• Forums Discussion v2 - GO TO PAGE 109 FOR SOMETHING NEAT
    4,995 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52282260]You're foolish if you don't think you're not already a well known user on the forum, specifically for pushing the boundaries of being banned, at least in people's minds even if that is not the actual case. So yes, I had no intention of a call out there. Good job thinking everyone is out to get you, Tudd.[/quote] No, but you did assume that my only reasoning for anything on this site is to be a malevolent troll. When a good part of the reality is most of the outrage surrounding me is created/pushed further by people who simply can't control themselves. [quote] I'm not a mod and I'm not the one who bans or doesn't ban people for these things, so calling me out on my 'honesty' on threads I've never commented on is pretty strawman-e lol. I only remarked my opinion on the thread [i]you[/i] posted and why I think it's worthy of a ban and my agreeance with the mods.[/QUOTE] I don't care about my past bans or some restitution for something subjective like that. I just move on and keep trying to be better at posting content according to what this community is built around. All I am trying to prove to people on here and you right now is that there is clearly a blur between what content is allowed on SH that is political in nature. If bringing up my previous ban regarding this exact issue of "wrong section" is a good example for that, I am going to use it because it is easily comparable to the threads posted previously. Either way, I just showed you two examples that fulfill your statements of why you think my article was too political. So I know you aren't a mod, but I am curious why those threads are exceptional from your own viewpoint now.
You keep making assumptions, Tudd. I put forward a point, but instead of talking about it you come forward with "so you must agree with this" or "what about these over here, you must think X, let me debate that then" instead of talking about my [i]original point[/i]. This is the same kind of deflecting that you do in your own threads that people get their panties in a twist over (which is hilarious because you accuse me of deflecting about something unrelated). [editline]27th May 2017[/editline] You assume I must think of you as a "malevolent troll" from me making an offhand comment like that? Really Tudd? At this point this conversation is turning into a shitfest about whining about another user. I'm flattered you think of me as such a meanie for bringing up your name once, but this isn't even fitting for this thread.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52282260] I never said I agreed with you? I was making a case that you [i]can't[/i] have a more comprehensive rule set and that's how it should be. Non-"news" outlets are fine because primary sources are still fine.[/QUOTE] I get that primary sources are fine. Though this still doesn't answer the question on what happens when you want to use a source in SH that isn't on the Mediafactcheck listing, nor does it answer if Polidick's rule on sources truly applies to SH. For example, I think people are fine with articles that are labeled "Left" or "Right" with High Factual rating on an article that deals with something benign like Linkin Park's new album. [editline]27th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52282294]You keep making assumptions, Tudd. I put forward a point, but instead of talking about it you come forward with "so you must agree with this" or "what about these over here, you must think X, let me debate that then" instead of talking about my [i]original point[/i]. This is the same kind of deflecting that you do in your own threads that people get their panties in a twist over (which is hilarious because you accuse me of deflecting about something unrelated).[/quote] I think my assumptions are quite fair with how you presented your arguments so far, but how is not deflecting when are just talking about my posting habits than what my actual points and questions for you are? [quote] You assume I must think of you as a "malevolent troll" from me making an offhand comment like that? Really Tudd?[/quote] [quote]But of course, this isn't a perfect world and I can understand where you're coming from, people like Tudd are going to try and skirt the rules and pretend like they didn't know that particular thread doesn't belong there.[/quote] What room for intepretation am I suppose to take from this statement? You clearly laid out you think I try to manipulate and curtail rules on purpose. [quote] At this point this conversation is turning into a shitfest about whining about another user. I'm flattered you think of me as such a meanie for bringing up your name once, but this isn't even fitting for this thread.[/QUOTE] I actually only wanted to talk about rules regarding news sources.
I mean really, if ignoring my thread on this issue and Forgottenkane's comments on me helps, I am actually curious on what people think on this sourcing issue. I have contacted BDA on discord regarding it, but just really wanted to see some discussion on it here.
