There were accounts on reddit that used to save popular posts with many upvotes and then come back to the sub they found them a few months later, repost the exact same content word for word, and then use various alt accounts to repost the exact same most upvoted comments from the previous posts. It happened to me once or twice, bizarre to see. They were probably selling on those accounts once they got enough karma.
Your previous long reply was indeed removed by the global filter probably because of one of your links, my guess is the wordpress one. I didn't see it for an entire day, when I did I approved it, but that was about a day after your posted it.
These are the same, right?
pretty much
reporting comments for behavior that you yourself have just engaged in
Upon receiving a disrespectful reply, some people will simply reply with an equally disrespectful comment, without reporting. When the initial disrespectful user then reports that reply, it's hypocritical. They will be reprimanded too, even though their original disrespectful comment was not reported.
So making only one report would be appropriate in that case?
People are making multiple reports of single users and maybe only one of the reports is valid. It seems people get angry with a user and just open that users account page and report all their recent comments. When you do this, your user name is attached to each report. This kind of report bombing will not be tolerated anymore.
It's ok to break the rules if you are in an argument?
The content policy of this website is well written, and calls for moderators not to be over-bearing, and for users and mods alike to be more tolerant than other similar sites have become. I think this is a great idea and it's my guiding mantra for moderation here.
This includes tolerating a little name calling here and there, which is natural during arguments sometimes, though it greatly weakens the name-caller's position. When 2 users are in a heated argument, calling each other names, and neither of them reports the other, my tendency will be to let them at it. If a third party reports one or the other or both, I might ignore that report since they are not involved. If one of the users in the argument reports the other, both will be reprimanded. if they both made disrespectful comments.
if you make a report, your user name is attached to it. And that's good thing too, since the report function is being abused. I've often wanted to reprimand users for this, but since it wasn't an explicit rule I didn't.
On communities.win domain I believe you can enter a custom report reason. Not yet on scored.co it seems. However that custom report option is often abused, with reports with titles such as "Idiot" or "faggot". I appreciate when someone makes a valid report using the custom option, but more often than not it's stupid stuff and I will ignore it. But from now on I may act on it and ban the user who makes them.
I'm just a mod, that's a website code issue. Make a post on c/meta about it to get the attention of the website owners/admin.
So it's about me not banning the users you want banned, and banning the users you don't want banned. That's a different story to the whole shill protector accusation.
I don't remember banning allmodsarefags, or for what. From the user name I can imagine. I don't deny I did it. After I send this comment I'll try and look it up.
However, I would remember if that user had appealed their ban, or another user had asked for them to be unbanned because they felt they were wrongfully banned. I would remember because that happens so rarely. In fact, tallestskil's case is the only example I can think of, and I did unban him when someone else (not an alt of his) requested he be given another chance. It's that simple.
No one ever appeals. Usually the appeal message is just the user calling me nigger or faggot or telling me to kill myself. But if they changed their mind and actually appealed I would probably grant it. We all lose are heads sometimes.
I don't condone actual harassment, but people's level of sensitivity online varies wildly. Some people can't take even one comment of disagreement, and call it harassment and report it.
And then some people can be told to kill themselves many times over (online) and never consider it harassment nor report the comment. "Water off a duck's back" as they say.
I do tend towards the latter type rather than the former. I'm old school, and I tend to think the former category of ultra sensitives need to learn to ignore and let go of negative comments they encounter online more. I'm not into creating a safe space just for them.
Funny how you always manage to avoid giving any detail to your accusation.
I stand by what I said, you wont be banned for giving a full and detailed description of your grievance with me. I want to hear it. Perhaps I might even see your point of view. Right now, I can't. So far as I am aware, I never did what you accused me off in that comment about banning people for talking about specific shills or whatever. It sounded very made up and malicious.
I don't know who you think are shills, I personally don't hypothesize about shills generally, nor do I have a favorites list.
My intention is to keep all genuine users who want to be here here, and get rid of spammers and people who come to this forum for the express reason of hatred of our regular users and of conspiracy theorizing in general.
Lol. You can detail your vague accusation from then here right now if you like. No matter what you say, you wont be banned for it.
It was never my intention to ban you over this. I was challenging you to explain your vague and bogus accusation, which you never did and still haven't.
it's Clem banning people that talk about specific shills, especially if they make a post about it.
Ah yes, this was the lie. Thanks for reminding me.
I stand by my accusation. You told a lie about me to influence another mod in an attempt to get me removed as mod.
I don't think I called you a liar. I said you were telling lies about me, which you were, and then you said something like "so you're calling me a liar?". Anyway, calling someone a liar, who is specifically telling lies about you with malicious intent, is not slander. It's an accusation.
People are abusing that rule for spurious mass reporting of other users. I knew it would happen if we set out specific rules, that's one of the reasons I personally never put any rules in the sidebar. It's a nice idea, but in practice it goes like this:
People use the report feature as part of their debate strategy. They lay bait to another user they are arguing with, or start an argument with someone they don't get on with, just for the sake of arguing, and when their opponent strays outside of the topic of argument the comment is reported. Very reddit if you ask me.
Most reports here don't seem serious to me. And this website specifically has a free speech ethos, one that tolerates people calling each other names, and encourages moderators to refrain from being overbearing. Read the content policy.
Personally I don't think I've ever reported another user for some comment, on this forum or any other. When someone starts flinging insults in a back and forth, it means they have no argument and their opponent won - even if they don't see it that way. Continuing is pointless and irrational and never leads to resolution.
