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

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52905864]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?[/QUOTE] I just spend a good 30m or so trawling through the posted images in every single forums discussion thread (it's real simple thankfully, Discord logs stand out) and haven't come across an image of it. But I could swear one exists as I do recall people mentioning him bringing it up on the Polidicks Discord channel (not being in the FP server at all makes finding this nigh impossible for myself). So either it's not been posted in this series of threads before, or where it was hosted has removed the image for whatever reason. I mean, there's always the possibility he never said it, but multiple people have brought it up before. And there's always the very likely possibility that nobody actually screencapped it because why bother.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52905864]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?[/QUOTE] No? Then stop posting about it. Simple. [QUOTE=hexpunK;52905875]I just spend a good 30m or so trawling through the posted images in every single forums discussion thread (it's real simple thankfully, Discord logs stand out) and haven't come across an image of it. But I could swear one exists as I do recall people mentioning him bringing it up on the Polidicks Discord channel (not being in the FP server at all makes finding this nigh impossible for myself). So either it's not been posted in this series of threads before, or where it was hosted has removed the image for whatever reason. I mean, there's always the possibility he never said it, but multiple people have brought it up before. And there's always the very likely possibility that nobody actually screencapped it because why bother.[/QUOTE] Same. I'd remember something like that.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52905780]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.[/QUOTE] This is a funny post. Instead of providing clear, specific examples on which the mod team to act on, and to unilaterally prove the point that it IS easy to find examples, you decide to double down, write a bunch of excuses (and keep on excusing yourself on further posts) and instead take the time it would've taken to prove yourself right without biases and interpretations writing down a bunch of weasel words to deliberately steer the conversation away from that point. :v: Also, your solution requires a very strict understanding of what it is to argue intellectually dishonestly. Who would write that definition? Who would decide who is consistently and pervasively a problem? And I'm not sure it's really a solution, just you getting your way in disguise? Because from what it looks like today, that definition very much exists, and the mods have decided that some people you claim are pervasive problems aren't the boogiemen you claim they are - which is why we're talking about this, again.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52905876]No? Then stop posting about it. Simple.[/QUOTE] At the risk of sounding condescending: Why don't you do the same thing on your end? You said it yourself. You work 50-60 hours a week. At the end of the day, moderating a gaming forum is a ridiculously minor thing. So pardon me if I think it's contradictory that you go from that, to trying harder than any mod I've seen recently when it comes to policing political discussion. Here's a bit I didn't really get, for example [QUOTE=Hezzy;52899750] FP is and always will be a left-centric website. In the past our moderation policies have supported the left by banning people who spoke out against left ideology. I am determined to make Facepunch a balanced place where discussion can take place so long as it is respectful. Your talk about "mod-sanctioned trolling" is absolutely nonsense. You're not the only people here. People who oppose your views have been on the website for years but have been fearful for speaking out. I am absolutely against "safe spaces" and everything they represent. Facepunch will never be a "safe space" and if you do not agree with this then you are free to leave.[/QUOTE] Sega Saturn doesn't seem to want right-wingers in general to get banned, but it sounds like that's what you took from his post? You read "alt-right troll" and you latch on to "alt-right" instead of "troll", twisting his point as if he wanted people banned for their political leanings and not their attitude. Is this what balanced discussion looks like? Where you shoot down someone complaining about radicals and extremists as if they were complaining about anything that isn't left-centric? Also, if you're going to take a stand against safe spaces, try not threatening to ban people who complain about political leanings (in this page I mean, unrelated to the point above)

