What exactly am I lying about? Please quote. You are pulling the classic Vod technique of accusing me of lying but never being able to quote this supposed lie. Of course to you, anything you don't agree with is a lie, because only you know the truth right?

The problem is your comments are just like many of the constant other examples of people who have disagreements with me in Politics & Society. Often they are the very same ones that let that emotion bleed into general forum conduct and abuse the various systems in anyway possible to play sad little games for having the audacity of not agreeing. I doubt that some of you can even separate the two issues. I don't care who is a Communist, as long as the Communist is treated the same as I am according to forum rules and policy. I have found many times that is not the case. I don't care if people disagree with me (clearly), what I care about is people taking that ill will from having open discussions on controversial subjects and abusing the forum's systems to "fight" ideas they don't like in another way.

Yes, you value his efforts personally and for profit. Of course it costs you nothing if he is wrong. That is an externalized cost that is paid in the form of driving away good users, which as a result ironically ends up with more people buying accounts. Think of it like a criminal robbing a gas station. If the penalty is the same for being armed or not being armed, most criminals would choose to go further and be armed anyway knowing the penalty is equally as high either way. The same logic is true with excessive and arbitrary trust ratings and flags. People get wrapped up in relatively minor things and are more willing to just burn what they have and or go for the bigger con since they all all treated the same anyway. Basically the cons are Joker and the BitCops are Batman. They are literally creating more Jokers. Jokers will always be there but this system of frivolous shotgun ratings is literally incentivizing it.

Again, a non-intentioned con man user will usually do one of two things if they are falsely accused. They will either say fuck this place and rob whatever they can, or say fuck this place and never come back. Unfortunately the real cons are back again in seconds on a new bought account. The trust system should not be used like a sledge hammer, it should be treated like a ballpene hammer pinning down a con with a bunch of tack nails. This gives legitimate users breathing room, and will not give any realistic advantages to cons that they couldn't easily bypass. At absolute best you are burning accounts, creating value for them by reducing supply, and again incentivizing people to buy accounts and thus for others to sell them. Its like the war on drugs. Eventually the enforcement action literally becomes the mechanism by which illicit drugs have value, because the value is determined by risk, and risk is directly correlated with levels of enforcement. In short this methodology is the BitCop's, cutting the community's nose off to spite its face.

Actually I originally quoted the whole thing. The other half is not exactly exonerating you anyway. You clarify his findings are not always accurate, but you value them for selfish reasons anyway. I am not selectively focusing on anything.

This is part of the problem with this default trust nepotism protection racket. People get all hyper focused on what serves them personally and unless people are helping them everyone else can go fuck themselves, they are on their own. Knowing this attitude is prevalent others take advantage of it and pressure compliance with a core group of users pushing out anyone with a dissenting opinion, and devaluing anyone who doesn't belong to the special boys club. You said it. You also claimed that because this user returned to earn via a signature ad he is not a contributing member from your lofty special boy perch. Again, this is exactly what I meant by you abandoning your principals. It is no longer about what is fair, right, or best for the community, it is now about what serves you and protects your position. Maybe you can make some more accusations about me being desperate to be on the default trust as I continually call out those most able to place me there. Maybe no one will notice your desperation to stay on it at all costs if you project hard enough.

I would ask you to clarify what you are accusing me of making up, but of course your accusations sound just as damning even when they are based on nothing but your imagination don't they?

Only the most rank of all, corpses. Only they are guaranteed not to cheat you.

I never said politics should be banned from this thread either. I pointed out that you and your circular jerk pals can not restrain yourself from puking out your pathological aversion to my political views long enough to have a discussion about forum policy. I brought up Flying Hellfish's views only in the context that it effects his bias as a moderator. Your bringing up my views over an over again is only a factor of your inability to control your revulsion with people having opinions you don't agree with and it has no relevance to the thread.

You explicitly said you value his "contributions" for "selfish reasons" in spite of the fact his accusations are unreliable and cause harm to other users. I am sorry if you want to take that back now, but it was your own words, not "form" my reasoning. Also, you didn't bother addressing any of my other quite valid points about you acting all superior and standing in judgement of the lesser plebeians who roam this forum. Convenient you just summarily dismiss that rather than bothering to respond.

