What is the point of these forums if you’re banned for using it?
From the modlog:
admin
Banned @Julianus
reason: 3 week timeout for more constant bickering
expires: in 21d
There are admins with clear political bias and they are using their powers to suppress opinions they don’t like. This isn’t a ban for violating rules… but simply replying to their posts. What gives?
Can you link that user’s profile then? I’m not the one who took the action so I don’t know all the details off the top of my head.
The modlog (now weirdly missing certain logs)
It’s not perfect but also not malicious. Bulk actions are only listed as a single entry for example, something that needs to be addressed in further development.
And of course we do have to hide links to things like porn, gore, etc from it so it can’t be seen at all. We also remove blatant spam and brigading posts (like the recent waves from 4chan) because they want it to be seen in any way possible, and knowing that it will remain visible in the modlog will just encourage them. We have never removed a rule breaking debate post from the modlog in this way.
I see now. I didn’t deal with this person, but IMO, I don’t see the ban as being unreasonable. The admins have generally agreed that advocating for bigotry such as white supremacy and Nazi ideology is also against rule 1. I guess whichever admin banned them saw this user as falling under that category.
But nobody was defending bigotry until the admin mentioned it, and the issued reason of the ban was malicious rather than truthful . Either way I still respect your opinion and this issue has passed a long time ago. But I mentioned this specific case to talk about a general issue, which is the predominant admin/mod bias when they enter into heated arguments. I already stated my suggestion above and would like admins to take it into consideration, regardless of whether this phenomenon is frequent or not. Thank you.
Can you link that user’s profile then? I’m not the one who took the action so I don’t know all the details off the top of my head.
It’s not perfect but also not malicious. Bulk actions are only listed as a single entry for example, something that needs to be addressed in further development.
And of course we do have to hide links to things like porn, gore, etc from it so it can’t be seen at all. We also remove blatant spam and brigading posts (like the recent waves from 4chan) because they want it to be seen in any way possible, and knowing that it will remain visible in the modlog will just encourage them. We have never removed a rule breaking debate post from the modlog in this way.
Thank you for responding.
here’s the comment of DPUGT responding to Dessalines about the paradox of tolerance.
I believe that. And yes it should be addressed, especially when it comes to such matters.
I see now. I didn’t deal with this person, but IMO, I don’t see the ban as being unreasonable. The admins have generally agreed that advocating for bigotry such as white supremacy and Nazi ideology is also against rule 1. I guess whichever admin banned them saw this user as falling under that category.
But nobody was defending bigotry until the admin mentioned it, and the issued reason of the ban was malicious rather than truthful . Either way I still respect your opinion and this issue has passed a long time ago. But I mentioned this specific case to talk about a general issue, which is the predominant admin/mod bias when they enter into heated arguments. I already stated my suggestion above and would like admins to take it into consideration, regardless of whether this phenomenon is frequent or not. Thank you.