I'm a former IC ZZL/P Mod = AMA

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 772
  • Views: 12K
  • Off-Topic 
SnoopRob said:
You're conflating two issues here and, by doing so, misrepresenting what occurred. (Speaking of the very actions which got you a ban.)

We abridged our process in your case because the only two reasonable conclusions were that you had been trolling for years despite in-thread warnings or you were incapable of changing behavior which had been determined to be trolling. Either way, the ban was inevitable.

You weren't banned for your views, you were banned because you lack the ability to engage with posts, take things of value from those posts, and then reflect any learning in your posts. You simply repeat the same things over and over again, no matter the response, which is a form of trolling (whether intentional or unintentional).

Let me be clear...you weren't banned for your views. You were banned because you showed with overwhelming evidence that you couldn't engage with others and their posts in a reasonable way.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to engage with others And take value from their views. I do it daily I did it daily on the old board. I'm not willing to back down because someone says something I don't agree with even if they say it over and over And a lot of other people in the echo chamber say the same thing.

And get out of here that I wasn't banned for my views. There were plenty of people doing a whole lot worse things than me that got overlooked, then multiple warnings, then temporary bans, well before they got the permanent ban if at all. You're not at all credible when you say it wasn't at least in part because of people's views.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I'm happy to engage with others And take value from their views. I do it daily I did it daily on the old board. I'm not willing to back down because someone says something I don't agree with even if they say it over and over And a lot of other people in the echo chamber say the same thing.

And get out of here that I wasn't banned for my views. There were plenty of people doing a whole lot worse things than me that got overlooked, then multiple warnings, then temporary bans, well before they got the permanent ban if at all. You're not at all credible when you say it wasn't at least in part because of people's views.
Click to expand...
I rest my case, your honor.
 
SnoopRob said:
The simple answer is that it was too big of a headache to allow to continue and hurting the core business of IC, which is school-specific sports reporting based in paid premium subscriptions.

The paid sports boards, especially the football board, are much more conservative than the ZZL and ZZLP. We routinely had issues where VIP members from the sports boards come over to the ZZLP, posted a bit, got really pissed off at what was said to them, and started crying to the site PTB. It got even worse when they broke IC and ZZLP rules and the moderators got invovled. Inevitably, it turned into a "Do you know how long I've been a member here!?! If I can't post what i want where I want on IC then I'll cancel my membership!"

IC's PTB were happiest when the ZZL and ZZLP essentially did nothing that rose to their attention and it was just a niche portion of the site that didn't create any problems. Over the last 8 years those days became less and less and the amount of ZZLP issues being raised to the level of the PTB were greatly increasing, as were folks either cancelling or threatening to cancel their VIP memberships over ZZLP issues.

It became too much for the PTB to deal with and was no longer worth the headache, so they killed the ZZLP and instituted the "no politics" rule across the site.
Click to expand...
Cliff notes: Conservatives are pussies.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
There are plenty of liberals that posted plenty of racist and bigoted comments unapologetically. There were comments on the old board just as there are comments here about white men doing this or that that would never fly if someone changed the color or gender of who they were bigoted towards.

I thought the hypocrisy was pretty ridiculous and the people that defended it were loons.
Click to expand...
Considering the fact that you were one of the folks that got banned, it’s really surprising that you feel the mods misbehaved.

Here is why conservatives used to get banned from that board: It’s because today’s conservative stands for nothing. They simply exist to “own the libs.” After years of being conditioned by Fox News to hate the left and all of the “media advantages” that you guys believe the left has, when it comes down to actually discussing issues, your hatred overshadows any ability to think and discuss differences rationally.

So these clowns hear about a political board on IC that leans heavy to the left, and they come in with mentality to “own the libs” instead of participate in an actual discussion. So they come over, shit all over the carpet, and cry foul when they are inevitably banned.

I cannot tell you the amount of Tar Pit mouth-breathers that have DM’d me over the last few years to start fights. People I’ve never interacted with on any platform have become so offended by my very existence on a message board that they can’t help themselves but to let me know how much they despise me. These are the type of people that get banned, and you actually think they are just being unfairly treated?
 
