Forums Discussion v2 - GO TO PAGE 109 FOR SOMETHING NEAT
4,995 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Powindahh;52166817]How do you react to posts?[/QUOTE]
with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns
[QUOTE=BackSapper;52166770]Y'all bully Kiwi too much :([/QUOTE]
yeah why y'all gotta be so mean to Kiwi :(
Kiwi is some sort of homosexual and I say we need to apply more electroshock therapy until we get an iron fisted moderator out of it.
[Sp]iron fist me, daddy postal[/sp]
a clone is a clone. and clones lack souls so its ok to ban them
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1562236&p=52168354&viewfull=1#post52168354"]Not to cause shit but I am very very confused over this ban considering Judas didn't edit the title seemingly?[/URL] Or was the title changed by Kiwi?
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52168378]I changed it.
[editline]1st May 2017[/editline]
Trump Invites Mass Murderer Rodrigo Duterte to the White House the thread title that was originally used.[/QUOTE]
KK, that makes sense.
But like you replied to my post in what 5 seconds wtf are you a bot???
Good thing to ask yourself is "is what I'm adding to the title relevant to what's going on, and is it coming from bias or a neutral point of view?"
An example of how not to do it was Judas' thread aswell as the thread about the trans politician who ran for governor, where the OP added that she supported Trump despite it not being mentioned anywhere nor being related to the article. (It came off as bait if anything)
How do you fix the css bug again on facepunch? my friend is getting it on his desktop?
Go here: [url]https://facepunch.com/fp/fp-2013.css?21[/url]
and hit ctrl F5.
I think that was the solution?
I don't mean to keep harping on about Tudd (this is the first time I've really brought it up) but in the past haven't users been warned to diversify/eventually banned for posting only articles that push a specific agenda? Rayhalo comes to mind first but there were other, less hilarious examples.
If Tudd wants to keep posting exclusively news about immigrants committing crimes, I don't see why [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1562368&p=52173250&viewfull=1#post52173250]other users should be banned for questioning his obvious agenda in doing so[/url] when he seems to be exempt from the agenda-pushing rule.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52173288]I don't mean to keep harping on about Tudd (this is the first time I've really brought it up) but in the past haven't users been warned to diversify/eventually banned for posting only articles that push a specific agenda? Rayhalo comes to mind first but there were other, less hilarious examples.
If Tudd wants to keep posting exclusively news about immigrants committing crimes, I don't see why [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1562368&p=52173250&viewfull=1#post52173250]other users should be banned for questioning his obvious agenda in doing so[/url] when he seems to be exempt from the agenda-pushing rule.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention he's not even trying to hide it.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52142740]Just wanted to share it as a tragic story and people might see that illegal immigration does have real consequences.[/QUOTE]
I would not mind it so much if, for example, for every article he posts about an immigrant/some immigrants doing a bad thing, the next one was about an immigrant/some immigrants doing a good thing. There are plenty of newsworthy examples of immigrants contributing positively to their new home nations. It might do Tudd well, too.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52173288]I don't mean to keep harping on about Tudd (this is the first time I've really brought it up) but in the past haven't users been warned to diversify/eventually banned for posting only articles that push a specific agenda? Rayhalo comes to mind first but there were other, less hilarious examples.
If Tudd wants to keep posting exclusively news about immigrants committing crimes, I don't see why [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1562368&p=52173250&viewfull=1#post52173250]other users should be banned for questioning his obvious agenda in doing so[/url] when he seems to be exempt from the agenda-pushing rule.[/QUOTE]
Who else has been banned for agenda pushing?
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;52173938]shitposting is ok if you're conservative we need to stop SH from being a liberal circlejerk :^)[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SV2t29C9Hc4/Udip0f3dFUI/AAAAAAAAAS4/6Kjr827vRPw/s1600/Strawman+playbackups+com.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;52173585]Who else has been banned for agenda pushing?[/QUOTE]
Aside from the threats made with RAYHALO I can't think of any specific users. Sorry, there are thousands of posters on FP and I'm involved in enough subcommunities that I have to keep track of a lot of them, so it's tough to call up specific names from years past. They were pretty much massive retards across the board though.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52173288]I don't mean to keep harping on about Tudd (this is the first time I've really brought it up) but in the past haven't users been warned to diversify/eventually banned for posting only articles that push a specific agenda? Rayhalo comes to mind first but there were other, less hilarious examples.
If Tudd wants to keep posting exclusively news about immigrants committing crimes, I don't see why [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1562368&p=52173250&viewfull=1#post52173250]other users should be banned for questioning his obvious agenda in doing so[/url] when he seems to be exempt from the agenda-pushing rule.[/QUOTE]
If it is any reconciliation, I actually support immigration generally. For example, I actually really hope for a smoother process of Iraqi people and their families who supported our military to get status here, or for policies that help get thousands of illegal immigrants who are part of the economy/society in a positive way into legal status.
I just personally believe in strong borders and post news that I don't see on here. Plenty of the other news you might desire from me gets posted on here anyways.
To me it seems like people want to disagree with Tudd out of principle
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52174104]To me it seems like people want to disagree with Tudd out of principle[/QUOTE]
Yes, I disagree with Tudd's principles.
