Reported for extreme welcomerrywelcome to the shadow war, brothers and sisters
I'm waiting til Christmas.Has anyone welcomed the new mods by wishing them a happy easter and calling them a cunt yet?
Has anyone welcomed the new mods by wishing them a happy easter and calling them a cunt yet?
dunno, might've been a random sweepCome on guys, which cunt is reporting his posts?
dunno, might've been a random sweep
Sorry but that greeting is reserved for the site owner only.EviLore will get mad if people start using it for just anyone.
Anyway welcome to the JungleSaladin and
Soapy Wooder
...wutCongrats on the promotion,Mista
Wait till they start assuming your species!Wow. Assuming my gender? We ain't starting off well.
L LateBloomer | Post | Aug 17, 2020 | Sep 14, 2020 | Already warned for being a troll. This is tragic, we don't want discount versions of trolls. And if this is your best, you need some originality. Go recruit Ralph Wiggum as a tutor, might learn something. |
L LateBloomer Post Aug 17, 2020 Sep 14, 2020 Already warned for being a troll. This is tragic, we don't want discount versions of trolls. And if this is your best, you need some originality. Go recruit Ralph Wiggum as a tutor, might learn something.
L LateBloomer Post Aug 17, 2020 Sep 14, 2020 Already warned for being a troll. This is tragic, we don't want discount versions of trolls. And if this is your best, you need some originality. Go recruit Ralph Wiggum as a tutor, might learn something. ![]()
Guessing the main is half the fun!Welcome new mods.
To all mods: If possible to maximize laughs, whenever a user tries to do an alt profile getting permabanned again, all I ask is to consider stating which user is trying again for the second, third, fourth time.
lol
Publicly calling out whoever gave me a temp ban (at the same time as a warning, which is not how warnings work), for "inadequate rhetoric," and "trying to score virtuosity points" (from who? Liberals pol PoliGAF? Where?), just an obviously and honestly political ban, in total contradiction toEviLore OP's post.
If we're saying there are different rules for arguments on the right or left of an issue, or that this is a safe space for conservatives, just say it publicly and I'll post somewhere else.
You should be writing this privately in support to the mods. Just a thought...Publicly calling out whoever gave me a temp ban (at the same time as a warning, which is not how warnings work), for "inadequate rhetoric," and "trying to score virtuosity points" (from who? Liberals pol PoliGAF? Where?), just an obviously and honestly political ban, in total contradiction toEviLore OP's post.
If we're saying there are different rules for arguments on the right or left of an issue, or that this is a safe space for conservatives, just say it publicly and I'll post somewhere else.
I did that as well.You should be writing this privately in support to the mods. Just a thought...
Publicly calling out whoever gave me a temp ban (at the same time as a warning, which is not how warnings work), for "inadequate rhetoric," and "trying to score virtuosity points" (from who? Liberals pol PoliGAF? Where?), just an obviously and honestly political ban, in total contradiction toEviLore OP's post.
If we're saying there are different rules for arguments on the right or left of an issue, or that this is a safe space for conservatives, just say it publicly and I'll post somewhere else.
Fuk teh m0dS! Yo, Link us up to the post they temp banned you for bro. Time to expose the bias!!!
why would you do the latter not the former and not wait for a responseI did that as well.
Exactly, GAF mods are pretty decent and tend to weight these things out fairly. If it's B.S., they'll explain it with the utmost professionalism and witty humor. If it's legit wrong (which is rare)...they might offer you an empathy reactionwhy would you do the latter not the former and not wait for a response
there's no conservative space safe here, it's mostly a bunch of mods and 'tarians wanting for no bullshit
Publicly calling out whoever gave me a temp ban (at the same time as a warning, which is not how warnings work), for "inadequate rhetoric," and "trying to score virtuosity points" (from who? Liberals pol PoliGAF? Where?), just an obviously and honestly political ban, in total contradiction toEviLore OP's post.
If we're saying there are different rules for arguments on the right or left of an issue, or that this is a safe space for conservatives, just say it publicly and I'll post somewhere else.
I always argue in good faith. Honestly, I spell out all my points, I don't do dishonest gotchas or bait and switch arguments. You might still disagree with me, but I'm not being cheap, I answer every question and address every point I'm asked. You can't just say it's "not in good faith" simply because you disagree. That phrase is often used as code for "I think I'm right and I should have convinced you, but I haven't so you're the problem."Honest suggestion: Just argue in at least somewhat good faith, regardless of what your opinions are. Bad faith arguing and intentional derails are what seems to usually get people banned from political threads. That or a bad case of the 'isms'.
I always argue in good faith. Honestly, I spell out all my points, I don't do dishonest gotchas or bait and switch arguments. You might still disagree with me, but I'm not being cheap, I answer every question and address every point I'm asked. You can't just say it's "not in good faith" simply because you disagree. That phrase is often used as code for "I think I'm right and I should have convinced you, but I haven't so you're the problem."
You can't run a forum with open discussion where that's the standard.
It was this thread, no specific post referenced:But you still haven't linked us the post that got you in trouble.
The problem with your reasoning, here, is that a "Motte and Bailey" fallacy does not disprove the Motte, only the ways in which one selectively advances the arguments of the Bailey.