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52905950]At the risk of sounding condescending: Why don't you do the same thing on your end? You said it yourself. You work 50-60 hours a week. At the end of the day, moderating a gaming forum is a ridiculously minor thing. So pardon me if I think it's contradictory that you go from that, to trying harder than any mod I've seen recently when it comes to policing political discussion. Here's a bit I didn't really get, for example Sega Saturn doesn't seem to want right-wingers in general to get banned, but it sounds like that's what you took from his post? You read "alt-right troll" and you latch on to "alt-right" instead of "troll", twisting his point as if he wanted people banned for their political leanings and not their attitude. Is this what balanced discussion looks like? Where you shoot down someone complaining about radicals and extremists as if they were complaining about anything that isn't left-centric? Also, if you're going to take a stand against safe spaces, try not threatening to ban people who complain about political leanings (in this page I mean, unrelated to the point above)[/QUOTE] If Sega was complaining about trolls then he would have only said "trolls." There's an obvious reason he included "bigots", "extremists" and "alt-right" in his posts. Stop trying to feign ignorance.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52905950]At the risk of sounding condescending: Why don't you do the same thing on your end? You said it yourself. You work 50-60 hours a week. At the end of the day, moderating a gaming forum is a ridiculously minor thing. So pardon me if I think it's contradictory that you go from that, to trying harder than any mod I've seen recently when it comes to policing political discussion. Here's a bit I didn't really get, for example Sega Saturn doesn't seem to want right-wingers in general to get banned, but it sounds like that's what you took from his post? You read "alt-right troll" and you latch on to "alt-right" instead of "troll", twisting his point as if he wanted people banned for their political leanings and not their attitude. Is this what balanced discussion looks like? Where you shoot down someone complaining about radicals and extremists as if they were complaining about anything that isn't left-centric? Also, if you're going to take a stand against safe spaces, try not threatening to ban people who complain about political leanings (in this page I mean, unrelated to the point above)[/QUOTE] It's not really a minor thing. I help shape the direction of this forum. A forum that has thousands upon thousands of people visiting it and using it every day. If it wasn't for these forums, a lot of people's lives would be a whole lot different. In the grand scheme of the forum, all this drama is a blip. If Sega was referring to anyone specifically then obviously I missed the part where he named who he was speaking about. I spoke in general, broad terms because they did. I don't remember the "alt-right" being mentioned, not sure exactly where you have gotten this from. It's very simple, Zukriuchen. If somebody wants to make a complaint about a specific poster then they should contact me via Private Message, quoting posts that they are concerned about. I will look at it and decide what course of action to take. I'm not willing to have people parade that kind of stuff in this thread because all it does is create a public spectacle and drama. All of this discussion has been about pretty much nothing. If a person with no frame of reference came in here and read what was going on, they'd be confused as fuck about what is actually happening. Because nobody has given any specific examples or described the problem in detail. It's always vague and broad posts about some sort of thing that is happening that people don't like. Also, I didn't threaten to ban people who complain about political leanings. I think you've misread this. I threatened to ban people who are being downright shitty and disrespectful.

Ok here is a link [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1586040&p=52901400&viewfull=1#post52901400[/url] Disclaimer: I am not posting this because it's specifically Tudd but because this is a good example of what a lot of the posters who support the recent increase in right wing bullshit do: Post some incincere "evidence" get called out on their dishonesty never bother to reply to that shit repeat

[QUOTE=sam6420;52905957]Do we have a solution for this drama yet? It's really going on in circles.[/QUOTE] I could just close this thread

[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. 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] Understood.

lot of you idiots are just ranting and raving for the sake of ranting and raving there's bigger fish to fry, if you think something is wrong at least provide an example, not order someone to do your hard yards

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52905990]If Sega was referring to anyone specifically then obviously I missed the part where he named who he was speaking about. I spoke in general, broad terms because they did. I don't remember the "alt-right" being mentioned, not sure exactly where you have gotten this from.[/QUOTE] You did not understand my point. This is not me being sassy, it really has nothing to do with Sega referring to specific people, and I'm not sure where you're getting that. Are we talking about the same post? I'm talking about the one you're replying to in the quote, where they mention alt-right trolls at the end. Sega uses the words "radical", "extremist", "troll". It's about attitude, not political leaning. It's about being an inflammatory lunatic, not about being right-wing. And you know what, I don't even agree that there's been a recent surge of these people, but the point still stands. To respond to someone who doesn't want radicals by saying "FP won't be biased towards the left anymore" makes me go what? Since when does radicalism mean anything not-left? This discussion isn't pointless. The point is that no one is gonna have much faith in this direction of "all discussion goes as long as it's respectful", or be very keen on reporting stuff to you, if the expected response to calling someone an alt-right troll is "FP is not a lefty safe space!"

