12
13

Proposal: Ban /u/reaganveg for trolling. (self.metanarchism)

Vindalfr が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Min_thamee 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

This whole "block" thing was started in a moderator nominations thread, where /u/volcanoclosto blocked a users nomination, despite the fact that there was no precedent or clear rules about what a block was.

Reganveg actually pointed out here that a block makes no sense with moderators, because essentially the idea to treat the block as legitimate comes down to the moderator disgression.

Unbelievably some people in the forum decided to honour the block, including the only person who mattered, moderator andyogym

If pipe_bomb agreed to an accountability process of some sort would you consider unblocking?

what follows is volc being stubborn which imo makes a mockery of the block process.

In summary: volcanoclosto makes a block. the moderators allow it and invalidate everyone else's votes. Reaganveg then questions this and gets no answers, so decides to test out the block function and wonder why his blocks aren't honoured

[–]Capn_Blackbeard 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think continually doing something you feel is wrong because someone else did it once is pretty much the definition of trolling.

what follows is typical volc and co stubborness and makes a mockery of the block process.

If you are going to say things like "typical volc" as you insult them then maybe you should pump the brakes on complaining about how other people talk about you. Goose and gander and all that.

[–]Min_thamee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ok point taken, edited.

[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think continually doing something you feel is wrong because someone else did it once is pretty much the definition of trolling.

  1. No, it isn't the definition of trolling at all. It does not in itself imply anything like that.

  2. Volcanoclosto's block isn't something that was "done once." The effects of that block persist. The block created a moderator list that still remains in place.

  3. I'm not doing the same thing at all. Because I say "block" when it doesn't affect moderator action, and after publicly stating that it should not.

The still-persisting recognized block is a farcical violation of process, a farcical pretense of consensus where none exists, and it deserves mockery. This place deserves mockery for allowing such a thing. You should mock it, also. Why don't you?

[–]reaganveg -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

/u/capn_blackbeard this is another one where I'd very much like to hear your response. Do you concede these three points? Can you answer my questions?

[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fuck off, reaganveg

[–]boilerpunx 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If there's no such thing as blocks on this forum, which you felt so strongly about for some reason, why haven't you ever brought up this concern with reagan? Is it because you're more agreeable to users who you like?

If you want to use the "drawing attention to blocks" excuse, you have to be able to reasonably explain why he refused to dialogue with anyone about his blocks, which is again, something you were highly critical of in other users.

[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If there's no such thing as blocks on this forum, which you felt so strongly about for some reason, why haven't you ever brought up this concern with reagan? Is it because you're more agreeable to users who you like?

It's quite different when I do it, because I'm mocking the moderator's lack of recognition of the block, whereas volcanoclosto actually induced the moderator to act.

In other words, when I do it it doesn't actually cause a violation of process, but just an embarrassment of the moderators for their inconsistency. Whereas when volcanoclosto does it, there is an actual violation.

If you want to use the "drawing attention to blocks" excuse, you have to be able to reasonably explain why he refused to dialogue with anyone about his blocks, which is again, something you were highly critical of in other users.

That's not true (I didn't refuse), so no he doesn't.

But it would be very easy in any case; there's no real point in explaining a block to people when it has no effect on them whatsoever. There certainly isn't any argument for an obligation to do so. It doesn't make sense. The whole reason you have to explain yourself to others as someone blocking is the effect you're having on them.

Even in an actual consensus process, if one person blocks, and everyone else votes no, there's no reason for the blocking person to explain their block. The proposal wouldn't pass even in the absence of the block, so it's moot. A block has to be explained precisely when it is holding up a consensus agreement. No other time.

[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

/u/boilerpunx do you concede this argument or not?

[–]boilerpunx -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So if I don't reply in a time to your liking, I concede? No such luck. I just had better things to do than talk to you for the last few days. Really, I have better things to do than talk to you every day, but I stupidly make exceptions

[–]reaganveg -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So if I don't reply in a time to your liking, I concede?

I asked you whether you concede the argument or not.

Do you?

[–]boilerpunx -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No.