In a free for all thread rule 1 will be suspended. The thread must be marked with the Free For All Flair.
In all other threads not a free for all, rule 1 will be enforced.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
This isn't the kind of changes most people want. Here's what happened, a bunch of dishonest trolls / disruptors came into the community the last several months to stir things up, and people called for moderation.
Yet the fact you still allow accounts like jg5 and dresden, etc on here, who just came here starting crap, shows the enforcement here is a joke.
You don't target actual problems and dishonest actors. You focus on a few bad words and give us an opt in flair which is just not convenient.
The troll/shill JG5 even banned you from his communities, but you don't ban him. Instead you let him come here complaining about censorship and don't even call out the hypocrisy. You should literally ban the problem people who came here to cause problems and drive away users. Who openly use alts and are astroturfing.
Ban the people who started the entire issue of needing moderation. Not those who called out the dishonest actors. I've been here 5 years, JG5/Dresden and other alts have been here a few months, gee exactly when the problems started.
Using rule 1, shill would be considered a violation due to common vernacular use. I'm also advising the reply to this comment is a rule 1 violation.
I would rather not remove this whole comment because it is critical of me and should be addressed, which I have here: https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARwwpoCZf/mods-were-demanded-because-of-ne/c/4eZDpN1h9KW
And also adding: If I modded in retaliation and not from rules I'd be no better than the bad actors who do that.
And this is the problem. You want to treat the people who have been here the longest as if we are on par with people who just came here to troll and cause chaos.
Calling out people who came here acting like trolls and shills is not a crime.
You're on such a high horse you can't properly take out the trash and clean this place up. Brilliant.
Oh no don't call out ridiculous cutout characters who spam us with posts calling Hitler "the second coming" or make posts about antinatalism and spend their time just cursing at each and calling each other pedophiles starting problems.
Instead be so high and mighty that you go after the people trying to fix the problems which you won't.
Your proposal sounds like just banning whoever you say I should, should I take everyone's requests or how do we set up who can request and who can't, age of account, comment/post score on board, oh how bout we take polls and vote on who should be banned, what could go wrong?
(Heavy sarcasm)
How do you define (for example) porn? Do you think you could come up with a definition of porn such that you could ban “porn” on the forum and no one would ever be upset or take issue with your definition?
The above is a hypothetical to get you to consider the larger point. There’s a reason why even the Supreme Court defined porn as “you know it when you see it”. Because you really can’t legislate this kind of shit in the manner you’re attempting to.
Obviously “porn posts” have never been a problem on these sites (beyond blatant malicious actors using them as an attack vector). The relavent issue here is “low effort/slop posts”. And yes, “you know it when you see it” / “it’s up to moderator discretion” is literally as good as it can get. There’s no magic words you can say which will set everything in perfect order.
Nope, I'm saying banning those doing the disruptive nonsense that supposedly this community is against. You're making a conscious decision to keep those types of users and the consequent behavior.
You must enjoy playing wack-a-mole then.
This is not a free for all thread and your mocking reply is a violation of rule 1, will be approved upon edit.