". That's rich!
I am now removing Nazi and goy too.
I will admit my attitude sometimes gets a little too feisty and I should keep that better in check. Well noted.
I'm willing to listen to more input and issues and have been trying to be transparent in moderation and would like that to continue.
What do you propose? I would allow a one time only meta post here for mod transparency.
I'm generally in favor. Insulting groups "not here" makes assumptions about both contributors and lurkers, and because it's dehumanizing can fall under either "be respectful" or "[no] calls to violence", but it'd be interesting to see if the community disagrees with me. A vote about mods should, as I said originally, have a clear binary and presumably the alternative should include some path to retaining an active community-approved mod, which hasn't been proposed; I interpreted the last votes as saying that we do want a mod but we didn't have strong consensus as to who.
Hi, since you're alluding to me: (1) You're obviously ban-evading and u/Thisisnotanexit said that's two weeks, but I'd propose you might be able not to get banned if you contacted her privately instead; if you think the discussion should be public, then privately ask her for early release for that purpose. (2) You should probably report u/DresdenFirebomber privately since you don't list any public rationale for specific mod actions. (3) She's already agreed on rejecting the word nazi. (4) I appealed a number of post removals that were reversed, appeals work, they work with bans too if the person recognizes and amends the behavior banned. (5) I'm sure she would want to work on not being condescending, patronizing, etc. and will take it to heart. (6) Neo1 brought up the need for organization and between him and me there were discussions about getting a new mod and many names proposed; it was after that that admin informed TINAE she was the likeliest candidate based on the community response. (7) I'm all for criticism of Christianity on a level playing field, accusations that Christians are taking over Conspiracies are a proper topic if not made into excessive meta posts (right now meta posts would need review); I even join in on posts that certain Christians really messed up if it's constructive. (8) I affirm a community vote on the meaning of Rule 1, and have said so for months, but I probably shouldn't be the one to post it (a neutral post on the topic from a ban evader might not get deleted, but I can't say).