(cache) [#2|+4661|1030] TIL After Merriam-Webster added "McJob"–defined: a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement–to their dictionary, McDonald's asked for it to be removed. They responded with"we stand by the accuracy and appropriaten... [/r/todayilearned] : undelete

[–]iSeeObviousThings 68ポイント69ポイント70ポイント 1日前 (89子コメント)

[–]bokono 62ポイント63ポイント64ポイント 1日前* (61子コメント)

Yeah, this was removed because it is insulting to potential advertisers. Todayilearned is garbage.

Edit: This

Edit: don't you dare question the actions or opinions of the moderators. They'll ban you even if you're not in their sub.

you have been banned from posting to /r/todayilearned.

note from the moderators:

Since you've actively stated you consider explanations of the rules to be "trashing" you, it doesn't seem like you can possibly be informed on them and participate honestly in the sub.

Combine that with insulting the mods and saying how you hate the sub seems like a good reason to go separate ways. Since you don't like the sub, this won't bug you at all, right? And if you wanted to come back, you'd have been open to discussion, but you actively stated you have no interest in it. So I'm sure you won't be trying to go make some scene, right?

you can contact the moderators regarding your ban by replying to this message. warning: using other accounts to circumvent a subreddit ban is considered a violation of reddit's site rules and can result in being banned from reddit entirely.

You guys proved you're the bosses. You can have stuff deleted from the internet. You must be so proud of yourselves.

[–]Ballsdeepinreality 21ポイント22ポイント23ポイント 23時間前 (21子コメント)

[–]bokono 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント 23時間前* (1子コメント)

[–]FatStig 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 22時間前* (0子コメント)

[–]King_Of_The_Squirrel 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 22時間前 (17子コメント)

"critical thinkers"

Maybe YOU want to support his bullshit claims then. Maybe you should read passed "omg I got banned" and see where he refused to even acknowledge his original claim. Where he moved the goalpost. Where he lied about what he originally said.

Sorry honey, every fact is on my side, which is why no one here has had any criticism or counter point that wasn't "well you seem mad." The guy calling me a dick even had to admit it wasn't based on what I'd done here. The guy claiming I was "trashing other users" later admitted what he meant was "gave a wordy reply".

Go ahead and pretend that you're NOT on the asshole side, while you defend someone who literally tried to twist giving any explanation into an attack, so he could demonize me.

PS /u/bokono, do the same thing I did, block me. I blocked you and don't get your whiny notifications. Do the same. It's not that hard, but it wouldn't let you play victim, so I see why you didn't.

[–]jubbergun 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 21時間前* (1子コメント)

Go ahead and pretend that you're NOT on the asshole side

The issue here isn't which one of us is or isn't an asshole because we're all assholes. This guy's an asshole, you're an asshole, we're all motherfucking assholes, asshole. The issue here is that even if you're in the right on this single, solitary occasion you're the asshole with a long history of being an asshole for all the wrong reasons.

I don't mind being an asshole, and I don't mind the rest of the assholes here being assholes because even though we're being assholes it's mostly because assholes like you have left us no choice but to be assholes. You and other assholes like you have made it obvious and apparent that you can't be dealt with like a kind, reasonable person because you and those other assholes not only can't compromise and see the other side of an issue, but also see any type of olive branch as a sign of weakness and ratchet your bullshit up to 11.

So you can lick my asshole, asshole. I'm proud to be an asshole, so long as the only time I'm being an asshole is when I'm dealing with assholes like you.

You don't need anyone to "demonize" you because you're an abominable inoperable tumor, asshole.

[–]CuilRunnings 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 20時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]frankenmine 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4時間前 (14子コメント)

[–]Batty-Koda -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 4時間前 (13子コメント)

[–]frankenmine 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3時間前 (11子コメント)

[–]Batty-Koda -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]frankenmine -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]Batty-Koda 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (8子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]over-my-head 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 23時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]bokono 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 23時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]over-my-head 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 23時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]boxsniffer 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 15時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 12時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]frankenmine 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]SuperConductiveRabbiundelete MVP 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

I believe I have evidence that this isn't a coincidence.

