Forum Discussion v5 - Imagine if you used Ignore List. - General

You can @import to get past the limit. I'd expect that eventually there'll be a ton of skins and people will just @import them.

This css stuff on newpunch is super cool and im really excited for custom skins and themes.

Someone make me a custom CSS theme that replaces Rusty100's posts with Buddha quotes

whats the file size limit for avatars on newpunch? 200 kb always seemed a little small to me (when it comes to gifs) but im not expecting/wanting several mbs either

[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52904289]Someone make me a custom CSS theme that replaces Rusty100's posts with Buddha quotes[/QUOTE] Or just integrate that into the ignore list feature

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52903999][img]https://i.gyazo.com/346bb72dd9a683b23d47e9f14377473a.png[/img] im on to you corrupt moderators[/QUOTE] He now chooses to live life as gayry

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52904143]Was it badage boys?[/QUOTE] Just some old friends visiting the town sometimes. [editline]19th November 2017[/editline] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1586260[/url] Kiwi I can with absolute 110% certainty say that bopie is not trogdon. Like, the notion of it is.... baffling me. These dudes know each other in real life. Like, I am so fucking certain, I am almost almost making this a toxx. It's just ridiculous.

im always concerned because I live with someone who posts on facepunch and im afraid if they get banned i'll get banned for being an alt :v:

Preface: I understand that its awkward quickly shifting from more casual conversation about Newpunch and such back to this topic but I have very limited time to post on FP during the holidays. Sorry for the inconvenience [QUOTE=Hezzy;52903121]I'm not going to argue with you. You are wrong on pretty much every point you just raised. However I will say that it is probably not a good idea to assume a disrespectful tone and tell me that I have "lost the plot".[/QUOTE] Can you not see why people doubt your perspective on balance and moderation and centrism when they doubt your claims and instead of proving them you just say "no you are wrong"? I'm sorry if "lost the plot" came across as disrespectful but I don't know very many other ways to summarize your argument. You portrayed a Facepunch that simply did not, and does not exist, for the reasons I gave. [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52903202]Yeah, it's pretty incredible. Two different people responded point by point, explaining how we felt he misunderstood my position.[B] Raidyr even repeatedly made it clear that he wasn't attacking Hezzy's overall goals, only the means, and even asked for examples for one of his points.[/B][/QUOTE] Specifically, if he had just said something like "This is the way things are going to be now, we aren't going to take previous moderation under consideration because we feel banning for trolling/shitposting inadvertently punishes people with genuinely held, if highly unpopular and poorly defended opinions" then I wouldn't have disagreed. I'm generally in favor of less moderation. It's specifically his portrayal of Facepunch as a far-left echo chamber where right wing posters feel afraid to express their opinions due to institutional bias against their politics, and the resulting repentant attitude by Hezzy. If his angle on what balance looks like is skewed by such an inaccurate view of Facepunch's history then I'd question his ability to ensure true balance. [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903270]Except your original argument is just one underhanded jab at Tudd and posters like him. I went back and re-read both Raidyr's post and your post, and neither of them brought up anything other than more references back to right-wing posters with controversial opinions angering the general subforum.[/QUOTE] I didn't say anything about Tudd and I only brought up right-wing posters specifically because Hezzy was portraying them as some oppressed underclass. In fact I've [I]explicitly said[/I] in previous iterations [B]of this very thread[/B] that Tudd shouldn't be banned for "pushing an agenda" or other similar charges because everyone who regularly makes threads in SH or Polidicks is pushing an agenda. [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903270]You can say this has "lost the plot" (even though it's literally the core argument), but this thing has been brought up and talked about to the point that a ban had to literally be enforced because it kept going in circles so much.[/QUOTE] The "lost the plot" remark was aimed at his description of Facepunch which I imagine exists in some mirror dimension from our own [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903270]Your points are recycled. They are very much recycled, which is why you even say in your post "other people will inevitably bring up the same points." It's not a matter of rule-breaking users that mods won't ban, it's that they won't ban people with polarized opinions that differ from the majority of posters in certain sections. The thread was a bait thread, plain and simple. It shouldn't have existed in the first place, but that doesn't somehow justify the argument that extremists are running rampant on Facepunch. What's actually happening is people with hard-left/hard-right views have learned how to post their own opinions without being banned, and now it's pissing people off.[/QUOTE] I wasn't making the argument that anyone should be banned for polarizing opinions tho. I will say though that maybe my points will stop being recycled if someone actually responded to them. [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903314] If this is the point, then you've failed to see the problem in your own argument. Hezzy has said the site used to be left-centric (which I agree with), but this hasn't changed because of moderation policy. It's changed because posters with hardened right-wing views have learned to post without being banned, and as a result the forum balance has now shifted.[/QUOTE] idk what "hardened" means but right-wing posters have been posting on FP for years without being banned. Again, I can name a half dozen long time, active right wing posters with far better ban histories than my own. [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903314]That said, neither Raidyr, nor you, nor Alice, have brought up a single post demonstrating your argument whatsoever (excluding the bait trans thread which was an anomaly to begin with). I'm sure your point would be more readily listened to if it had examples to go along with it.[/QUOTE] My argument was specifically that Hezzy's argument was wrong, nothing more. Are you sure you read my post? [QUOTE=PrusseLusken;52903385] tbh not very sure why you (and others) are being so upset with hezzy's response? hezzy has been a good guy far as i recall, back when courage and metallics and the other kinda-old timers were around in the camp fp days he did a stellar job. his response to you was kinda cold but it's not out of touch entirely, you are being presumptuous in disregarding his points.[/QUOTE] I'm not upset. I just think he portrayed an inaccurate version of Facepunch. [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903429]Categorizing has nothing to do with the original problem that is still being complained about though. It was Hezzy's ambiguity in what he wanted to do with "balancing" the forum and he happened to call it a left-centrist forum (which is true when you compare it to other forums, this one is a very much left-centrist forum. See: /r/t_d, etc. for what other forums based with different political spectrums look like) I think what Hezzy was trying to get at was to be more lax in the previously heavily moderated right-wing biased threads/articles. Not trying to shift an entire political spectrum of a forum of people.[/QUOTE] It's semantics but left-leaning is more approrpriate than left-centrist. Left-centrist implies it was made from the ground up to appeal to and cater to leftist points of view, which might be Facepunch from Hezzy's point of view but as I've explained, I don't really agree. I guess you are picking up his argument by talking about "previously heavily moderated right-wing biased threads/articles" and I'd like you to be more specific by what you mean.