Are we going to have 3 more pages of the same Tudd discussion again?
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52174104]To me it seems like people want to disagree with Tudd out of principle[/QUOTE]
I think the reason Tudd continues to be so controversial is specifically because the mods are fairly blatantly favoring him and refusing to deal with the problem, instead opting to ban anyone calling Tudd out on his bullshit which only causes people who oppose Tudd to become more enraged and prone to causing problems. And also causing people who would otherwise just ignore Tudd, such as myself, to actually speak out against him because it's really getting tiring to see.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52174228]What rule is being broken?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Most rules are common sense and it would therefore be impossible to list all the things you could to to get yourself banned.[/QUOTE]
It'd fall under this. Mods have banned for less in the past. I'm not even calling for him to be banned. As I've said in past discussions on the subject I just think the mods need to actually take care of the source of the problem. (Rather than just encouraging him by modding him as a joke, for example.) There's a reason everyone's calling for Tudd's head but not someone like Chonch despite the fact they both post very similarly and it comes entirely from the fact that Tudd posts threads with an extremely blatant agenda he even admits to.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52174274]The source is people shitposting about him because they have so little self control.
It isn't hard to avoid his threads.[/QUOTE]
No, the source is his blatant agenda pushing. Do you think if he was posting all sorts of threads and some of them just happened to involve illegal immigrants, for example, that people would be getting so up in arms over his threads? No. Because it's his blatant (and admitted) agenda pushing that's the problem. If he quit that shit then the issue would go away because [I]that[/I] is the source of the problem.
And either way the mods are here to keep the peace. Clearly their methods are failing to keep the peace so rather than trying to bullheadedly continue handling the problem the way they currently are they should try something different that might actually work.
I don't particularly want Tudd banned. I just think it would be fair for a mod to say hey Tudd, post news about something else for a little while.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52174299]I don't particularly want Tudd banned. I just think it would be fair for a mod to say hey Tudd, post news about something else for a little while.[/QUOTE]
or they take his avatar away if he disobeys
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52174324]Is it impossible to avoid and ignore the threads?[/QUOTE]
That's just ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. Why, if someone is causing problems, should the mods not deal with said problem? They're clearly able and willing to take care of the symptoms of the problem so why not the problem itself?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52173288]I don't mean to keep harping on about Tudd (this is the first time I've really brought it up) but in the past haven't users been warned to diversify/eventually banned for posting only articles that push a specific agenda? Rayhalo comes to mind first but there were other, less hilarious examples.
If Tudd wants to keep posting exclusively news about immigrants committing crimes, I don't see why [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1562368&p=52173250&viewfull=1#post52173250]other users should be banned for questioning his obvious agenda in doing so[/url] when he seems to be exempt from the agenda-pushing rule.[/QUOTE]
I think banning for an agenda only applies if you're incredibly toxic about it. For example, another user who I won't mention by name would driveby shitpost in every thread about refugees and when a mod banned him for incessant shitposting he would just make his own threads and add vague questionable shit like "Such barbaric behavior :(" at the end of each article.
I don't even think people should be banned for having an agenda unless they're being retarded about it like RayHalo was or that other person I mentioned was. It would set up a dangerous precedent for people who exclusively post Trump news, even if Trump news is dominating the current news reported.
Obligatory "It's ethically wrong but it's not against the rules."
Honestly it seems people don't actually have a problem with agenda pushing, but the agenda that's being pushed. I don't see people being terribly upset by Morgen's Elon Musk/environmentalism news (Sorry for using you as an example).
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52174341]I think banning for an agenda only applies if you're incredibly toxic about it. For example, another user who I won't mention by name would driveby shitpost in every thread about refugees and when a mod banned him for incessant shitposting he would just make his own threads and add vague questionable shit like "Such barbaric behavior :(" at the end of each article.
I don't even think people should be banned for having an agenda unless they're being retarded about it like RayHalo was or that other person I mentioned was. [b]It would set up a dangerous precedent for people who exclusively post Trump news, even if Trump news is dominating the current news reported[/b].[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a time when Judas was told to stop making Trump threads for a week (or something) because he posted nothing but that?
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;52174355]Honestly it seems people don't actually have a problem with agenda pushing, but the agenda that's being pushed. I don't see people being terribly upset by Morgen's Elon Musk/environmentalism news (Sorry for using you as an example).[/QUOTE]
Painting a picture about Musk being a good guy isn't as bad as painting a picture about immigrants being human garbage.
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;52174355]Honestly it seems people don't actually have a problem with agenda pushing, but the agenda that's being pushed. I don't see people being terribly upset by Morgen's Elon Musk/environmentalism news (Sorry for using you as an example).[/QUOTE]
Morgen can be annoying outside of those threads when he gets carried away but he's not pushing an agenda of hate. He just really likes Elon Musk and that's OK. On the other hand if someone was repeatedly posting exclusively news about conservatives committing crimes with the undertone that conservatives are all (or largely) criminals I would be just as annoyed as I am with Tudd.
You will occasionally see me snapping at people for making stupid generalizations about conservatives, more than I've ever talked about Tudd, and the same about liberals (when those come up, which is rarer). Generalization is stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.