Search results

(initially posted in random thoughts thread, realised it was too extensive to contain there.) So far: 500 million animals have been killed over 5 million hectares have burned (over 6x the amount of area that the california wildfires have burned) air quality is amongst the worst in the world...

moved response to separate thread tl;dr: australia fucking sucks and fire is hot

i've been skeptical of the concept of dark energy for quite a while i've read through the paper but i'm still thinking about it. i think it's not really an embarrassment so much. it's still an important step in the discovery process to see that the universe is expanding from our frame of...

yes, the staff do discuss things that happen

the year of accelerationism

oh no, secret's out

no one has said anywhere that it was taken as a threat, or that the reason it's unacceptable is because of it being a threat.

can you make a VR inside a VR program where you're in VR using the VR version of VR? VR babushka dolls when but, you are the babushka dolll

i think you're really misunderstanding the fundamental reason that most people's arguing about moderation occurs in the first place on a forum, or what spurs people to stir up trouble over it. the judgements that have been brought up don't really bother me. and in this case i think you're also...

the members who received repeated warnings and verbal explanations felt like, upon finally being banned, that they were entitled to "just one more" chance (regardless of how many had been given before) moreover, the numerous discussions that had been had about these members simply ended up...

but people used to argue even when this happened like all the time. over heaps of bans per Minuend's point:

if something doesn't have better outcomes for the forum, and doesn't actually prevent drama or frustration over what people perceive as moderator problems: what use does it have?

also rebis you complain that i'm not taking your advice on board. but maybe you should read Minuend's post? she's been here for a decade, has been active throughout most of its existence and her opinions run in stark contrast to yours. it's quite clear that moderation can't happen both the...

so, where's the problem? or rather, what are you assuming will become a problem?

yes, mods will be using the ban announcement thread again keep in mind that since your join date there had been no bans prior to a heated topic (ironically about some invented problem with the mods doing something that they didn't actually do), and there's been all of 2 warnings to members...

sure, you can strawman me if you like. i've just seen many examples of people up in arms over moderation even when transparency exists and things are clear. there's always going to be disagreement over where exactly lines should be drawn. warnings will be given if behaviour is deemed...

yeah, it's been done before it doesn't help because people's problems usually just amount to whether or not they agree with the ban or the warning anyway. instead of the argument being over an unjust ban, it's over whether the warnings matter. or whether warnings were consistent enough etc...

if only it really did work like that

I've moved the discussion about forum direction here: https://www.intpforum.com/threads/forum-modding-feedback.28132/

here's the thing - if there's contentious behaviour on the forum and you ban someone: people will get upset and potentially leave - if there's contentious behaviour on the forum and you ban no one: people will get upset and potentially leave it's all well and good to pretend that being really...

the ban thread used to be around before i was a mod, and i see it around on other forums. it really makes no real difference as to whether or not people accept the bans that occur, because there's always going to be two sides to an argument, and it has no impact on whether or not someone does...

beat sabre looks fun it's like osu! but instead of RSI you stub your toe

u wot

the temperature of the thread became what it did because you were, and still are, arguing with imaginary phantoms. nothing more, nothing less everything else that needs to be said has been said.

mostly in that it implies you can't have things from parts in the upper pyramid if the ones below it aren't satisfied which isn't strictly true, although a lot of them are obviously 'ingrained' needs. physiological ones are hard to argue with, but everything beyond that gets a bit dubious in...

i really hate maslow's heirarcy of needs but it's hard to argue against

the thread was closed so that people can cool off, because people clearly weren't going to as long as it remained open to be clear: kormak was not banned kormak was not censored the entire premise of the thread was an argument with imaginary phantoms, that somehow became hysteria over freedom...

angel's sex is not known rusty scissors aren't a safe tool for operating on people moreover, it was packaged with the implication that angel should be subject to this.

maybe if you assume that circumcision is a male-only tradition that's carried out only in modern hospitals where risk and harm are minimised

i've let you have the last word, and now i'll be locking the thread. it's well and truly beyond any productive conversation. takeaway: don't suggest people deserve to be mutilated. if you do, "lol jk" is not a viable defense.

ever stop to wonder how people who get told they deserve to be mutilated might feel on a discussion forum? a little unsafe, maybe? marbles is temp banned from an internet forum, not locked in a gulag.

and there are people who regularly post here that agree. more actually, than those who disagree. call it a case of vocal minority. just because people post in this particular thread, doesn't mean they're the only voices that exist. not everyone wants to be involved in drama or arguments on the...

i was referring to marbles' comment, not yours there's no righteous indignation to be had here. it's simply not the kind of comment that should be commonplace on a discussion forum.

this makes a lot of sense actually you're not approaching this argument from any rational sense of what should or shouldn't be allowed on a discussion forum: just who you do and don't happen to like at the time

excuse me i shitpost only 69% of the time also: had a comment like this been made in another context, i'd have banned the person in response there too. those comments are simply few and far between

mods never have and never would bother deleting it the basis of this entire thread is people who have posted on this forum for months without any form of censorship...to complain about censorship - and somehow the delusion has taken hold that we somehow actually were censoring people marbles...

you're right, i don't care about justice. i care about the forum being a place where people can simply enjoy posting, and unless some severe breach of the rules or discourse occurs they don't have to be policed either. i don't consider a place where people suggest others deserve mutilation...

i mean, happy has been a member since 2013 and has over 1,000 posts. i've been a member since 2012 and have over 7,000 posts. that you don't know us has little to do with us being unknowable, and more the fact that you and the small number of people who are currently actively posting (which...

also: the Cambridge dictionary definition of "blue in the face" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/until-you-are-blue-in-the-face If you say or shout something until you are blue in the face, you are wasting your efforts because you will get no results

this is an impressive piece of revisionism and yet even if it were true, none of it would excuse telling someone that they should be mutilated (and for the sake of clarity, no you can't tell people that they should jump off a bridge either)

if you also think that "go jump off a bridge" is an okay statement to make and one that is defensible by "i was only joking" - again i can't help you there.

moreover: in the context of this discussion, Marbles had expressed their annoyance at Angel they were not engaging in friendly banter or joking. joking intent occurred only after the fact, when someone told them that this is not an okay statement to make. would you find it funny, if...

none of the other members were admins none were involved in this discussion @Happy even posted their disapproval publicly

"i was only joking!" is not a defense for inappropriate behaviours. nor is intent required for this to be an egregious statement. whether or not angel took offence is not information that other people are privy to knowing. however, multiple people have taken offence and think the statement is...

i have three members now who have complained about marbles' comment being well and truly beyond acceptable which, for a forum as small as this one, is a pretty big response in such a short time also inex, your arguments have been taken on board and as such i've also banned angel temporarily...

i mean, you did? you went out of your way to bring specifics of their behaviour to a moderator's attention.

again, as a recipient of both, there's still several orders of magnitude in my mind as to which of these is worse. as long as i'm a moderator, i won't be tolerating people suggesting that other people should be mutilated. you can argue until you're blue in the face, it won't change.

this situation isn't a matter of "one person attacking you and one defending you" though. outside of your perspective, there are clear lines that need to be drawn for what statements are and are not acceptable. suggestion of physical mutilation is, imo, not acceptable. mockery is contextual...

i've definitely been on the receiving end of both as someone who has had on and off suicidal ideation for a long time and someone who is both non-hetero and non-binary, i can tell you that having experienced both of these things: i do have a very clear distinction between which of them is worse...