[QUOTE=Judas;52904826]im always concerned because I live with someone who posts on facepunch and im afraid if they get banned i'll get banned for being an alt :v:[/QUOTE] My first permaban was so old it doesn't appear on my ban history. I logged in on a school computer and somehow ended up banned. I never did discover the reason, it is lost to time.

I was permabanned when my [url=https://facepunch.com/member.php?u=218350]brother[/url] who lives in the same house as me got permabanned. It doesn't show on my account however other than Craptasket's un-compromised unban. We were both using the same FP script that had an exploit iirc where [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1159903&highlight=]compromised users[/url] all made threads entitled [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1101872]i am a dumb nigger[/url].

[QUOTE=NachoPiggy;52905243]We were both using the same FP script that had an exploit iirc where [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1159903&highlight=]compromised users[/url] all made threads entitled [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1101872]i am a dumb nigger[/url].[/QUOTE] just fyi but that thread by garry (which is just him fucking around) was in reference to the battlefield heroes password leak, where some guy dug through the leak and used usernames and passwords to access a ton of FP accounts belonging to schmucks that re-use the same username and password everywhere, and then proceeded to post "i am a dumb nigger" ban-mes on their accounts one at a time lol. I can't find when the first compromised script happened, but that other link is apparently from the second compromised script (which was by the same guy that made the first also accidentally compromised script...), and I think the same hijacker may have been behind all three of these lol.