P.S. I already have your goat, and if you don't shape up I am going to let Nutilduhh have his way with him.

Or maybe you can stop making accusations about subjects I already addressed and we can skip the whole thing.

Oh jeeze, you caught me, I should have searched through the entire thread with a fine tooth comb like you did. Clearly that was a lie that I never expected anyone could have caught me in seeing as it is all a public thread an everything. Should we count how many references to my politics you, Nutilduhh, and Twitchyseal have made)? Regardless the difference between your posts and mine is it was relevant to the reasons why his moderation was bias. Your posts... are just your inability to restrain yourself from bringing politics into it for no other reason than the fact that I have ideas that you don't approve of enrages you to the point you can't separate forum policy from your emotions about your political beliefs and has no relevance to the topic.

Another deleted post...




As you can see I am quoting myself in response to a criticism I already addressed in lieu of repeating myself. Apparently defending my arguments against their special friends is off topic. Whoever is doing this is getting rather brazen.

#oneless

I absolutely did, once, in the context of it being totally irrelevant to the conversation. Nice try at spin there. I don't much care what you say your intent is, your inability to separate politics from forum policy discussion does all the talking for you.

Where is the part that is relevant to the conversation other than your claims of a tangential relationship? Oh right, there is none, you all are just frothing at the mouth for any opportunity to smite me for daring to have views you don't approve of, and thus you can't even manage to have a conversation about forum policy without injecting politics into it.

Even if you don't watch TV, the programming still gets directed to you passively via 3rd parties who do. That is the wonder of propaganda, it spreads like a disease.

Oh, 35 articles per employer, much better! No they won't cycle through people, they will just stop hiring and or go out of business because this field already has extremely thin and shrinking profit margins. This bill could have the intent to give every man woman and child a bubblegum flavored lollipop, that doesn't mean it will acheive its goal as intended. The fact is though the entire purpose of the bill is to make freelance contracting not viable, effectively ending it in certain fields.




If they are producing lesser quality products it is for the market to decide if they continue to operate, not the government. No matter how much you hope this will magically increase the quality of journalism, all it is doing is creating a regulatory bar preventing smaller organizations from participating in favor of larger corporations who can afford to be in compliance, which is the whole point to crush independent voices. You know what they say about intentions and the road to hell don't you?

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The constitution is clear. No one said anything about just courts, it clearly says ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and DUE PROCESS OF LAW with FAIR PROCEDURES, not "due process of court". So now carrying out his duties as a duly elected president is not part of his liberty now is it? What about the people who elected him? Fuck their liberty too right? Careful with all that stretching, you are about to break your back bending over backwards to justify totalitarianism.

By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? You would think you would want to defend your position from such a clear example demonstrating the Democrat and the media's willingness to totally lie to the American people to get their narrative pushed, as well as their willingness to operate completely outside the due process of law, but I guess not.

Not total lack of awareness, lack of giving a fuck if you or anyone else approves. You and your pal Nutillduuuh have trouble separating your emotions and opinions from facts as demonstrated quite clearly by your obsessive reply chain here repeatedly addressing politics in the Meta section. It is almost like you can barely restrain yourself.

I am a liar for making a point you disagree with am I? It would be a shame if I didn't agree with you and you had to damage my reputation now wouldn't it?

You should probably link your source, plagiarism is a bannable offense, but not for special people like you who don;t need to follow the rules I am sure. How many definitions did you have to cherry pick before you found one vague enough to confirm your bias? No matter, lets look at a LEGAL dictionary.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process


So in summary, your assumptions are absolutely wrong, again. Speaking of being wrong again, how about those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still no comment?

Remind me again what my personal satisfaction has to do with other people following the rules? I know you are trying to equate the two, but it is just not making any sense. I get great joy from exposing these types of behaviors. Even if it means obsessive control freaks like you and your buddies feel the need to constantly inject yourself into every action I take, or word I speak at any opportunity in a desperate effort to try to manufacture your preferred narrative around me, and send a clear message to anyone else who might think of not swearing fealty to your protection racket, I am still achieving my goal.