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;52281338]Political news to me means, that actual politicians are involved somehow, I think that's a p good disctinction.[/QUOTE] Politicians are involved in 5/7 of the threads lurker linked. It doesn't bother me one way or another but I don't see how that thread about the Pentagon or the one about Britains threat level didn't go to Polidicks. Were we still having a discussion about creating a separate politics subforum I'd use that as an example of how difficult it is to distinguish between political news and [I]political news[/I] but with a new Trump scandal coming out seemingly every day I think it keeps the board clean. The plus side is I can read about news that matters and right wing histrionics about SJW's is kept quarantined in it's own special section. [editline]27th May 2017[/editline] Huh, this discussion seemed familiar. Two weeks ago in this thread; [QUOTE=Raidyr;52212641]If I'm making a thread with the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda, but the thread itself isn't particularly political in nature, should I post it in SH or Polidicks? What's the policy on opinion pieces like editorials and analysis pieces, that combine opinion with facts like polls and policy statements from politicians?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kiwi;52212679]Opinion pieces die. If it's anything political it does not belong in SH.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52281085]The polidicks SH split really doesn't seem enforced/enforcable. Like a fourth the threads in SH are political. Which is kind of the problem with this split, a lot of stuff is borderline. Like most of these [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565505[/URL] [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565517[/URL] [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565218[/URL] [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565359[/URL] [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565503[/URL] [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565081[/URL] [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565420[/URL][/QUOTE] The Pentagon and the threat level ones can go in polidicks since that's stuff the government does. If stuff doesn't get reported we probably won't act on it but now that you reported it, I've sorted it. For all the others I'll just refer to my post in the SH rules sticky which I'm guessing you missed [QUOTE=postal;52044283]NOTICE: ALL POLITICS NEWS GOES HERE NOW [url]https://facepunch.com/forums/396[/url] [B]so anything related to governments or politicians, or anything directly to do with Trump or Brexit, should instead go there from now on. that subforum is NOT for stuff that [I]may [/I]end up just causing a debate about politics, like a shooting thread causing a debate on gun control laws and such, or a thread about a homophobic person causing a debate on trump. those can still go in this forum as politics wasn't the original point of the topic.[/B][/QUOTE] I guess I should just make a copy of this in the polidicks rules thread
polidicks would really benefit by having more dedicated mods imo
judas for mod 2017 will permaban tudd and then themselves
I still wanna be mod... ;_;
i got your mod application RIGHT HERE
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52283330]Thanks for your application. We're still processing this, our estimate time to complete this process is NaN business days. We appreciate your patience.[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.cleverhousewife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Naan-Bread-Closeup-600x400.jpg[/t] Mmm...business days...
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52283317]Thanks for your application. Unfortunately due to your user agent we are unable to process your application due to it being corrupted/not supported.[/QUOTE] You managed to get Tudd to be a one day mod? How was mine unable to process? Your submission system fucking sucks.
[QUOTE=pentium;52283361]You managed to get Tudd to be a one day mod? How was mine unable to process? Your submission system fucking sucks.[/QUOTE] answer this hezzy
I demand a response from Garry himself.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52283317]Thanks for your application. Unfortunately due to your user agent we are unable to process your application due to it being corrupted/not supported.[/QUOTE] This is what happens when you let your Ethernet port get gunked up with dandruff
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52283392]This is what happens when you let your Ethernet port get gunked up with dandruff[/QUOTE] Ahem, I think you mean "snow", its always "winter" in canada.
Make me a mod. I'll be fair and ban everyone to the political left and right of me. The only bias I got is for unrestrained power :dance:
But I am running Windows 10 and shower regularly.
[QUOTE=pentium;52283407]But I am running Windows 10 and shower regularly.[/QUOTE] Going to need photo proof for that first claim
[QUOTE=pentium;52283407]But I am running Windows 10 and shower regularly.[/QUOTE] You must use some shitty off-brand anti dandruff shampoo.
[QUOTE=pentium;52283407]But I am running Windows 10 and shower regularly.[/QUOTE] A sudden user agent change on only this post? [I]Suspicious.[/I]
What's up with ChadMcGoatMan's posting? :nope:
[QUOTE=Bradyns;52284199]What's up with ChadMcGoatMan's posting? :nope:[/QUOTE] one of life's greatest mysteries
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52181165]Apparently Chad has a neurolinguistic disorder that affects his ability to speak and write. I don't really know the details, but the mod team discussed this a month or so ago and decided to let him stick around as long as he is following the rules and trying to get his points across as best he can.[/QUOTE]
I must have missed the memo. Early March apparently.. might have been a bit out of it around that time.
[QUOTE=thejjokerr;52284348]Please de-mod this inactive mod[/QUOTE] You're just sore that I've banned you twice:doghidden:
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;52284384]Still have a grudge against the great Craptasket for what happened 55 months ago.[/QUOTE] Well it was a crap thread.
Grudges over generic bans [t]https://i.imgur.com/Bzrshu1.gif[/t]
I've been keeping a list of all the mods who have banned me. Its under my avatar if you want to see it.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;52284239]chad[/QUOTE] Honestly I love Chad's posts. Most of the time they're just slightly hard to read, but sometimes they make absolutely no fucking sense and it's hilarious. He's one of the posters on this forum that brings a smile to me face and I'm glad he's allowed to stick around.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.