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52904864]They got matched in several ways and got caught. I did get a lot of evidence to support that he isn't Trogdon and it was talked about in mod chat that it wasn't entirely the greatest ban in the world so yeah unbanned.[/QUOTE] They know and visit each other in real life dude. They are ...friends.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139]I didn't say anything about Tudd and I only brought up right-wing posters specifically because Hezzy was portraying them as some oppressed underclass. In fact I've [I]explicitly said[/I] in previous iterations [B]of this very thread[/B] that Tudd shouldn't be banned for "pushing an agenda" or other similar charges because everyone who regularly makes threads in SH or Polidicks is pushing an agenda.[/quote] Uhh...I wasn't responding to your post in the first place there?? I was talking to Sega, I don't know why you immediately thought I was talking about you for whatever reason. There's a reason I quoted him and not you. His original argument, which not only brings up right-wing posters, but specifically alt-right: [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52896727]Now it just feels like FP is a giant social experiment, a dumping ground for bigots and extremists to offload their ideologies without consequence to test the upper limits of everyone's patience. The community as a whole despises this change and we've voiced our concerns about it innumerable times, but the mod team has generally responded with contempt, and has even resorted to censoring the topic on occasion and outright banning people for talking about it. It's resulted in mod-sanctioned trolling, and you know that's exactly what it is when the mods say "we know what's going on, but you're the problem because you're responding to it."[/QUOTE] You can continue to ignore the fact that this is indeed a reference to Tudd and posters like him, but the fact remains that the topic is drifting that way. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139]The "lost the plot" remark was aimed at his description of Facepunch which I imagine exists in some mirror dimension from our own[/quote] "Hezzy's opinion and/or viewpoint is different from mine and therefore can't realistically exist." What are you even trying to say here? [QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139]I wasn't making the argument that anyone should be banned for polarizing opinions tho. I will say though that maybe my points will stop being recycled if someone actually responded to them.[/quote] [I]I was not talking to you.[/I] Although your points are also recycled. Perhaps you should read the conclusion to what happened in the previous cycles and understand why you repeating this cycle will get you nowhere. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139]idk what "hardened" means but right-wing posters have been posting on FP for years without being banned. Again, I can name a half dozen long time, active right wing posters with far better ban histories than my own.[/quote] Really? You complain about semantics and then say you don't know what a hardened right-wing poster is? Like is it that hard to just make a guess at it? As in unmalleable views. They're hardened, and very difficult or next to impossible to change. I don't even know if you're taking your own arguments seriously anymore. Not to mention ban history deals with post quality, not political spectrum. I don't know why you're bringing up ban history. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139]My argument was specifically that Hezzy's argument was wrong, nothing more. Are you sure you read my post?[/quote] [B][I]I was not responding to your post.[/I][/B] That said, why are you replying to that post in the first place if you either have a neutral stand on Sega Saturn's original post or even oppose it in the first place? If you support the post then you should also be tasked with providing examples, no? That's why I made that point in my post. You can cherry pick the little details but you've done nothing but argue for the sake of arguing here. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139][B]I'm not upset.[/B] I just think he portrayed an inaccurate version of Facepunch.[/quote] I would beg to differ. Otherwise you would have no reason for writing these very long posts. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52905139]It's semantics but left-leaning is more approrpriate than left-centrist. Left-centrist implies it was made from the ground up to appeal to and cater to leftist points of view, which might be Facepunch from Hezzy's point of view but as I've explained, I don't really agree. I guess you are picking up his argument by talking about "previously heavily moderated right-wing biased threads/articles" and I'd like you to be more specific by what you mean.[/QUOTE] Funny, you want me to be more specific yet none of the people arguing for this nonsense have provided any examples thus far. Your view on how a political spectrum of a forum is measured is completely off-base which is why I think you're just entirely misinterpreting what I'm saying. The only way to shape a political spectrum around a forum is to, either subtly or openly, moderate the content that is posted in such a way that only certain content and views become the popular opinion over time. This takes place through multiple ways, either through direct moderation (which is unlikely to happen) and the ratings system. Take a single post that advocates for the removal of gay marriage. I guarantee you this post would wind up with a significant amount of dumbs, and might even change this person's opinion entirely. This person now has a more progressive viewpoint. Repeat this cycle hundreds or thousands of times, and you now have a forum which is centered around a specific point on the political spectrum. Obviously there will be anomalies, but the generally accepted political views within a certain range on that spectrum become apparent. This is in no way built from the ground up, it [B]has[/B] to take place over time. The only way this can be immediately implemented from the ground up is if the moderators were directly banning all content with opposing views, which didn't (obviously) happen. -- All that said, you've again argued for the sake of arguing and half of your points are entirely irrelevant considering none of them were talking about you in the first place. You can get all snappy with the "are you sure you read my post" stuff, but just know that none of that is helping your case in my eyes either.