Deleted TIL frontpaged posts about McDonalds: https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/search?q=til+mcdonalds&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

Non-deleted, popular posts on TIL about McDonalds: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/search?q=mcdonalds&sort=top&restrict_sr=on&t=all

The deleted ones seem almost universally negative of McDonalds. The existing ones seem almost all positive or neutral.

I believe this is evidence that McDonalds actively operates a social media sentiment manipulation campaign on Reddit, including issuing reports for posts they dislike and/or actually having direct access to mods or moderation powers. The TIL mods in particular have repeatedly stated that the majority of their deletions happen because they receive a large volume of user reports on a post.

[–]PM_ME_MILK 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 22時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]bokono 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 22時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-28ポイント-27ポイント-26ポイント 1日前* (29子コメント)

What do you mean directly? It means that the only link considered as a source for verifying your claim is the one you link to. It needs to support everything in your post title, without personal interpretations. It is not possible for moderators to check outside sources for every submission. The policy that is fair to every submission is requiring one source, since there simply is not enough time to check other sources for every submission.

That's the part of explanation of the rule. The source does not include the quote in the headline at all. It clearly breaks that rule.

Is your argument that mods should leave up posts that completely unambiguously break the rules, as long as we like the message? What EXACTLY is your complaint here? That mods DIDN'T subjectively say "I like this post, so I'm going to leave it up despite that it breaks the rules"?

And that's exactly what I thought. He dodged the question. Moved the goalpost from "it's to protect advertisers" to "I disagree with the rule". He used fallacies. He resorted to "lol u mad? calm down" simply for explaining myself. He falsely claimed he was trashed. This is the behavior of this sub now. This is what people here love to pretend is because mods are too rude. I haven't been rude.

Thank you for providing me something to link to, to prove this place is a circle jerk and will make sure to shut down discussion and hide mod explanations so they cannot be seen.

Bonus points: the guy literally explains that I was "trashing" him because I gave explanations for my reasoning and confronted him. That's it. Just too many words. Doesn't even try to claim I was rude or insulting, simply responding with too many words is "trashing users"

And final bonus points: as expected he made sure to complain about being banned from a sub he allegedly hates and is unwilling to discuss the rules of. But the bonus points is actually that the explanation was downvoted until hidden. Someone actively stating he's unwilling to listen to explanations is upvoted, the explanation is hidden. Thank you everyone, you played your parts of refusing to engage in discussion splendidly. Have a good one.

[–]bokono 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 1日前 (28子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-26ポイント-25ポイント-24ポイント 1日前 (27子コメント)

What do you mean directly? It means that the only link considered as a source for verifying your claim is the one you link to.

And? That's not the link. If it had been, that'd count, but it's not on the wiki that was linked.

This has been a rule on TIL since before I even had an account. It's not some new protect anyone thing. It's the basic functionality of verification on TIL. One of my first experiences being involved with a witch hunt, and my highest voted post was a comment, from before I was a mod, explaining this very rule and it wasn't about a corporation or advertiser.

There is ZERO room for debate for if it broke the rules. You click the headline. That takes you to a page. EVERYTHING needs to be on that page. Control + f for that quote. What happens? Not found. Therefor it breaks the rules.

You can argue you don't think the rule should be that strict, but arguing it DOESN'T break the rule is just revealing you're only here to complain, and not have rational discussion. Let me know if that's the case.

It's bullshit to claim it's to protect advertisers when that rule is used on hundreds if not thousands of other posts that aren't about some corporation for every time it is a corporation. You just ignore those because they don't fit your story.

So again, what exactly is your complaint? Should we just ignore the rules when we like it? Or are you playing dumb and pretending it doesn't break the rules and your complaint is the lie "it doesn't break the rules"?

[–]bokono 21ポイント22ポイント23ポイント 1日前 (26子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-28ポイント-27ポイント-26ポイント 1日前 (25子コメント)

So lets summarize.

You made a baseless claim. I asked you to back it up or clarify, and that's something that warrants "calm down"? Explaining rules or asking for an explanation is unacceptable?

Or, you could adjust your rules so that they allow links like this that are reasonably supported because the quote is only one click away.

So you DO want subjective modding where posts are treated differently based on which mod found it, how they felt, and how much time they had to investigate it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to treat every post equally with that requirement. So again, what exactly is your complaint? Is your demand we check the potentially infinite sources for every post, and then decide on our own which to measure it on, rather than giving that power to the user to support their own claim?

and trashing users who disagree with your shitty rules.

