If you have a specific issue with a user then as _act_ said, 'take it to the reputation board".
That is besides the point, read the updated poll. It is about the consistency of moderation and whether both positive and negative posts are on-topic or off-topic, my issue with the specific campaign or user is not the topic here.
Let's stop with all the bs pajeet shit man. Just because someone is from a certain area of the world, doesn't make them trash or useless. There are lazy or useless people in every race. You got an issue, just call a user out without the extra. You claim to be a superior person, act like it without being condescending.
Since the majority of the ones that are here are dirty and abusive pajeets, I don't think there is a need to stop factual descriptions of these users. Data can never be racist. We know to the most part in each place including the USA which groups of people are the ones that are causing the most problems. If you want to be accepting and nice to bad people and criminals, that is your choice -- we have the freedom to choose, at least here in the USA. EU and other shitty countries are trying to take away the freedom to choose.
I'm not shock that you don't see any difference between what you just quoted above and what exactly you wrote on that post that got deleted by the moderator. Because did you see any of the above quoted users accusing signature campaign managers of accepting only a farmed accounts, or making a baseless accusations without proof? I'm sure the answer is NO.... But here you go accusing everybody without a single proof of been low quality posters and farm
Accusations with or without proof are both on topic, there is no difference in whether a post is on topic based on whether it contains evidence or not. My accusations are not "baseless", a simple path towards validation is given in the post description. Recently farmed up accounts obviously refers to accounts of lower ranking, member and full member primarily, and simply checking the merit or post history of either group validates my claim about recently farmed accounts.
Self-moderation is a feature, not censorship.
The thread in question does not have self-moderation, look again.
Good, but I don't think that this is relevant anymore. I see shitposters everywhere, but very rarely do I see someone who has a signature ban.
I usually agree with your reports, but Campaign threads should be used for applications only.
As I said, it is a perfectly valid stance to see it that way. But in this case there is an issue with countless positive posts that are left in similar threads. Take a look at some examples in the first post, but you can also find several others yourself.
- User looks suspicious, but you have no proof?
Then, send a PM to the campaign manager.
This is a very naive take of the situation.
Maybe someone like Hhampuz would act on it -- and not someone who is complicit or knowingly doing it.
I believe the posts actually would be on-topic as long as the discussion resulting from it is short. As in, discussion takes a few posts max.
Interesting, putting aside my own case in which it was actually just an interaction with 3 of my posts and a few of other people's -- what about the Loyce thread then? Are repeated discussions side-discussions or replies fine as long as each one is fairly short? The thread is full of discussions but most of them are fairly shorted, but based on the thread size I assume that there are a few that are a bit longer -- although what exactly is short and where the cutoff would be is subjective.
For some question that is expected to make a couple of posts in replies, I'd say it is better for that to get its own thread to be honest.
For sure, I guess it could get too crowded. Similarly, a separate thread that is about the campaign, the participants or the manager should be allowed to be at least linked occasionally in the campaign topic. That would make sense to me.
It kind of depends on the moderator though, some will just delete replies after a certain time threshold, others will only delete a subset of replies but I don't think I've seen any clear out an entire discussion.
It is always the question here. There are benefits from this system of moderation but also downsides. Those that make mistakes or those that are inconsistent can hide behind their own decisions. Theymos is too busy to investigate each and every case all the time, and even if he did I believe that there is a significant amount of tolerance when it comes to mistakes before he would actually take action against his own moderator.
Poll
