Douschebag Hall of Fame

Enhance89 said:
Honestly, anybody who complains about cm anymore should get a temporary ban.

We've been given evidence after piece of evidence that his posts do little but derail threads and get people aggravated. The Mods/Admins have determined he's just harmless enough to not ban. So be it.

However, here's a shocker - if you couldn't read his posts then you wouldn't get frustrated!

So, please, utilize the ignore function. If you're continuing to argue with him and get baited into his arguments, you are as much of a problem as he.
Click to expand...
I've had him on ignore for quite awhile.

Yesterday though I actually +1'd one of his posts in the Nebraska "sh#tshow" Way thread.

I should be punished, harshly and permanently.

You're absolutely right, it is illogical to continue engaging with him and also constantly complain about him. There should be no surprises as to what you're going to get by responding to him.

 
darkhorse85 said:
Nominate this kid: http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/teen-tells-lincoln-cop-you-re-going-to-die-in/article_4432da07-973a-55c4-b621-4c2ef073509d.html

What a waste of oxygen.
Click to expand...
That rap sheet a mile long? That tastes like JUSTICE!

G9QYU7QlKFeq4.gif


 
It's kinda been my policy not to place anyone on ignore, but man, it's a breath of fresh air.

It's not that I need to never read any of their posts, so I don't mind seeing them quoted now and again. But it does a really decent job of filtering. Sort of wish I had tried it before
default_biggrin.png


 
zoogs said:
Right, but they're not people who should be banned.
Click to expand...
Mods shouldn't put anyone on ignore, imo. If someone has reached the point that a mod feels the need to ignore them, their posts should be read with more scrutiny.
Also, I don't see why the mods/admins are so scared of suspending someone for a day if they're annoying 99% of the other posters. *shrug*

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's kind of why I've tended to avoid it in the past, but it's not like I'm watching every post like a hawk, anyway. If there's rule-breaking, then it'll be reported. If something's going on in a thread, checking posts is a click away.

I don't like to boot people. I won't do boot someone for drumbeating opinions I disagree with, or for annoying some other members. It's never 99%, by the way. A suspension is a heavy measure. I'd like this to be a self-moderating community where adults don't ask for other adults to be kicked out. I don't think that's a big ask. We should only have to use the mod toolbox for spammers and people who completely lose it.

But yeah, forgive me for having enough of the Trump ads. Consider it a trial run.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
That's kind of why I've tended to avoid it in the past, but it's not like I'm watching every post like a hawk, anyway. If there's rule-breaking, then it'll be reported. If something's going on in a thread, checking posts is a click away.

I don't like to boot people. I won't do boot someone for drumbeating opinions I disagree with, or for annoying some other members. It's never 99%, by the way. A suspension is a heavy measure. I'd like this to be a self-moderating community where adults don't ask for other adults to be kicked out. I don't think that's a big ask. We should only have to use the mod toolbox for spammers and people who completely lose it.

But yeah, forgive me for having enough of the Trump ads. Consider it a trial run.
Click to expand...
Seeing as I've been suspended, I consider the bolded to be BS.
default_smile.png


Also, who asked for anyone to be kicked out?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It can't be too surprising, the amount of "I got ____, so ____ needs to get ______"/"why isn't ______ banned yet" we get.

I guess I should amend that to say if you break rules, you'll get warnings and suspensions as appropriate. I'd like to reserve actual bans for the two categories I mentioned earlier. But once there's been enough warning accumulation and so on, bans tend to get inevitable. :/ I can only argue so much for a member who I don't want to see banned but who has racked up a long list of warnings.

Don't call people names and you should be okay.
default_tongue.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Conversation is the sole reason for this board's existence. It is not the sole reason for the membership of everyone here. Some people are members here, and at other boards, and on Twitter, and on Reddit, etc, solely for the purpose of furthering an agenda. Many of these people are employees of political organizations paid to create accounts to push those agendas.

To me, it's pretty easy to see who's here to have an actual conversation and who's here to promote a political agenda. Those in the latter camp should be warned, suspended and eventually banned if they refuse to stop.

I never put anyone on Ignore when I was a Mod. I figured that if I had to put them on Ignore, that was a problem significant enough that I should take care of it. It's not fun to have to monitor all the posts, but that's what the Mod job entails (caveat: the Mods don't read everything, obviously).

 
Really? I remember you having put a few guys on ignore. It's kind of where I got the idea. Perhaps that was after your retirement.

I don't know, maybe it'll be a short-lived experiment. Didn't mean to touch off a whole discussion about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Conversation is the sole reason for this board's existence. It is not the sole reason for the membership of everyone here. Some people are members here, and at other boards, and on Twitter, and on Reddit, etc, solely for the purpose of furthering an agenda. Many of these people are employees of political organizations paid to create accounts to push those agendas.
Click to expand...
I'm paid for by the Pat Paulsen presidential campaign. We've upped our standards. Now, up yours.

 
Back
Top