"trashing"? Where did I "trash" you? And where did you state you DISAGREED with the rules? I only see where you made a false claim it was about protecting advertisement.

Why are you STILL ignoring the question, of what EXACTLY is your complaint and your suggested fix? Why are you shifting from "omg it's becasue you're protecting advertisers" to a much more defensible "I disagree with the rules"? Don't you think moving the goalpost like that when confronted on your original point reveals your original point didn't actually withstand scrutiny, AND that you will not engage in discussion honestly?

So in conclusion you have: 1) Moved the goalpost. 2) Refused to acknowledge a question 3) Resorted to tone policing and telling me I'm not allowed to give the opposing side. 4) Falsely claimed I "trashed" you.

Thank you though. That is EXACTLY the response I was expecting and hoping for. I wasn't rude. I didn't insult you. You still resorted to fallacies, refused to actually participate, and tried to use emotional manipulation to silence me.

You have once again shown that the community has degraded to a circle jerk. Daring to go against the narrative or point issues with the claimed story gets a "calm down," downvotes, and no actual answer to a VERY basic question. If I don't back my claims, unacceptable. If I do, I've used too many words and need to "calm down", because explaining reasoning is not acceptable.

[–]bokono 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 1日前* (23子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-21ポイント-20ポイント-19ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

Your sub sucks and it's because the moderators subjectively enforce the rules and they obviously have an agenda.

Oh man, I missed that edit, that's priceless. "You suck, and it's for subjectively enforcing rules."

Evidence: A post that broke the rules in a completely NOT subjective way was NOT subjectively allowed to stay up because we liked it. That's right, in undelete, removing a post that objectively breaks the rules is showing we suck for being "subjective".

The solution! Totally-not-at-all-subjectively check extra sources for every post. How many extra sources? I dunno, but it wouldn't be subjective, because being subjective is why we suck and this is bokono's solution.

Which posts get that extra searching? I dunno, but it wouldn't be subjective, because being subjective is why we suck and this is bokono's solution.

Who decides when to stop searching for any given post? I dunno, but it wouldn't be subjective, because being subjective is why we suck and this is bokono's solution.

"I didn't say to use subjective rules! I'm just saying that removing an objectively rule violating post is proof you're being subjective! Oh, and demanding you do things in a way that requires subjectivity."

And how did he state this "it's because you're subjective"?

Yeah, this was removed because it is insulting to potential advertisers. Todayilearned is garbage.

Ah yes, clearly the criticism is about subjectivity, and not at all about "protecting advertisers" and you definitely didn't move the goalpost from your claim it was about advertisers (which you still won't acknowledge past that post) to "I disagree with the rule." We can see it was about subjective modding all along!

[–]bokono 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-25ポイント-24ポイント-23ポイント 1日前 (20子コメント)

I'm not "moving the goal posts". I'm simply being honest. I didn't say you should subjectively enforce your rules. I suggested that you change them to make them reasonable

Yes, change them in a way that requires they be subjective. That's the point. If you follow your suggested rules, they become subjective. You just refuse to look past the first step. "I didn't ask you to KILL the guy! Ijust wanted you to remove his blood and organs." You didn't outright state it, you just state the step before and refuse to acknowledge what logically follows.

It is NOT possible to check the potentially INFINITE sources for every single post. So what do you suggest? Only some get that? How do you decide which ones get extra investigation without any subjectivity? How do you decide where the investigation ends without subjectivity? Why do you think I asked what EXACTLY is your complaint? It's so I can point out how you're having to ignore that your complaint is based on ignoring how the real world works.

There's a reason you resort to vagueries of "just improve your rules." It's a lot like saying "Just feed everyone in the world, world hunger is solved." There's some logistics in there you're conveniently ignoring.

At least use the time and effort you're wasting here explaining to OP how he can resubmit his content.

Ah right, the good ol "you're not allowed to give explanations here" excuse. My time should always be spent elsewhere. You know this USED to be a place people could come to for explanations of how something broke the rules or why it is that way. Apparently that's not acceptable, and it should ONLY be for complaining about mods, and mods shouldn't ever come here to explain things. But hey, you don't want to just circle jerk, riiiiiiight?