[QUOTE=Killuah;52905501]They know and visit each other in real life dude. They are ...friends.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;52896363]I drink enough as it is, keeping track of every forum members' interpersonal relationships in order to factor into bans is well beyond my alcohol budget.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52903121]I'm not going to argue with you. You are wrong on pretty much every point you just raised. However I will say that it is probably not a good idea to assume a disrespectful tone and tell me that I have "lost the plot".[/QUOTE] I am surprised that nobody saw that this reply was from my mobile. I admit that I read Raidyr's reply and just thought "what nonsense" and could not be bothered to write what would need to be a lengthy, drawn out reply on my mobile. I want preface this effort post by saying that none of you are entitled to an explanation from me or the Moderator team for anything. We do it because we care about this forum and we want honest feedback. That being said, I don't expect to have to put up with posts that are hostile in tone, disrespectful and generally shit. I work upwards of 50 - 60 hours a week and work on Facepunch during my spare time. I don't need to load up this thread to see the same old people writing the same old shite, acting like babies towards the Moderator team and generally bringing up issues that have been done to death on multiple occasions, all because they cannot deal with the reality that things do not always go their way. I will be banning people who act like this in future. Without further adieu here is the effort post that you missed out on; [QUOTE=Raidyr;52902294]No?[/quote] Yes. Facepunch has always been a left-centric website and continues to be so. I concede that as you've stated there's the usual pro-firearms stance traditionally associated with the right, however everything else is pretty much left leaning, as PrusseLusken so succinctly argued. You only need to look at the transphobia thread to realise how many of our posters hold a left-bias. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52902294]This is fiction. No policy was ever instituted to "support the left by banning people who spoke out against left ideology", directly or otherwise. I'm open to examples but as far as I'm aware this was never a thing. [/quote] One of the reasons I just gave up and wrote that shitty reply to you is because of all these passive aggressive jabs you wrote. It's not fiction, I have ran this forum for most of its existence. I believe I am in a better position to comment on such matters than you are. We used to ban people for having right wing opinions all the time. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52902294]A noble goal, my counterpoint would be that your perspective on Facepunch and it's position of balance is a bit skewed. [/quote] :why: What am I even supposed to write in reply to this? [QUOTE=Raidyr;52902294]No it's pretty accurate, the advice given for certain people who have outright admitted to trolling is to just ignore them. Then when people say that the ignore feature isn't sufficiently developed then the argument just becomes "get over it". "to sanction" means "to approve" so maybe approval is a strong word but I'd definitely say it's looking the other way, as it were. [/quote] Let's not pussy foot around the issue - this is directly referencing Tudd. Tudd has wound up the entire community and none of you are impartial towards him. You all want his head on a pike, some of the moderation team included. Because of this I have had to take steps to prevent him from being banned by the rest of the moderation team for silly reasons. He is subject to a level of scrutiny unprecedented in the history of the forum. One recent example is the thread he recently made about a Syrian refugee would've earned him a ban. This would not have been a fair ban. The crux of the issue was around his sources (which shouldn't really matter all that much in Sensationalist Headlines, compared to Polidicks) and that the English source he had chosen directly referenced a German Tabloid source. Some elements of the moderation team believed that he should have been aware that this German source was a tabloid and I disagreed, stating that it was too far removed and the source he quoted was reliable as per the guidelines. Tudd changed the thread 40 minutes after creating it to include a more reliable German source of his own accord. Regardless of this, the thread was closed anyway. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52902294]wew lad, lets try to keep it peaceful, yeah? Who is Sega Saturn and his "people"? Who are the people who oppose his views? Why are there people fearful for speaking out? I'm assuming you mean right-wingers, and if I'm right (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am!) then you have completely lost the plot. The most vocal conservative on this forum, the one who makes the most posts and the most threads, has a special avatar, mod immunity, and was made a mod himself for April Fools. I can name a half dozen posters who regularly post right-wing/conservative/libertarian viewpoints who's ban history looks relatively clean. I've never felt fear posting my conservative opinions. Fuck, typing out "felt fear" when referring to an internet forum shows how bizarre this comment is. I'm not even sure where you pulled this from. No where in his post did he even vaguely intimate creating safe spaces.[/QUOTE] I meant to write "person" instead of people. And yes, I was referring to people who hold right wing views. Have you stopped to think why he was given this treatment? Because it wound so many people up. Do you remember how angry people were in the April Fools thread, who went full red mist and completely forgot what the date was? I think it's great that you can name half a dozen right wing posters. It means that the changes I have implemented are working. In the early years of Facepunch they'd probably end up being banned and I want to move far away from that. [QUOTE=Alice3173;52903145]Did you honestly expect better from Hezzy? This is pretty much totally normal for him which is exactly why he should never have been remodded to begin with.[/QUOTE] :why: [QUOTE=Alice3173;52903155]It's to be expected when issues get dismissed without ever actually getting addressed. Hezzy just keeps clamping down on even discussing certain issues which doesn't deal with the underlying problem. It just sweeps it under the rug and tries to hide it from sight instead.[/QUOTE] Of course we're just sweeping it under the rug. After all, it's not like we have an entire fucking thread dedicated to discussing the forums is it? [QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52903191]You realize Hezzy is one of the only ones who has very consistently addressed pretty much every major issue that was brought up, even when the rest of the mod team may not have had a problem with it? He's had Postal even release logs detailing the literal discussion the mods have had on the issues in the discord. I honestly don't even know what you're on about. There's no genuine basis for your argument.[/QUOTE] Thank you for this reply and all of your subsequent replies. It's nice that my near daily essays replying to drama have not gone unnoticed. [QUOTE=The Genie;52903196]A lot of the arguments brought up in this thread are recycled. I can understand why both sides are getting tired of debating it, especially when no satisfactory conclusion comes of it.[/QUOTE] Maybe they should just accept what has been decided and stop rehashing the same issues? [QUOTE=myon;52903233]that doesn't invalidate any criticism or issues brought up[/QUOTE] It kind of does if it is the same people bringing up the same issue after it has been addressed repeatedly.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52905711]I want preface this effort post by saying that none of you are entitled to an explanation from me or the Moderator team for anything. ... I will be banning people who act like this in future.[/QUOTE] This sort of stuff [I]really[/I] doesn't help the situation. The reason this keeps repeatedly being brought up is because you guys don't actually address the underlying issues. You guys get stuck on "we all hate Tudd" when Tudd himself isn't the actual issue but a shining example of the issue. [QUOTE]I think it's great that you can name half a dozen right wing posters. It means that the changes I have implemented are working. In the early years of Facepunch they'd probably end up being banned and I want to move far away from that.[/QUOTE] And the issue isn't that Tudd is right-wing. As I said here: [QUOTE=Alice3173;52903293]It's been discussed to death because you guys refuse to actually address the problem. You're far more interested in sweeping it under the rug and forcing people to not even discuss the issue. Really doesn't help when you guys on the mod team have consistently dismissed the issue as "I don't like X person because they disagree with me" despite the repeated examples to the contrary, users such as Grenadiac who nobody seems to have a problem with. (And who I personally think is a good poster and like the viewpoints he brings to discussions even when I disagree with them.)[/QUOTE] There's a number of conservative posters on the site who nobody has any issue with. They seem to go unnoticed during discussions like this though even when people explicitly try and mention them. Every single time someone has said something along the lines of what I've said in that quote it has been completely ignored by everyone on the moderator team for some reason. Quite often with the moderators taking part in the discussion continuing to state some stupid bullshit about how it's all because we dislike Tudd. There's plenty of people who I dislike on the site. I don't call for moderators doing something about them because my dislike of them is not an issue the mods should have to deal with. The issue with Tudd, and to a lesser degree a few other users such as Chonch and sgman, is not simply that they add literally nothing to the discussion because of how they go about trying to discuss things but they actually delegitimize any valid points posters who hold similar views might have simply by association. [QUOTE=Hezzy]Of course we're just sweeping it under the rug. After all, it's not like we have an entire fucking thread dedicated to discussing the forums is it?[/QUOTE] Well you could always actually try addressing the issues instead of sweeping it under the rug. Your goal here is to improve the forums, is it not? With people like Tudd, Chonch, and so on running rampant, intellectual dishonesty is an active concern about the quality of any discussion. That's not conducive to opposing views being discussed in any actual worthwhile way. Most users in SH and Polidicks, from what I've seen, actually are interested in discussion with those whose views differ from theirs. An impossible task to accomplish when the person with those views consistently evades actually addressing any issues with their views you bring up. People are obviously frustrated with the situation. And your solution, ignoring it (and apparently hoping the person in question will get bored and go away), simply doesn't work. I actively ignore Tudd (and any other user that has the same issues as him) but that doesn't always work. Ie: You can't see thread authors in the ticker so sometimes I'll end up in one of his shitty agenda-pushing threads on accident because the title wasn't quite obvious enough to catch right away. And people still discuss him anyways because they're frustrated not only with his actions but the mod team's actions regarding the matter. In most people's eyes your actions don't show objectivity and a desire to be impartial. They end up showing the exact opposite. Especially with things like the April Fool's joke which plenty of people thought was done in bad taste. Kinda hard to keep people in line when you're also partly responsible for riling them up in the first place.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52905748]This sort of stuff [I]really[/I] doesn't help the situation. The reason this keeps repeatedly being brought up is because you guys don't actually address the underlying issues. [B]You guys get stuck on "we all hate Tudd" when Tudd himself isn't the actual issue but a shining example of the issue.[/B] And the issue isn't that Tudd is right-wing. As I said here: There's a number of conservative posters on the site who nobody has any issue with. They seem to go unnoticed during discussions like this though even when people explicitly try and mention them. Every single time someone has said something along the lines of what I've said in that quote it has been completely ignored by everyone on the moderator team for some reason. [B]Quite often with the moderators taking part in the discussion continuing to state some stupid bullshit about how it's all because we dislike Tudd.[/B] ... [Complaints about Tudd et. al.] [B]With people like Tudd, Chonch, and so on running rampant[/B], intellectual dishonesty is an active concern about the quality of any discussion. [B]People are obviously frustrated with the situation.[/B] ... [B]I actively ignore Tudd (and any other user that has the same issues as him)[/B] but that doesn't always work.[/QUOTE] So you're complaining about Tudd et. al., but trying to hide it by discussing it in a very roundabout manner? Do you not see how this is [I][B]exactly[/B][/I] about them? If you took Tudd et. al. out of this equation it wouldn't be a problem to begin with. The problem is they break the status quo which you seem to have a problem with. [editline]Edited: [/editline] In fact, let me also add that I still have yet to see a single example being produced from any of these arguments you and anyone else arguing this side of things so far.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52905748]This sort of stuff [I]really[/I] doesn't help the situation. The reason this keeps repeatedly being brought up is because you guys don't actually address the underlying issues. You guys get stuck on "we all hate Tudd" when Tudd himself isn't the actual issue but a shining example of the issue. And the issue isn't that Tudd is right-wing. As I said here: There's a number of conservative posters on the site who nobody has any issue with. They seem to go unnoticed during discussions like this though even when people explicitly try and mention them. Every single time someone has said something along the lines of what I've said in that quote it has been completely ignored by everyone on the moderator team for some reason. Quite often with the moderators taking part in the discussion continuing to state some stupid bullshit about how it's all because we dislike Tudd. There's plenty of people who I dislike on the site. I don't call for moderators doing something about them because my dislike of them is not an issue the mods should have to deal with. The issue with Tudd, and to a lesser degree a few other users such as Chonch and sgman, is not simply that they add literally nothing to the discussion because of how they go about trying to discuss things but they actually delegitimize any valid points posters who hold similar views might have simply by association. Well you could always actually try addressing the issues instead of sweeping it under the rug. Your goal here is to improve the forums, is it not? With people like Tudd, Chonch, and so on running rampant, intellectual dishonesty is an active concern about the quality of any discussion. That's not conducive to opposing views being discussed in any actual worthwhile way. Most users in SH and Polidicks, from what I've seen, actually are interested in discussion with those whose views differ from theirs. An impossible task to accomplish when the person with those views consistently evades actually addressing any issues with their views you bring up. People are obviously frustrated with the situation. And your solution, ignoring it (and apparently hoping the person in question will get bored and go away), simply doesn't work. I actively ignore Tudd (and any other user that has the same issues as him) but that doesn't always work. Ie: You can't see thread authors in the ticker so sometimes I'll end up in one of his shitty agenda-pushing threads on accident because the title wasn't quite obvious enough to catch right away. And people still discuss him anyways because they're frustrated not only with his actions but the mod team's actions regarding the matter. In most people's eyes your actions don't show objectivity and a desire to be impartial. They end up showing the exact opposite. Especially with things like the April Fool's joke which plenty of people thought was done in bad taste. Kinda hard to keep people in line when you're also partly responsible for riling them up in the first place.[/QUOTE] We've asked numerous times for evidence of this problem. Everybody we have asked has consistently failed to provide valid evidence to indicate that there is a problem.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52905711]I am surprised that nobody saw that this reply was from my mobile. I admit that I read Raidyr's reply and just thought "what nonsense" and could not be bothered to write what would need to be a lengthy, drawn out reply on my mobile. I want preface this effort post by saying that none of you are entitled to an explanation from me or the Moderator team for anything. We do it because we care about this forum and we want honest feedback. That being said, I don't expect to have to put up with posts that are hostile in tone, disrespectful and generally shit. I work upwards of 50 - 60 hours a week and work on Facepunch during my spare time. I don't need to load up this thread to see the same old people writing the same old shite, acting like babies towards the Moderator team and generally bringing up issues that have been done to death on multiple occasions, all because they cannot deal with the reality that things do not always go their way. I will be banning people who act like this in future.[/QUOTE] What was all that talk about not turning FP into a safe space again? [editline]19th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Hezzy;52905767]We've asked numerous times for evidence of this problem. Everybody we have asked has consistently failed to provide valid evidence to indicate that there is a problem.[/QUOTE] I've made a shitton of posts on this and I don't remember ever being asked for evidence I do remember lots of "don't talk about it anymore we'll ban u for it, thx" tho, which doesn't exactly entice me to bring anything at all to the mod team