"BLM" cannot be both the Motte and the Fallacy. One can use a Motte and Bailey fallacy to defend a more radical position, and surely people have, but that doesn't in any way erase or negate the broad, popular position of BLM.
It was this thread, no specific post referenced:
![]()
BLM is a Motte and Baily Fallacy
While the Black Lives Matter movement may have started with legitimate gripes and the group encompasses people who believe to be fighting for bettering their situation, there is something you need to pay attention to. How Black Lives Matter is a Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Simple way to explain...www.neogaf.com
I made this post:
Again, perfectly polite and reasonable, and then heads exploded for a few pages.
I always argue in good faith. Honestly, I spell out all my points, I don't do dishonest gotchas or bait and switch arguments. You might still disagree with me, but I'm not being cheap, I answer every question and address every point I'm asked. You can't just say it's "not in good faith" simply because you disagree. That phrase is often used as code for "I think I'm right and I should have convinced you, but I haven't so you're the problem."
You can't run a forum with open discussion where that's the standard.
Meanwhile, any thread I post in turns into an explosion of unprovoked insults and personal attacks, none of which ever result in moderation. There's a clear double standard for rules enforcement along political lines, and it's not a coincidence that centrist or left voices are entirely absent from the forum at this point; they've been systematically removed.
What about my argument, specifically, seemed "disingenuous" at best? I think that pointing out a simple false equivalence fallacy in a thread about false equivalence fallacies is a pretty reasonable take. You cannot assume some negative intent on my part just because you disagree with or don't understand my argument.It looked like you caused the whole thread to spin around you instead of the actual argument. Your argument seemed disingenuous at best, as well, you were told multiple times the thread title was as it was due to space requirements and the explanation was in the OP for why your argument was fallacious.
Look, I can only comment on what I've seen in my short time here, but people fling a lot of shit my way and none of it is ever moderated, but I'm punished because someone is dissatisfied with the sincerity of my arguments? Come on.Your argument fails right there; I'm openly a 'centrist', as are many others. I post what I want, and haven't had any issues with it.There are open leftists who post here. I've seen right-wingers banned when they step out of line.
Is this the politics version of "Only Sony/Xbox fans can post here!!!"?
That's where you're wrong; drop that mentality. We're all guests here as long as the staff permits, whether that's through a ban or closing down the site.You can't run a forum with open discussion where that's the standard.
Fueling your complaints about unfair moderation with charged political rhetoric tends to damage your own argument.Meanwhile, any thread I post in turns into an explosion of unprovoked insults and personal attacks, none of which ever result in moderation. There's a clear double standard for rules enforcement along political lines, and it's not a coincidence that centrist or left voices are entirely absent from the forum at this point; they've been systematically removed.
You said it yourself, you're the new guyLook, I can only comment on what I've seen in my short time here, but people fling a lot of shit my way and none of it is ever moderated, but I'm punished because someone is dissatisfied with the sincerity of my arguments? Come on.
I mean I did, but you have a certain obligation to answer people or you can warned for drivebys.If the threads you're in are turning into shit holes, leave the shit hole, don't become a part of it. That's how you get warnings.
What about my argument, specifically, seemed "disingenuous" at best? I think that pointing out a simple false equivalence fallacy in a thread about false equivalence fallacies is a pretty reasonable take. You cannot assume some negative intent on my part just because you disagree with or don't understand my argument.
You can call it a derail, but the rules prohibit drivebys and I made every effort to address every question thrown my way in good faith. Period.
Look, I can only comment on what I've seen in my short time here, but people fling a lot of shit my way and none of it is ever moderated, but I'm punished because someone is dissatisfied with the sincerity of my arguments? Come on.
You don't have to agree with my post, but it wasn't rehashed, I explained/elaborated/defended it in good faith. If I was banned because the mod thinks I'm wrong, then that's essentially affirming what I've said.If you post something stupid or laughable, and 300 people read the thread, chances are 30 of those people are going to openly laugh at what you said, or call you stupid. It should be expected that some shit get flung your way, yes?
Your posts in the thread link you posted were pretty dumb, at best, or intentionally obtuse at worst. That's just my opinion, of course. You can argue that your behavior has been 100% above board, but I doubt if people are going to look at your post history and think "Man, those mods really have it out for this guy! How unfair!"
You have no obligation to answer anyone, outside of very specific scenariosI mean I did, but you have a certain obligation to answer people or you can warned for drivebys.
Don't be so dogmatic about a forum; it's just the internet holmesYou don't have to agree with my post, but it wasn't rehashed, I explained/elaborated/defended it in good faith, and for the record not one person could specifically pinpoint what they thought was incorrect about it when asked, so I don't see how I broke the rules except to have an unpopular opinion.
It's the language in the issued warning that gives me pause.Take the temp ban as advice, not as something that colors you as some sort of villain or wrong doer
I know I come off this way, but I'm actually just zealous about wanting people to point out where I'm wrong, to make a specific argument, rather than just being broadly dismissive (you're dumb/missing the point/disingenuous/bad faith/whatever) or insulting. If you read that thread it's a lot of me trying to corner people into making an argument and them refusing or being evasive.You also might take the hint that multiple people are saying you're just being over zealous about being right and convincing the others of the same.
You don't have to agree with my post, but it wasn't rehashed, I explained/elaborated/defended it in good faith. If I was banned because the mod thinks I'm wrong, then that's essentially affirming what I've said.