If you spent half of the time working with your users as you do here fighting with people who don't like your sub and it's shitty rules, you might find that there would be less cause for complaint.

I wasn't fighting you. I tried to engage you in honest discussion. You just refused to do that. You claimed it was about advertisers. When I pointed out how that doesn't make logical sense, you've fallen back do "well I disagree with your rule." That's moving the goalpost.

Yes, you're trashing me with your unsolicited wall of text replies.

And there it is. A flat out admission that trying to engage you in honest discussion is unacceptable to you. Explanations are NOT allowed. And hey, you should get to make whatever bullshit claims you want without having to risk having to actually EXPLAIN yourself, or having someone reply with evidence you're just jumping to conclusions and ignoring evidence.

Simply confronting you on a baseless claim you made is "trashing" you. I appreciate you being so direct with this explanation at least.

[–]know_comment 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 1日前 (4子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]bokono 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 1日前 (14子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]FatStig 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 22時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]frankenmine -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (23子コメント)

[–]SuperConductiveRabbiundelete MVP 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]SuperConductiveRabbiundelete MVP 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (3子コメント)

I'm sure he banned you from TIL (as he did to me), but I'd be highly surprised if he actually blocked your comments. He's been "participating" in /r/undelete for a year or more now, and always acts like he does here. He feeds on negativity and drama, and when there isn't enough he stirs it up, and usually whips himself into a frenzy of blind, righteous rage.

Thus, I'd bet good money that he's reading what you're writing. If he was truly interested in blocking content that makes him angry, he wouldn't chose to participate here like he does.

What's most shocking to me is that the other TIL mods and even the admins think it's permissible to have a default mod behaving like this. Not only are his deletions usually ridiculous, how is he contributing positively to Reddit at all? Mods should be janitors, not powerusers, and especially not mods on a rage-fueled power trip. Banning people from TIL because he doesn't like their civilly-shared opinions in /r/undelete? What a childish use of his little bit of power.

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]SuperConductiveRabbiundelete MVP 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]yasughir -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 2時間前 (16子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Batty-Koda -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (8子コメント)

[–]bokono -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]SuperConductiveRabbiundelete MVP 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]yasughir -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 1時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]yasughir -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 48分前 (3子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 44分前 (2子コメント)

[–]yasughir -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 36分前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]frankenmine -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]yasughir -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]bokono 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]frankenmine -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]yasughir 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]bokono -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-21ポイント-20ポイント-19ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

That's not what supported means on TIL. TIL has rules in place to try to treat submissions fairly and the same. Do you think it's possible for mods to check every other source for EVERY submission? It's absolutely not, and so we have a nice simple solution. The USER gets to pick their OWN source, and provide it! The USER gets to back up their own submission, and chooses a source that does so. If they choose one that doesn't, it's removed. It doesn't get special privileges of mods looking for a source, deciding what's right, and making a decision based on things other users don't even really have.

The submission is made by a user, that user is expected to back up their submission. The policy is set so that posts are treated equally. We even explicitly cover this in our explanation of the rule.

What do you mean directly? It means that the only link considered as a source for verifying your claim is the one you link to. It needs to support everything in your post title, without personal interpretations. It is not possible for moderators to check outside sources for every submission. The policy that is fair to every submission is requiring one source, since there simply is not enough time to check other sources for every submission.

It's not some "omg advertisers" thing as others looooove to jump to as their conclusion. Funny how when things are removed under this rule every single day it's a non issue, but when it's a corporation suddenly THAT one is the only one that matters, all those other cases are irrelevant, and people take their little selection bias and make assumptions that fly in the face of 99% of instances, because they only pay attention to the 1% that "proves" their pre-assumed conclusion.

[–]iSeeObviousThings 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]CaptainMulligan 54ポイント55ポイント56ポイント 1日前 (2子コメント)

[–]ZeroQQ 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

[+]FatStig スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 22時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]m0nde 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 1日前 (9子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント 1日前 (8子コメント)

[–]m0nde 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Wordshark 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 23時間前 (5子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 22時間前 (4子コメント)

If you think I am the one that was unreasonable ina group that LITERALLY stated they won't listen and LITERALLY claimed giving explanations was an attack, then that's your bias, or evidence their dishonest bullshit works.

