Right, just a total coincidence 6 hours after I posted the OP about a very contentious partisan issue, you started engaging me in Meta.
Holy shit, six hours, what was he thinking.
Just to make sure, what's the acceptable time interval to reply to you when you start a thread?
What's bizarre is that he thought the reason I asked him a question in Meta - my first engagement with him ever - is because he opened a thread in P&S 6 hours earlier. I never engaged him in that P&S thread. I just corrected a Spendulus post where said Trump won the popular vote, and that was 8 days later!
Somehow he translated this action into "not being able to handle opposing political views." LOL. Reminding Spendulus that Trump lost the popular vote isn't even an "opposing political view", its a fact.
Also, nice non-sequitur there designed to draw attention away from the fact that Nutilduhh suddenly became interested in my forum activities outside of P&S within hours of reading a thread with a contentious partisan divide that upset him.
That's what passes for a "fact" in your mind these days? Objective standards being applied in your deductions here, for sure.
This level of paranoia and stretching can only be matched by acid-dropping yoga instructors. However, none of this changes the "fact" that TS cries in public far more than is healthy.
Ah nutildah
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0. Fancy seeing you here with suchmoon.
If I may interject and bring my own observations which are independently verifiable on this subject.
There is little doubt that post reporting has previously been used very successfully to censor or delete on topic and highly important relevant information to maintain and protect a narrative that certain " reporters" seek to portray as true or solid. When in reality it is bogus self serving garbage.
I have witnessed 2 members both create " please ban threads for each other"
One created by a proven scammer, self confessed trust abuser who was also strongly implicated in an extortion attempt. The thread he created was based upon debunked lies and groundless speculation. The grounds for his ban request were laughable.
This thread was permitted to remain.
The other was created by a blemish free member that specifically detailed independently verifiable evidence of scamming, self confessed trust abuse, highly probable extortion attempt among other general scammer supporting etc
Next thing that thread was deleted without a trace?...whilst the other remained??
One of the very most heinous and viscous miscarriages of justice I have witnessed.
That is the tip of the iceberg.
I have seen threads meandering way way from the core points of the OP. Then when a member posted unpopular but verifiable truths directly related to the OP that was reported and deleted. When the member asked why some said it was reported for derailing from the current flow. Ha but if you join in with off topic that would then be deleted for off topic. Lose lose hey.
The worst is the weaponization of deleted posts. I have witnessed a super contributor receive a public ban warning from theymos based on the easily manipulated, gamed and misleading metric of deleted posts / specific time frame. About 1 hour after I witnessed him be told that any further deletes could result in a ban. Then someone reported every two word or 3 word post he had made in the last 7 years so he got another I believe 30 deletes within 10 mins. Pure coincidence you say?
I have seen a post regarding trolling. One member ( a confirmed and busted greedy racist troll sock puppet sig spammer caught red handed) claims another member who had never had a single point in any of his posts debunked was a troll. When the accused responded with a simple link to the confirmed trolls past red handed busting and asked to see the evidence of his own trolling...his post was deleted.
When he asked why he was told off topic lol. Disgraceful. The confirmed troll admitted he reported it haha. He was permitted to go on discussing the imaginary trolling of the non troll that simple provided evidence and requested proof of the confirmed trolls accusations.
This is clearly wrong.
There should be transparency to who reported the post and which mod deleted the post.
This should be certainly made transparent where it is clear one member or a couple of members are targeting specifically one persons posts and where one moderator is consistently taking inappropriate action. That would need to be decided upon investigation after prolonged and targeted attacks.
I will say recently I believe there has been a vast improvement on the moderation here.
If you post on topic relevant posts generally they will remain. This is for meta. I can not say for other boards.
Reputation had always been reasonably fair. Of course on the politics board this may be different but I dont have time for all of that.
I think some mods prefer to smooth things over. So if disruptive truths appear on a thread even if they are clearly relevant and on topic they will reason the thread is being smashed to pieces. The popular narrative was facilitating a nice polite backslapping pal party each regurgitating misleading or false nonsense that suits them. Then the party pooper arrives and injects the unpopular truth that turns the nice friendly thread into a war zone full of casualties apart from the party pooper who is unscathed shielded by the truth.
The mods says to himself - oh that was all so nice and pleasant and friendly and now that horrible bastard that always has to ruin things with the truth is here. I think deleting his disruptive posts is the sensible way forward. Wish I could ban these disruptive truth injecting assholes.
I understand that " atmosphere " is important and so is tone. There is to me though nothing more important than highly relevant and important truth. There is no point having a forum full of bogus self serving misleading garbage. If the truth is unpopular to such large proportion of any sub board that they want the truth censored then that board needs quarantine and serious social distancing.
It is different if the person is spouting off unsubstantiated or observably false and incorrect nonsense that is hugely disruptive. However it should be no problem to debunk their arguments on thread without crying for mods unless they do not respond to reason after their points have been conclusively debunked.
It is silly to dispute the claims in the OP.
But I think things are greatly improving on meta. We will see long term.
I think mods probably do have a difficult job. I mean their prime directive should really be assuring members are able to efficiently obtain the truth. On the other hand they can't have a total war zone.
Perhaps punishing those promugating misleading bogus nonsense and spouting off clear double standards is more useful than punishing those that present highly relevant but disruptive truths. Eventually the truth will not be disruptive because it will be the part of the popular narrative, and bogus false and misleading garbage will be the disruptive and contentious posts. WIN WIN you get to allow members efficient access to the truth and delete dishonest trolls and liars nonsense. Just takes time to reverse such a dire state.