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52905770]I've made a shitton of posts on this and I don't remember ever being asked for evidence I do remember lots of "don't talk about it anymore we'll ban u for it, thx" tho, which doesn't exactly entice me to bring anything at all to the mod team[/QUOTE] What exactly do you hope to gain out of this then? You shouldn't need to be asked for evidence to back up your claims. If you want to strengthen your claims in any discussion then you should always be prepared to provide evidence or examples. The fact that you're actively being asked for it, refusing to provide it, and then complaining when nothing changes is baffling.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52905767]We've asked numerous times for evidence of this problem. Everybody we have asked has consistently failed to provide valid evidence to indicate that there is a problem.[/QUOTE] Probably because it's such a pervasive yet subtle problem that people don't really know where to begin. You can simply look at Tudd's post history and should easily come across examples. I don't have any because, as I mentioned, I just ignore Tudd anymore as much as I can. On the rare occasion I do come across Tudd anymore I just put him out of my mind as soon as I can. The only exception is discussions like this since my issue here isn't Tudd himself but the underlying intellectual dishonesty issues. Rather than focusing on Tudd in particular though, which is the thing that everyone (including me) seems to keep getting caught up on, the real issue that needs to be addressed is intellectual dishonesty; the way people argue in these discussions. That's the root of the issue here and it isn't remotely conducive to any actual discussion when someone is simply ignoring reality in order to push their points which serves to derail things as people dig their heels in to try and get through to the person. I'm not certain what you could do about that but it definitely needs to be cracked down on in some way. I believe you've mentioned it would be difficult to enforce rules on that subject and I am inclined to agree which is why I think that however you do choose to enforce it, it should be reserved for those who actively and consistently make it an issue. Edit: [QUOTE=The Genie;52905772]Out of curiosity, what would your solution be?[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely certain. I think making it bannable (not permabannable, just a normally bannable offense is all. A way for moderators to tell someone who's being a problem to knock that shit off) to argue intellectually dishonestly would end up in a lot of false positives if it were a ban reason enforced liberally. So it shouldn't be a frequently enforced thing at the least. Only to those who are consistently and pervasively a problem. I'd suggest starting out with moderators addressing the issue with the user in private first but I don't know that the mod team here would want to do it that way with the whole "bans are the warning" deal Facepunch has always gone by.

