Poll on Moderation

You’re not “advocating for a replacement mod”, your openly and publically attempting to undermine both the administration and moderation on d a website you give no financial or active time support to because you don’t like what one of the moderators did and think that the entire world not revolving around you and your opinion means the sky is falling.

Publically bombarding the forums like this is histrionic idiocy. If you want to deal with moderation issues, there are other more appropriate and better ways of getting your point across other than throwing public temper tantrums.

But when I told him so yesterday and offered some ideas for change, he approved them pretty much immediately. It's why I don't get the "bish never listens to feedback" complaint. When I made my suggestions I stuck to policy arguments without character attacks. That would be my advice.

No offense, but they weren't exactly groundbreaking changes. My experience in dealing with him thus far tells me that he's completely unwilling to substantially loosen up his moderation style. That being said, I've started talking to him privately, and he's given me some reason to hope that I'm mistaken. So I suppose we'll see where that goes.

Yeah I wish there were separate categories for strictness and favor of bish. I'd qualify as less strict, pro bish.

Priorities are clearly out of whack, and that's enshrined in the letter of the law, which does in fact prohibit saying mean words, but not doing mean things. 

I disagree on the "not doing mean things." Harassment and doxxing are disallowed per the letter of the CoC. The issue I've had from the beginning is the sections on "hate speech" are only ever going to be subjective and lead to inconsistent applications. That inconsistency will cause disfavor and anger at the percieved injustice of it. 

Not to mention, people overwhelmingly dislike PC/SJW nonsense like "hate speech." This is why leftbook groups are lucky to hit 100+ members, and groups like AnCapistan, which legitimately leaves the rules at "don't doxx people like a fuckstick" are filled with members that numbers well into the thousands. Cause at the end of the day, people generally don't care if a group or site they're a part of has bigots. They'd rather be a part of the site where the soup du jour is memes about school shootings, blackface, or whatever troll topic is the flavor that day, then a place where language is policed. 

Cause at the end of the day, the best argument against distasteful and/or hateful ideologies, is to just let them speak. As a bonus it tends to be humurous to boot.

Banning "Tranny" but allowing "Fuck you bitch" is not sensibly consistent

when did tranny become the new n word anyway

There is actually a huge difference. Juggle told airmax 'don't worry, just ban those idiots'. Mike doesn't tell bsh1 the same thing, he cares. You are complimenting Max for things he didn't do at all.

Max was not well-liked, he was capable of banning those who didn't like him. From Me to Qopel to that guy mike or something who exposed him for being corrupt and having some arrangement with 2 Juggle mods posing as non-mods (may be our mike)  and Swagnarok here (bubbatheclown/vox_veritas etc) he banned outcasts when it suited him.

Bsh1 hasn't done this, the mercy he's shown ungrateful pricks is hilarious to me.

he was extremely popular. just because many users, including yourself, had issues with him doesn't mean the other 95% of us did. and i dont really disagree that max's moderation was personally corrupt in many ways. i know from personal experience that if you were one of his favorites you could get away with far more than a regular user could. the point i'm making is that bsh has been, so far, less corrupt that airmax was and is still far less popular

95% is pulled out of your ass, he wasn't popular at all he ensured the popular liked him, this is a totally different concept to ensuring he himself is popular.