Sometimes I may have ignored a comment that warranted removal. That's not intentional. But I think most reports are of the caliber that I've described above. I do look out for the serious ones, but they are few and far between.
I'm sure c/feminism still has a sticky tearing those apart,
this sticky?:
https://communities.win/c/feminism/p/16c2MsSWUp/a-californian-feminist-group-is-/c
There's no discussion whatsoever of the highly detailed arguments made on the "science on trial" website. Did they even read it? Did you?
I want to see a detailed point by point take down if there is one. Neither the video you linked, nor that thread, are anything close to that. Much of it is covered in this video by Prof Nrom Fenton if you want a shorter, less detailed overview:
I don't know why this is being made a feminist argument - it's simply that the evidence is extremely weak, the expert witness lied, and there are various more plausible causes for the babies deaths.
I'd compare it almost to the Chauvin trial whereby it's clear from the evidence and autopsy that Floyd died from fentanyl overdose, but people's emotions were whipped up to obscure that simple fact, egged on by corrupt "expert witness", misleading and biased interpretation of circumstantial evidence, and strong emotions about the relationship between defendant and victim/victims. I would say Letby is even more obviously innocent than Chauvin.
Video seems very dumb and longwinded. Reading from wikipedia and presuming her guilt. Does he get into a discussion of the evidence? The sources I've provided give very specific reasons why the evidence given in the trial is either weak, full of errors, incorrect and/or falsely presented. The only thing that the prosecution really had was the note, which is garbled babble written by a messed up woman of average intelligence who knew she was being investigated and that her bosses blamed her for the death of babies. It's not a confession nor evidence of anything other than her state of mind when she wrote the note.
The argument for her innocence is multi faceted, scientifically and statistically based. The same case made for her guilt (just without the garbled note) could be made of any nurse working there at that time. The state of the evidence is literally that weak. Watch the Norman Fenton interview for a quick summary: https://youtu.be/k12f_VFCbtI The sewerage issue is serious and there have been similar cases in the past of sewerage problems in hospitals killing premies. And indeed they speak about one example where they were going after a nurse for a baby's death before the sewerage problem became apparent. No one saw her inject air into any baby, and the air in one baby has multiple possible explanations and causes. Indeed, the expert for the prosecution quoted a study to back up his testimony that was about the wrong type of air embolism as was supposed to have killed a particular baby, showing he was talking out of his ass. No one picked up on it because it takes people familiar with the literature to have that knowledge and spot the "mix up" (if it wasn't intentional) The alleged over-doses of insulin again has other possible explanations, and one of the alleged "spiked bags" of insulin used to kill one baby was chosen at random and given to the baby by another nurse when Letby wasn't working. All babies were declared death by natural causes in each and every autopsy done contemporaneously, yet the Jury was told by one unqualified, professional-expert (who tendered his services as a professional expert directly to the police) they were all wrong. Are you saying she didn't behave as if innocent? That's not very convincing and highly circumstantial, like every single bit of "evidence" in the case. It could be she is simply browbeaten by the MSM and her former bosses seeming so certain she's guilty. She's young and has no money. I would wonder if she's not the sharpest tool in the box either. Like just an ordinary, somewhat simple person. Not cynical. They had some doubts about her competence, and after the critical report of their hospital, these doubts blossomed into accusations of murder. I know women who trained to be nurse who aren't smart. You don't need to be smart to be a nurse, you're trained. But to battle egotistical doctors trying to cover their asses in court you need to be smart, cynical, well off and have great council.
Prof Norman Fenton did an interview about this:
And it's just been announced she will face retrial for the attempted murder charges:
Highly detailed website detailing why Letby is likely innocent and the victim of a massive miscarriage of justice. There is a shorter article covering some of the same justifications for this position here:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/#comments
I'm surprised I haven't seen much coverage of this. News reports I read described the case as slam dunk. It's anything but.
Another less technical summary article can be found here:
We also have a community filter that I would probably learn to use proper if we need it. It involves writing code, YAML, which I don't now. Pity there is no GUI for it.
it looks like this:
The irony
I find it interesting that for the first 3-4 decades after Roswell, when UFO sightings became more and more frequent (and generally accepted by the masses as a real but unexplained phenomenon), the Airforce and Military intelligence worked hard to discredit all sightings as nothing, and created a program for studying them that's real function was to collect the sightings and discredit/dismiss them as nothing. They were largely successful, turning the UFO phenomenon into a topic to be mocked by the masses rather than be curious about.
Then, seemingly suddenly, since about Reagan, UFOs become a psyop to bring about world unification under a NWO/ One World Government, with increasing disclosure drip fed about the reality of , now renamed UAPs and taken relatively seriously. You had numerous popular UFO/alien movies in the 80's made seemingly realistically with a serious tone (Flight of the Navigator, E.T., Close Encounters) rather than the ludicrous and fantastical type of movies that came before.
It's an almost total reversal, though done gradually over time.
It appears to be real... maybe. There is a 4chan thread about it, containing links to the data in a reply, a zip file about 35 mb in size:
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/443532707#p443534402
I can't really confirm if it's real or not,. Strangely, the spreadsheet is not in alphabetical order. The releaser seems to have put some more interesting names at the top, including Elon Musk, whose DNA profile is "Ashkenazi, Balkan, British/Irish"
???