quit gettin mad over tudd literally his MO is to grapple people down a rabbit hole of debate and then kind of concede while not really conceding there's no rule against that it might be aggravating but you know what you do when you find yourself getting frustrated talking to someone? stop talking to them [editline]edit[/editline] one thing i will say though is tudd seems to get away with using shit sources in news threads more than most people who use shit sources do i would link some examples but they've been closed, though i can remember a specific example of that "migrant fucking a horse in a zoo" thread or something

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52906167]quit gettin mad over tudd [B]literally his MO is to grapple people down a rabbit hole of debate and then kind of concede while not really conceding[/B] there's no rule against that it might be aggravating but you know what you do when you find yourself getting frustrated talking to someone? stop talking to them[/QUOTE] Exactly, and plenty of people would be hit with a banhammer while discussing many things if there was a rule against that (including those kicking up a fuzz about this very thing in this thread). If anything, make prolonged incoherent rambling borderlining to baitposting bannable in politically laden threads instead, that'll cover things like that, but it'll also be a slippery slope that can and will go against your desired favor. And it's the slippery slope I presume Hezzy wants to avoid at all costs since that will lead to more bitching and moaning.

and honestly the way i've seen some users talk to tudd is sickening, like you people forget that even though he might seem fiercely annoying, he's still a person

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52906221]and honestly the way i've seen some users talk to tudd is sickening, like you people forget that even though he might seem fiercely annoying, he's still a person[/QUOTE] Are you sure

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52906236]Are you sure[/QUOTE] yeah. im not a fan of the guy, so i just dont respond to him 99% of the time. Is it his fault that the people who think debating him will do any good, can't see the patterns of his debating style and just not even bother in the first place? lol

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52906221]and honestly the way i've seen some users talk to tudd is sickening, like you people forget that even though he might seem fiercely annoying, he's still a person[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? He's clearly a Russian bot.:shh:

