Poll of the Day > With the rule changes i might start posting here again more often

(+) Yeah! (+)

You could always not refuse to report people. You can have your own guidelines for doing so, of course, like not marking people just to spoil something you consider to be harmless fun instead of taking it upon yourself to enforce the ToS, but if you identify somebody that's just pissing you off and contributing nothing of value beyond that, there's nothing wrong with taking the "mark and move on" approach instead of engaging and getting pissed off further.

Yeah I imagine there's going to be a decent amount of people migrating here

no, leave harder

TOS enforcement is founded on backward logic.

ToS enforcement is based on popularity.

If everybody hates you, they're all marking your posts, you get bumped up the queue, and are more likely to get modded.

If everybody likes you, or just doesn't care about you, no one is going to mark your posts, and you can get away with pretty much anything.

If you think you're being unfairly persecuted while others get away with murder, it's probably because people like them and they don't like you.

I'm a tame poster and I've been modded for fairly tame things.

Then enough people think you're an asshole

Someone has to mark your posts. If no one marks you you won't get modded.

Then enough people think you're an asshole to push hard on you for even the most minor infractions in the hopes of screwing with you.

Mods don't just wander around looking for victims to persecute you. Someone has to mark your posts. If no one marks you you won't get modded.

Mods don't just wander around looking for victims to persecute you.

That said, regardless of the number of people marking, they're a lot more lenient to people with clean moderation histories. If you've been modded a lot recently, it's best to lie relatively low for a few months.

That said, regardless of the number of people marking, they're a lot more lenient to people with clean moderation histories.

So if you've been unfairly modded before that increases the likelihood that you won't be given the appropriate consideration next time.

That said, you don't exactly have a track record of moderations that can reasonably be called unfair, so it's a bit of a moot point in your case.

what you believe is a lie.

Plus I was modded for saying I believe it. Not for saying it was unequivocally true.

Saying you believe it attempts to lend it credence.

saying you believe the lie is indeed moddable because it amounts to you saying the belief has merit.

Only if, in your opinion, I'm a credible judge of reality.

So I believe something has merit... Find for me the passage within the terms of service where that is against the site rules.

If you are still blindsided, that's what I mean by learning from your moderations.

1) There was another user I was regularly butting heads with.
They always made derogatory posts about a group of people.
I challenge them, they are protected.
I get suspended.

2) Topic on fox news. Everyone says they hate it.
I do what I think everyone else is doing, join in, give my reason for having disdain for it.
People argue with me about something we agree on.
I get suspended.

I don't get modded a lot and it's usually a no karma loss mod. I think I average 2 moderation a year. Didn't get any for a long time before my first one. Went years of posting before I got one

That just demonstrates how poorly you understood what I was getting at. Remember, I was posting in that topic to criticize Fox News as insincere.

It varies. I got warned once for something pretty innocuous because I had a recent warning on my account, and when I contested it, the mod looked a bit closer and realized the previous warning had nothing to do with the more recent moderation (which was a fair moderation, just not remotely warn-worthy) and overturned the warning. The previous warning had been a consequence of getting 6-7 moderations in short order because I was actively participating in a topic that had turned into an ASCII topic but was not properly indicated as one (which was, of course, nonsense, but that's why the ToS were amended in recent years to be a little less ridiculous), so given that it didn't track with a pattern of poor behaviour, it wasn't held against me.

That said, you don't exactly have a track record of moderations that can reasonably be called unfair, so it's a bit of a moot point in your case.

That translates to...

Say, PO, random question. Do you think the world is filled with more assholes or more non-assholes?

I don't feel safe addressing something of a political nature given the new policy.

I never contest moderation. Maybe that's my problem. Even if I think whoever marked me is being extremely petty if I feel it technically does count as a violation I'm like fair next

You don't have to.

I don't believe I violated the ToS.

Now that the position on discussing politics has been clarified I can't continue and still make that claim.

Without going into specifics, it wasn't a ToS violation when something of the same nature was posted in support of the other side.

there's zero evidence whatsoever for the claim of...

you said something in support of the false narrative that...

Due to the new policy I feel unsafe with how you continue to advocate for a position that is of an innately political nature in an attempt to distract me from that

The ToS was enforced one way for the narrative surrounding one event, and it was enforced differently for a similar narrative surrounding a similar event

Hmm. First time I've had a topic of mine derailed that I can recall. But also I usually don't get this many posts in my topics.

I am explaining which position is against the ToS

you were modded for supporting the election fraud narrative

if you're comparing Jan 6th to BLM protests

Hmm. First time I've had a topic of mine derailed that I can recall. But also I usually don't get this many posts in my topics.

And in the 4 years prior I was modded for refuting the election fraud narrative put out by the other side. Without going into the merits of either narrative this shows that enforcement of the ToS was politically biased.

• The concerns about interference in the 2016 election did not result in an attempt to overthrow the government and install an unelected dictator
• The concerns about interference in the 2016 election did not result in five deaths
• The investigation that followed the 2016 election found that Russia *did* conduct a campaign to interfere with the outcome of the election (though it was unable to conclude that Trump was complicit in that campaign, hence he was never charged for it)

"Without going into the merits of either narrative"

Hmm. First time I've had a topic of mine derailed that I can recall. But also I usually don't get this many posts in my topics.

Means that it's become against the ToS to do so. Which you just did.

But I do believe it. So I'm not lying.
Plus I was modded for saying I believe it. Not for saying it was unequivocally true.