-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I can’t believe I have to explain I would not be calling them a dummy directly.
If that's not obvious to you, fine, you can disagree with me. Just don't do it.
Trump accomplice is facing disbarment for his role in 2020 election legal opinion
Posts
Total:
104
-->
@whiteflame
And you can still respond to those people by pointing out the flaws in their views.
The flaw in their view is it’s a lie. Why do people lie? Because they’re liars.
-->
@whiteflame
If that's not obvious to you, fine, you can disagree with me. Just don't do it.
So since it’s ok to attack groups on this site, the way people attack transgender people, and you’re fine with that, it must be ok to attack moderators as a group.
If I said moderators are all a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do with their lives and they are thrilled to have this little pathetic power to enforce rules for some teeny tiny chat room and that makes them feel important, that would be fine, right? Because that’s not a personal attack, directly or indirectly, right?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So since it’s ok to attack groups on this site, the way people attack transgender people, and you’re fine with that, it must be ok to attack moderators as a group.If I said moderators are all a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do with their lives and they are thrilled to have this little pathetic power to enforce rules for some teeny tiny chat room and that makes them feel important, that would be fine, right? Because that’s not a personal attack, directly or indirectly, right?
If it makes you feel better to say it, sure. Not the worst thing I've heard said about me or the mod team.
-->
@whiteflame
*shrug* I'm not looking for your endorsement.
So now you are saying you are all powerful, you can do what you want, and you don’t care if people think you are doing a terrible job. That’s great.
-->
@whiteflame
Not the worst thing I've heard said about me
What was the worst thing? So others have expressed you are not good at your job? Maybe you should takes some time for reflection then and reconsider this attitude you have that you know what’s best when it comes to being a moderator.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So now you are saying you are all powerful, you can do what you want, and you don’t care if people think you are doing a terrible job. That’s great.
That's an... interesting interpretation. What I'm saying is that working as a mod is a generally thankless job and that I'm going to get hate for it regardless of what I do. If I didn't learn to shrug it off, then I would have left the role a long time ago and never looked back. If your goal as a moderator is to make sure everyone is satisfied with what you're doing, then you're doing it wrong.
I know I could be doing better. That's part of why I'm doing this: to ensure that we have a more consistent form of enforcement. Your response to that is to argue that we should also be enforcing in other places, which doesn't really change the point of my initial post. I think there's room to discuss how moderation could better enforce other existing aspects of the CoC or add to the CoC in ways that are beneficial for the site, but that doesn't really change whether we should allow personal attacks or harassment. We can both recognize that those are a problem and aim to do a better job in other areas while we're at it.
But you're reducing that to saying that I'm just "doing a terrible job." That's not constructive feedback. That's not actionable. If you have a policy in mind for what we should do, present it and argue your position with more people than just me. I'm not the one you have to convince because, despite your claim that I'm "all powerful," I'm not going to implement something just because you tell me it's what I should do, even if I fully agree with you. Shocker, I know.
-->
@whiteflame
That's an... interesting interpretation. What I'm saying is that working as a mod is a generally thankless job and that I'm going to get hate for it regardless of what I do. If I didn't learn to shrug it off, then I would have left the role a long time ago and never looked back. If your goal as a moderator is to make sure everyone is satisfied with what you're doing, then you're doing it wrong.
Well unless you became a moderator yesterday, it appears you haven’t done one bit of moderating your entire time on this site. So you can’t really call it a job, thankless or otherwise.
I know I could be doing better. That's part of why I'm doing this: to ensure that we have a more consistent form of enforcement. Your response to that is to argue that we should also be enforcing in other places, which doesn't really change the point of my initial post. I think there's room to discuss how moderation could better enforce other existing aspects of the CoC or add to the CoC in ways that are beneficial for the site, but that doesn't really change whether we should allow personal attacks or harassment. We can both recognize that those are a problem and aim to do a better job in other areas while we're at it.
Well this is very well said. But this site is doomed to become a refuge for wack jobs and their misinformation and hate speech if all your going to do is ban people for personal attacks and let misinformation and hate speech slide.
Without personal attacks, the misinformation and hate speech will be unchecked by the regular people on this site.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well unless you became a moderator yesterday, it appears you haven’t done one bit of moderating your entire time on this site.
See, it's a perspective like this that makes me wonder why I should consider what you're saying at all. If you honestly believe this to be true, then I guess I have nothing to glean from this conversation. Thanks for clarifying that.
-->
@whiteflame
See, it's a perspective like this that makes me wonder why I should consider what you're saying at all. If you honestly believe this to be true, then I guess I have nothing to glean from this conversation. Thanks for clarifying that.
How so? I mean you just admitted you have done an inadequate job as a moderator. Please clarify.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I'm done with this conversation. Feel free to jab at me as much as you like, I've lost interest.
-->
@whiteflame
shrug* I'm not looking for your endorsement.That's an... interesting interpretation.
Really? How else should I interpret the “shrug” ?
It says you don’t care. I can do want I want.
Your goal should be consistency and fairness in enforcing the COC.
-->
@whiteflame
I'm done with this conversation. Feel free to jab at me as much as you like, I've lost interest.
I’m not surprised. When someone can’t defend their actions they often get tired of defending them.
-->
@whiteflame
I'll make a general post about it later today,I'm done with this conversation. I've lost interest.
Does this mean you’re not going to put out another “general post” later?