Sorry to stir up the hornets nest again but Hezzy, it’s been long since established that bad sources have been banned since forever, to ensure that misleading and just outright wrong articles are removed. It’s always been the posters responsibility to check over the source articles, to ensure they are suitable to be posted, if they failed to do that they're entirely at fault and [u]should be banned for it[/u] as it misleads others. Additionally, I'd like to raise the point that tabloids, have been a bannable offence for an extremely long time. I'll specifically mention that over the last 4~ years there has been a strong presence to ban UK tabloids, most noticeably The Daily Mail, The Daily Express and notoriously, The Sun. The original reasoning for those to be banned, was because of their failure to factually check their own sources and they editorialized the shit out of their own content. Also like to raise that the thread that caused all of this, was because the sources the man pulled did clearly also push an agenda with it, they in no way needed to highlight the stuff they did. This is just poor source material. So I'm going to ask, why is it ok for someone to post a source that directly sources a tabloid, it’s not a UK tabloid sure and those are outright bannable, so why isn't this one. Is it because it’s one from another nation or is it because you've got something going on here. Anyway to provide the point, here’s a lovely record of proof to provide the fact that shit, unchecked sources have been a bannable offence for years. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1080932[/url] [i]20th April 2011[/i] [b]DAILY NEWSPAPER TABLOID FORMAT[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1266980[/url] [i]29th April 2013[/i] [b]POLITICAL BLOG[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1275760[/url] [i]5th June 2013[/i] [b]SEMI-BLOG[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1294730[/url] [i]31st July 2013[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1289986[/url] [i]16th July 2013[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS CONSPIRACY SHIT[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1339216[/url] [i]27th December 2013[/i] [b]TABLOID [u]DAILYMAIL[/u][/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1452795[/url] [i]24th February 2015[/i] [b]TABLOID[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1454989[/url] [i]9th March 2015[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS BLOG[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1455684[/url] [i]13th March 2015[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS BLOG[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1461260[/url] [i]18th April 2015[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS BLOG[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1474852[/url] [i]7th July 2015[/i] [b]TRASH[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1475833[/url] [i]13th July 2015[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS YOUTUBE[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1484564[/url] [i]7th September 2015[/i] [b]TABLOID [u]MARYSUE[/u][/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1491516[/url] [i]28th October 2015[/i] [b]FAKE NEWS[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1501537[/url] [i]14th January 2016[/i] [b]TABLOID [u]DAILYMAIL[/u][/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1522959[/url] [i]15th June 2016[/i] [b]SATIRE [u]THEONION[/u][/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1531634[/url] [i]21st August 2016[/i] [b]BLOG [u]HUFFINGTONPOST[/u][/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1532312[/url] [i]27th August 2016[/i] [b]BLOG CULT-SHIT[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540781[/url] [i]7th November 2016[/i] [b]BLOG CONSPIRACY WIKILEAKS[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1550500[/url] [i]29th January 2017[/i] [b]NOT NEWS REDDIT[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1557163[/url] [i]18th March 2017[/i] [b]BLOG[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565424[/url] [i]26th May 2017[/i] [b]EDITORIALIZED SOURCE[/b] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1570310[/url] [i]5th July 2017[/i] [b]EDITORIALIZED SOURCE[/b] I had a much longer post lined up but its not worth raising that pile of issues yet, and you wouldn't read it anyway if it was all in one wall of text. Long story short, tabloids are bannable, and its up to the user to ensure they do not reference a tabloid as their source material, if they do they should be banned for it. The person posting it should know better as this is a long established rule, so unless this rule has changed, they should be banned.

where's our flagdogs? sorry if late

[QUOTE=danjee;52906474]where's our flagdogs? sorry if late[/QUOTE] flagdog broke, basically, and isn't coming back

[QUOTE=Reagy;52906465]-jesus christ-[/QUOTE] Yes, tabloid sources have been bannable [I]when they're used as a source of news for the OP.[/I] So let's take a look at Tudd's last started threads and see what sources he's used. "NJSIA Approves New Guidelines ..." - source is from CBS Local "Woman 'punched in the face'..." source is from The Independent "MoviePass drops pricing..." source is from TechCrunch (tech news website) "GayTimes sacks editor..." source is from The Guardian "Colorado Doctors suspect..." source is from 9News (Colorado news company) [granted this title was sensationalized somewhat by Tudd's lack of changing it to reflect the article's details] "Teacher suspended for..." source is BBC I could go on, but Tudd does go out of his way to find genuine news sources for the OP, or at least attempts to. Now whether you want to make it bannable to bring up opinion pieces in the rest of the thread is another discussion, but as far as I can tell these are all valid sources.

[QUOTE=Reagy;52906465] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1501537[/url] [i]14th January 2016[/i] [b]TABLOID [u]DAILYMAIL[/u][/b] [/QUOTE] If only the guy who banned him from making SH threads forever was still around...

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52906530]If only the guy who banned him from making SH threads forever was still around...[/QUOTE] I'm a bit late on this, but why were you demodded in the first place? Activity?