The facts are on my side. Several even stated they don't give a shit about the facts. If you're going to ignore all that behavior and all you see is that I've got a chip on myshoulder, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. Every single fact is on my side. I was never a dick first. I am in the right or better behaved than the opposition for EVERY disagreement in here.

What was "unreasonable"? huh? What did I do that was more unreasonable than the guy claiming giving explanations was attacking users? Or the guy DIRECTLY STATING he wasn't even going to read? How about the guy who DIRECTLY STATED he not only won't look this time, but that he went on to clarify that it was based on history and NOT actually the situation involved here?

If you think I'm "unreasonable" then you aren't paying attention. If you think I've got a chip on my shoulder, you're right, because there are a ton of bad faith people that are getting upvoted for LITERALLY SAYING THEY AREN'T HERE IN GOOD FAITH.

Sorry, you're the one not looking at it reasonably. You're letting yourself be manipulated, and you can justify it to yourself all you want, but don't try to sell me on it unless you're going to start backing it with actual facts that show how I was more unreasonable than who I was dealing with in this thread.

And you know what my absolute favorite part was? I got home and found out one of the assclowns is someone I have on ignore for previous dishonesty. I have like 3 people on ignore. NOT the guy who threatened me.NOT the guy who called me baby rapist. Those people were MORE reasonable than my past interaction with this guy. So if you think a chip on my shoulder means the facts shouldn't matter, or that it's not justified, I honestly have ZERO respect for your opinion on the matter.

[–]AlbertFischerIII 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 22時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 22時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]AlbertFischerIII 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 22時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Bookkeep 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 21時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ZeroQQ 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]rag3train 23ポイント24ポイント25ポイント 1日前* (71子コメント)

[–]TotesMessenger -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-27ポイント-26ポイント-25ポイント 1日前 (69子コメント)

The admins had absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Stop dropping baseless conspiracy theory crap everywhere. I ask you the same thing I asked the other guy who is evading it.

What do you mean directly? It means that the only link considered as a source for verifying your claim is the one you link to. It needs to support everything in your post title, without personal interpretations. It is not possible for moderators to check outside sources for every submission. The policy that is fair to every submission is requiring one source, since there simply is not enough time to check other sources for every submission.

That's the part of explanation of the rule. The source does not include the quote in the headline at all. It clearly breaks that rule.

Is your argument that mods should leave up posts that completely unambiguously break the rules, as long as we like the message? What EXACTLY is your complaint here? That mods DIDN'T subjectively say "I like this post, so I'm going to leave it up despite that it breaks the rules"?

I'm really curious if you can even come up with a complaint that isn't blatantly contradictory with the other complaints of this sub, cause all I see here is people complaining mods didn't give an exception to the rules based on personal preference. If that's what you're arguing for, stop beating around the bush to criticize us and just say it. It's sad how many people will criticize us for enforcing the rules, but ignore that the alternative is "so we decided we're just going to do subjective modding and give exceptions whenever we like". You're pretending this isn't a completely unambiguous violation of the rules as they've been for years, and doing so so you can pretend mods NOT saying "well since I like it the rules don't apply" is a bad thing.

[–]rag3train 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 1日前 (66子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-22ポイント-21ポイント-20ポイント 1日前 (64子コメント)

[–]rag3train 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 1日前* (63子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-23ポイント-22ポイント-21ポイント 1日前 (62子コメント)

[–]rag3train 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 1日前 (49子コメント)

[–]bokono 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 1日前 (3子コメント)

[–]rag3train 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]rag3train 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 9時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Batty-Koda -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-20ポイント-19ポイント-18ポイント 1日前 (44子コメント)

[–]bokono 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 1日前* (2子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-20ポイント-19ポイント-18ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

Do you think you could get your point across in less than five hundred words this time?

Whaaa, detailed and thorough explanations are too many words to read. No. I will not submit to your bullshit restrictions of not being allowed to explain my reasoning. You don't get to say "NO! NO explanations! You're only allowed soundbites!"

Hah, so you're back to "it's just disagreement." That misrepresentation is exactly the kind of thing that shows you're not participating in bad faith. It's funny that I was iffy about doing it, but with every disingenuous response you've further convinced me it was the right call.