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52905774]What exactly do you hope to gain out of this then? You shouldn't need to be asked for evidence to back up your claims. If you want to strengthen your claims in any discussion then you should always be prepared to provide evidence or examples. The fact that you're actively being asked for it, refusing to provide it, and then complaining when nothing changes is baffling.[/QUOTE] People are largely complaining rather than providing evidence as historically providing evidence hasn't done shit tbh. It's either glossed over or just totally ignored at best, or spun into some "you just hate tudd though" nonsense at worst. I vaguely recollect someone posting logs from the FP Discord from he who shalt not be named himself, admitting that he posts the shit he does to rile people up. This was ignored if my memory serves me correctly. But that itself isn't the main issue many posters take, it's that people have been banned for longer for far less. Generally when someone posts a ton of absolutely shit threads clearly trying to get attention/ troll they get got. [QUOTE=Hezzy;52905711]I think it's great that you can name half a dozen right wing posters. It means that the changes I have implemented are working. In the early years of Facepunch they'd probably end up being banned and I want to move far away from that.[/QUOTE] None of these are posters that have "flourished" since the attempts to make the forum more "balanced" (not sure how unironically posting garbage like Crowder brings balance but hey), they are right-wing or right-leaning posters that have been on the forums for [I]years[/I] at this point and have never been particularly shy about their opinions. The forum doesn't have an inherent bias issue, we have a number of the old guard here who are known right-leaning posters who despite this haven't been banned. Even if they are expressing some "controversial" opinion about gays or whatever. The only time I can think this forum has gone hard on banning because of ideologies is when we've had literal nazis, Yawnmen or other extremist views posted. Hating gay people has only gotten people banned when they started posting like dickheads about it. The forum probably looks more left leaning than most places in your day to day life because of the nature of it being on the Internet and largely being populated with people who grew up around the time of the surge in support for things like LGBT rights. Along with the forum having a heavy European population, a group that naturally is more left-leaning than what we are calling "right wing" because the American "right wing" would be called extreme in most European countries at times.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52905780]Probably because it's such a pervasive yet subtle problem that people don't really know where to begin. [B]You can simply look at Tudd's post history[/B][/quote] Stop saying "just look up x/search y". Please directly link to posts and highlight/explain the issues with them. Hezzy is asking for direct examples of offending posts on the forums, and you need to provide those examples if you want those issues addressed.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52905796]People are largely complaining rather than providing evidence as historically providing evidence hasn't done shit tbh. It's either glossed over or just totally ignored at best, or spun into some "you just hate tudd though" nonsense at worst. I vaguely recollect someone posting logs from the FP Discord from he who shalt not be named himself, admitting that he posts the shit he does to rile people up. This was ignored if my memory serves me correctly. But that itself isn't the main issue many posters take, it's that people have been banned for longer for far less. Generally when someone posts a ton of absolutely shit threads clearly trying to get attention/ troll they get got.[/QUOTE] Alright, so do you have a link to that log I can see? And (preferably) the post so I can look at it as well? Because this is the first time I've heard of it. Otherwise bringing it up is pointless and I'm not going to go back and search several thousand posts looking for it.