Why do you think a rambling wreck from Georgia Tech is so heavily engaged on a UNC message board to begin with? (this is a question for Snoop... not you jacket). Do you think it's because of the political discourse? Did jacket ever poast on other boards besides the golf board? Is there no GaTech message board with golf and politics? (That question may be for you, jacket)

It's an honest question. I've never ventured over to any Tech message boards. No interest in that at all. I did venture over to TDD a couple of times, because d00k... and I was banned post haste because I cast aspersions about k-rat. I get that. But d00kies got away with slamming Dean or Roy all the time - they didn't get banned as quickly as I did over there.
 
hedge said:
I've always only ever put a little bit of water (never soap of any kind) on the hot iron skillet after I'm finished cooking and let the scalding water do its thing...
Click to expand...
In re "always" - So, you're saying you did that when your were 12 and trying to impress your Dad?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Come on. You seem like a pretty reasonable fella. Yes, there were plenty of conservatives that earned that ban, but there were plenty of liberal nut jobs that did some very similar things and didn't seem to earn that ban. It sure seems like the people that Snoop agreed with got an awful lot more chances.
Click to expand...
Did you keep a running total of everyone that was banned? Were all of them banned by snoop?

Your statement, in general is still false, just because one party was banned more, if they were, that doesn't definitively equate to bias.

Personally, I felt that things were much better until a group of magas showed up after the debate to strut around like they had already won, they brough most of the issues. They could have just as easily had a circle jerk on fox news or Qanon message boards, why did they need to troll the ZZLP?

Yes, there were some liberals that were over the top, I just assumed they were getting banned also, since I never really paid any attention to who was actually banned.

From my perspective, there were far more conservatives there simply to troll and try to get something started, they were not there for any type of reasonable discourse.

I really like it better here, where you can simply choose who you want to ignore, no one has to be banned.

I do believe I am reasonable to an extent. But when people continue to spread lies and make claims that are easily disproved, at what point do we stop being reasonable and just ignore them or hope they go away on their own?
 
I got question snoop. First a bit of a peace pipe. I was among your biggest critics. Likely because I could not shed my view as a journalist and belief that all views be accommodated and let the folks figure it out. I know it was a thankless job. You answered one question about the quick ban on conservative posters without a long history of posting. I always maintained that some level of decorum could have been maintained by aggressive moderating but whatever. I do think moderating was uneven. You, more than other moderators, were an active poster and obviously I think it is difficult to moderate fairly while participating in a thread. It would be like letting K officiate games with UNC. Surely you understand that position. So the question: why were you so active in threads you were moderating?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So uneven enforcement is okay as long as it's for the good of the board? I guess if that's what you think makes you a good mod, we can see why certain viewpoints were not present on the board.

And I certainly listened to the people with opposing views and could be convinced to change my viewpoint fairly regularly with good arguments. It's one of the reasons I enjoyed being on the board. I think some people got confused on the difference between facts and opinions including you. Just because someone really really really believes something, and everyone who disagrees has been run off so you don't hear too many contradictory opinions, that doesn't make it a fact.
Click to expand...
Ultimately you do enforce for the good of the board.

Should there be equal quotas? If a conservative is banned should they have to ban a liberal?

I believe certain viewpoints were not allowed because they were provably wrong.

Someone claiming that it is their opinion that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't make it fact either.


Just watch the news media. I see magas everyday talking about how horrible the economy is, yet almost every economist I read is amazed at the soft landing that the US was able to pull off. So, their opinion isn't a fact, why should be constantly presented that opinion?

Look at the lies this past week about FEMA. Really? In the middle of a natural disaster people need to present political lies?

And I do recall that most every liberal agreed that Bob Menendez should resign the moment he was accused. I don't recall anyone stating differently simply because of party. That's something I feel liberals are better at, not supporting a crook simply because of party affiliation. We can't say that about maga.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I'm happy to engage with others And take value from their views. I do it daily I did it daily on the old board. I'm not willing to back down because someone says something I don't agree with even if they say it over and over And a lot of other people in the echo chamber say the same thing.

And get out of here that I wasn't banned for my views. There were plenty of people doing a whole lot worse things than me that got overlooked, then multiple warnings, then temporary bans, well before they got the permanent ban if at all. You're not at all credible when you say it wasn't at least in part because of people's views.
Click to expand...
You, nor I, agreeing with something or disagreeing makes it a fact. If you value others views, it isn't a matter of backing down, it's a matter of determining which view is actually correct.

I didn't know you were banned.

The only two people I knew were banned were RBG and yayas. Both of which I wish were not. I never really paid attention to who was banned. 😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top