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52906502]Yes, tabloid sources have been bannable [I]when they're used as a source of news for the OP.[/I] So let's take a look at Tudd's last started threads and see what sources he's used. "NJSIA Approves New Guidelines ..." - source is from CBS Local "Woman 'punched in the face'..." source is from The Independent "MoviePass drops pricing..." source is from TechCrunch (tech news website) "GayTimes sacks editor..." source is from The Guardian "Colorado Doctors suspect..." source is from 9News (Colorado news company) [granted this title was sensationalized somewhat by Tudd] "Teacher suspended for..." source is BBC I could go on, but Tudd does go out of his way to find genuine news sources for the OP, or at least attempts to. Now whether you want to make it bannable to bring up opinion pieces in the rest of the thread is another discussion, but as far as I can tell these are all valid sources.[/QUOTE] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585659[/url] Here's a fairly recent thread he made using tabloids as sources. Edit: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1563783[/url] Here's another thread that he was banned for and the thread closed because it was very much "non-news" and only was for him to push an agenda (it was even quoted as "tabloid-tier news")

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52906543][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585659[/url] Here's a fairly recent thread he made using tabloids as sources. Edit: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1563783[/url] Here's another thread that he was banned for and the thread closed because it was very much "non-news" and only was for him to push an agenda[/QUOTE] He didn't use tabloids as a source in that first link. He used a legitimate source that happened to tie back to a tabloid as one of its references. The other reference he tied it back to is a legitimate news source and one of the most read newspapers in Berlin: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Morgenpost"]Berliner Morgenpost[/URL] The other thing he was banned for....so...not sure why you're bringing that one up or what you want me to say about it.

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52906581]He didn't use tabloids as a source in that first link. He used a legitimate source that happened to tie back to a tabloid as one of its references. The other reference he tied it back to is a legitimate news source and one of the most read newspapers in Berlin: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Morgenpost"]Berliner Morgenpost[/URL] The other thing he was banned for....so...not sure why you're bringing that one up or what you want me to say about it.[/QUOTE] The first thread was specifically closed for having absolute shit sources Not sure what you're getting at here

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52906583]The first thread was specifically closed for having absolute shit sources Not sure what you're getting at here[/QUOTE] It was closed for being a shit thread because it immediately devolved into people bitching about Tudd who was confused about his own sources. The sources themselves were in fact legitimate though (or at least one of them was). Saying it's illegitimate is like calling The Washington Post an illegitimate news source. It's a long-established source of news, and completely valid even if it is from Berlin. If you still don't understand what I'm getting at then you have to be intentionally misinterpreting me because I can't make this any clearer.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52906543] Edit: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1563783[/url] Here's another thread that he was banned for and the thread closed because it was very much "non-news" and only was for him to push an agenda (it was even quoted as "tabloid-tier news")[/QUOTE] I would like to point out that posting threads on a similar topic and their trends is not new at all to Facepunch. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1293025[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1236358[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=935788[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=579608[/url] I have served my time for that ban already so that is said and done, but I do want to point out this is a [i]fairly[/i] subjective ruling. Especially had I posted [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-episode-7-villain-sees-rise-in-baby-name-kylo-ren-adam-driver-the-force-awakens-a7733856.html]this[/url] take of the same study it probably been fine.

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52906591]It was closed for being a shit thread because it immediately devolved into people bitching about Tudd who was confused about his own sources. The sources themselves were in fact legitimate though (or at least one of them was). Saying it's illegitimate is like calling The Washington Post an illegitimate news source. It's a long-established source of news, and completely valid even if it is from Berlin. If you still don't understand what I'm getting at then you have to be intentionally misinterpreting me because I can't make this any clearer.[/QUOTE] Multiple people in that thread pointed out the tabloids used The ruling from that thread was to report threads with shit sources like the ones that were used, just because one legitimate source was used does not mean it negates the fact that tabloid trash was used as well

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52906597]Multiple people in that thread pointed out the tabloids used The ruling from that thread was to report threads with shit sources like the ones that were used, just because one legitimate source was used does not mean it negates the fact that tabloid trash was used as well[/QUOTE] And the thread was closed at the end of the day rather than being left open. A fair verdict considering even I could tell there were valid sources being used. All it took was a quick Google search. Or are you genuinely arguing that people should be banned if a tabloid is ever referenced within a legitimate source of news for an OP?