[QUOTE=The Genie;52905798]This is an issue that stems from both sides, it's just more evident in posters such as Tudd as they are in the spotlight [i]because[/i] of their views.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring one important fact when you make claims like this: All the conservative posters who don't cause a huge stink despite their conservative opinions. (And there are definitely more of them than there are ones who cause issues.) [QUOTE]I feel as if these arguments are just new and creative ways of saying that you want posters like Tudd gone, without explicitly saying it. But if Hezzy did just up and ban every conservative poster that you think is shit at debate I guarantee that it won't solve the issue.[/QUOTE] Personally my opinion is that Tudd himself isn't really relevant other than a good example of the issue. For banning or not though I just want people who argue that way (regardless of whether they hold the same views as me or not) to cut it out. It doesn't convince anyone you're right, doesn't really fool anyone, but it does disrupt any chances of a worthwhile discussion happening. If people like Tudd and Chonch cut that shit out I wouldn't care that their views are different than mine. Edit: [QUOTE=ZestyLemons;52905802]Stop saying "just look up x/search y". Please directly link to posts and highlight/explain the issues with them. Hezzy is asking for direct examples of offending posts on the forums, and you need to provide those examples if you want those issues addressed.[/QUOTE] Please read the entirety of what I said rather than cutting out the part where i said "I don't have any examples because I try to just ignore Tudd as much as possible." Also the part where I said it's the behavior itself more than Tudd in particular is quite important here.

