"Bad Faith Posters"

When I’ve moderated I had one hard-fast rule - insult Coach Smith - not critique but insult him - and you are gone. Of course Doxing was a ban too but I think that is universal.

Cons, at least modern ones, tend to denigrate themselves eventually and unmistakably due to the destitution of their ideology.

At first I thought this might have been McCallum, especially when he didn’t respond to me. He always ‘liked’ me for some reason. But he tended to actually have links to readings and arguments, antiquated and white supremacist, but arguments at least.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I’m generally opposed to banning unless certain lines are crossed (e.g., hate speech, threats, harassment). Though I do think spamming can be a basis for banning as well. Granted, I have never utilized the ignore/super ignore functions, so maybe that’s a way to block spammers. Not sure if using those functions makes threads harder to read if a spammer is blocked.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty close to this. Spamming is annoying but I think there needs to be a definition of spamming. If someone is starting 10 threads a day on the same two topics worded slightly differently, I think that's spamming. If someone is responding to people, I don't think that is spamming. I think that's back and forth discussion. Otherwise, I'd say go pretty light on the ban hammer, especially permanent bans, or you end up with the old ZZL.
 
duluoz said:
You keep saying this, as if you have good intentions of spurring good conversation or debate.

But this is my first awareness of you and you just seem like a typical tribal asshole who barged in trying to troll and provoke. Of your several threads I didn’t see any points that you tried to make respectfully, intelligently, or with any dignity. So you’re the one who made the call, and you own your bs. Nobody here will miss it.
Click to expand...
Mic drop. End of thread.
 
MOUNTAINH33L said:
The Dems certainly have their problems. I don't think anyone is debating that. At least they're not fascists. They're not trying to destroy the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The dems have issues they are far from perfect.

At least we admit that and are looking for people to run who are willing to work to do better and address those shortcomings.

The right refuses to even admit they have any issues. Just look at trumps first 100 days, his administration passed the least number of laws in this time of any administration.

They refuse to admit that the tariffs are a failure. They refuse to admit that trumps methodologies are horribly disruptive and are not effective.

Both sides can agree that government agencies can be more efficient, there are good proven methodologies for addressing this, trump just doesn't understand them.

Both sides agree we need comprehensive immigration reform, but Trump blocked a bipartisan attempt for political gain.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
So who was this guy again?

I've stated in the past that I don't favor banning posters unless they engage in egregious behavior. The ZZLP quickly became an echo chamber and I think the board suffered as a result. Super Ignore is an amazing feature. It enables people to enact their own bans. Not sure why people don't use it.
Click to expand...
I don't use it because I actually want the engagement though it rarely happens.

I have SI the clear trolls and one person that was just too much.
 
Here's the issue, as I see it, with banning people based on "bad faith" - the person doing the banning is assuming bad faith and that is a mistake, IMO.

Over the many years I've read/posted on political chat forums, there have been dozens of times that someone says something and I think "There's no way they actually believe that!" Most recently, it was related to the "stolen" election and covid. In reality, with the right external influences, someone can be convinced to believe nearly anything. There are people who, even today, have been convinced that the Earth is flat, the moon landing was staged, there was a pizza restaurant housing pedophiles/abducted children or whatever it was.....

When you consider the extremes - the nonsensical, conspiracy theory stuff - you realize that, with the right social media feed, podcasts, authors, etc, there's really no limit on what someone can legitimately believe politically.
 
ZenMode said:
Here's the issue, as I see it, with banning people based on "bad faith" - the person doing the banning is assuming bad faith and that is a mistake, IMO.

Over the many years I've read/posted on political chat forums, there have been dozens of times that someone says something and I think "There's no way they actually believe that!" Most recently, it was related to the "stolen" election and covid. In reality, with the right external influences, someone can be convinced to believe nearly anything. There are people who, even today, have been convinced that the Earth is flat, the moon landing was staged, there was a pizza restaurant housing pedophiles/abducted children or whatever it was.....

When you consider the extremes - the nonsensical, conspiracy theory stuff - you realize that, with the right social media feed, podcasts, authors, etc, there's really no limit on what someone can legitimately believe politically.
Click to expand...
If you claim to be a long time IC poster, join this board under a new username and won’t disclose your IC past, a presumption of bad faith is the default. The burden of good faith lies with you and is evidenced by the content of your posts.
 
Honestly, my objection to this particular poster is that he seems to only want to pop up to insult the board and various posters and derail conversations — a jerk with a few cans of spray paint here to graffiti the place for kicks. Basically, he is just more of a hassle/time suck than I have patience for.

Once I am able to hand over the moderation duties (which I hope happens very soon), I will be indifferent. If people want to engage someone who seems to only want to destroy the site, have at it.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
If you claim to be a long time IC poster, join this board under a new username and won’t disclose your IC past, a presumption of bad faith is the default. The burden of good faith lies with you and is evidenced by the content of your posts.
Click to expand...
An unwillingness to discuss your posting past is a separate topic from current discussion topics and the associated claims of bad faith as it relates to one's position regarding current topics, isn't it?
 
ZenMode said:
An unwillingness to discuss your posting past is a separate topic from current discussion topics and the associated claims of bad faith as it relates to one's position regarding current topics, isn't it?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think so. Certainly not when you’re the one who opens the door with references to things people posted on IC and complaints about echo chambers, biased moderators, etc.

What is the good faith argument for evasiveness regarding one’s past in light of an eagerness to wield familiarity with the open history of other posters?
 
it simply a matter of being overly sensitive and not being able to respect a differing opinion......esp when the juvenile name calling comes out ie troll, bosider, etc.

ignoring and banning are for the fragile emotions
 
OGtruthhurts said:
it simply a matter of being overly sensitive and not being able to respect a differing opinion......esp when the juvenile name calling comes out ie troll, bosider, etc.

ignoring and banning are for the fragile emotions
Click to expand...
I think the point is it’s when people don’t offer an opinion, they just bang the table and make noise. You can’t have a constructive conversation if someone repeatedly posts lies, distortions, or even doesn’t even attempt to converse, they just post other people’s incorrect thoughts.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
Hmmm... college education is "over-educated"... and you're surprised nobody wants your GED opinion?
Click to expand...
The malignant insecurity typified by the maga response to education is the most destructive element in American society, IMO. It is the primary cause for what we see today, and what will almost certainly be the complete fall of American economic and security hegemony, not to mention the likelihood of falling lifespans and QoL, for generations to come.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Banned poster comes here claiming he wants to "engage", but spends most of his new posts expressing his disdain and loathing for nearly every poster here, does the usual cliches of calling liberal boards "echo chambers" in spite of the sharp differences of opinion often expressed here, and is clearly here not to engage or have a respectful debate but rather to just insult liberal board posters and to express their deep resentment at being excluded here and not having their posts taken seriously, despite the fact that they are not a serious poster to begin with. Same as it ever was.
Click to expand...
They all say they wish to "engage"... until someone brings actual facts to the conversation, and then they claim persecution. Wash, rinse, repeat. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top