You know normally when I see drama in this thread it's linked to someone somewhere fucking up, but this time I really don't see what the point of this drama is. It just feels like bitching about vague problems for the sake of bitching.

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52905810]Alright, so do you have a link to that log I can see? And (preferably) the post so I can look at it as well? Because this is the first time I've heard of it. Otherwise bringing it up is pointless and I'm not going to go back and search several thousand posts looking for it.[/QUOTE] I'm neutral on this discussion, but I did find some mentions of a chat log way back in March on the FP Discord. Nobody had screenshots to prove that it happened though.

[QUOTE=Gatekeeper828;52905840]I'm neutral on this discussion, but I did find some mentions of a chat log way back in March on the FP Discord. Nobody had screenshots to prove that it happened though.[/QUOTE] So a baseless rumor about a user that got spread is being used as a focal point for an argument, real nice. Also can we quit trying to justify lack of evidence through the claim "evidence doesn't do anything?" Mods have been very clearly asking for evidence which no one has provided. Not to mention nobody has provided a genuine potential solution to the problem as well either.

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52905774]What exactly do you hope to gain out of this then? You shouldn't need to be asked for evidence to back up your claims. If you want to strengthen your claims in any discussion then you should always be prepared to provide evidence or examples. The fact that you're actively being asked for it, refusing to provide it, and then complaining when nothing changes is baffling.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ZestyLemons;52905802]Stop saying "just look up x/search y". Please directly link to posts and highlight/explain the issues with them. Hezzy is asking for direct examples of offending posts on the forums, and you need to provide those examples if you want those issues addressed.[/QUOTE] There's a problem with these requests, which is that Tudd obviously hasn't admitted to making discussion inflammatory on purpose here in the forums. I don't like the guy, but it's not like he's a cartoon villain and constantly explains exactly what he's about to do. I know for a fact he's admitted to it in the Polidicks Discord (which Hezzy is a member of), and the most evidence you could find is some old-ass message there. Does anyone here feel like spending their Sunday afternoon sifting through 6 months worth of political memes to get a guy on the internet banned?