Don't want to participate in good faith? Fine. But I don't owe you engaging your bad faith bullshit, and no one owes you allowing your bad faith bullshit in placed you've actively admitted your distaste for.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]junglemonkey47 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 1日前* (40子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-14ポイント-13ポイント-12ポイント 1日前 (39子コメント)

Based on WHAT exactly? Try reading the thread in timestamp order. Where was I a "dick" huh?

Where am I a bigger dick than the guy who called me pissant?

What am I a bigger dick than the guy who directly stated he's not even going to read it?

Where am I a bigger dick than the guy who claims he was only talking about disagreeing with the rule, but literally didn't even say anything close to that in his original claim?

Where am I a bigger dick than the guy who IGNORED his original claim and refused to even acknowledge what he said?

Where am I being a dick, and not just asking for an explanation or trying to engage in honest discussion, BEFORE the parts where he actively admitted he wasn't even willing to hear it?

I asked the other guy to back up his claim I'm "fuckign insane" and got silence. Are you going to be any more specific? Or are you just going to make another bullshit claim that flies in the face of all the facts, and ignore that what I'm dealing with is people who LITERALLY ADMIT THEY WERE NEVER INTENDING TO LISTEN TO BEGIN WITH?

Oh yea, that side lies about what they've said, calls me pissant, and actively, directly, and explicitly state they never intended to engage honestly in the first place, but I'm the dick? How do you figure?

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]InfamousBLT 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 1日前 (11子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-19ポイント-18ポイント-17ポイント 1日前 (10子コメント)

Yea? Lets see it.

Cause I can QUOTE him saying how he won't even read or be informed. See?

I'll pass on even reading one sentence of what you have to say

I can QUOTE the other guy saying that "walls of text" are "trashing users", such that explaining yourself is an attack, if you're a mod.

Yes, you're trashing me with your unsolicited wall of text replies.

Oh look, simply replying with too many words is an attack now.

So show me again where I was "fucking insane" and not simply trying to engage in honest discusssion? Explain to me where the other guy refusing to acknowledge his original claim is me being "fucking insane."

The people I engaged with here LITERALLY EXPLICITLY stated their refusal to read or be open to hearing explanations, so what exactly did I do that was "fucking insane"?

Anyway, thank you for coming along and showing just how many people are here in bad faith, see only what they want, and don't bother with the facts.

Lets see how you justify giving explanations as "fucking insane" but lying, moving goalposts, and actively, directly, and explicitly refusing to listen is not. Or do you simply mean I'm "fucking insane" for playing along with the charade that the whining people are here in good faith in the first place? Back your claim. I'm quite interested to see it.

[–]InfamousBLT 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 1日前* (9子コメント)

[–]rag3train 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 13時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント 1日前 (7子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]RabidRaccoon 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 18時間前* (0子コメント)

[–]ExplainsRemovals 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]ParanoidFactoid 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 22時間前 (4子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 22時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]PM_ME_MILK 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 22時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]Batty-Koda スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 22時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]PM_ME_MILK 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 22時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]SuperConductiveRabbiundelete MVP 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]bokono 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 7時間前* (0子コメント)

[–]ShamAbram 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 1日前 (17子コメント)

[–]ChocolateSunrise 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 1日前 (16子コメント)

[+]ShamAbram スコアが基準値未満のコメント-14ポイント-13ポイント-12ポイント 1日前 (15子コメント)

[–]AmantisAsoko 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 1日前 (3子コメント)

[–]bokono 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]ShamAbram -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

[–]soiedujour 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]ChocolateSunrise 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 1日前* (2子コメント)

[–]alk3v 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[+]ShamAbram スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]soiedujour 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 1日前 (2子コメント)

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

[–]soiedujour 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 23時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FuckThatKarmaCulture 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 1日前 (4子コメント)

[+]ShamAbram スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 1日前 (3子コメント)

[–]svladcjelli42 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1日前 (2子コメント)

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

[–]svladcjelli42 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 21時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]hippysmell -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 1日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Pwninator 40ポイント41ポイント42ポイント 1日前 (3子コメント)

[–]InternetWeakGuy 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]ChocolateSunrise 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]ParanoidFactoid 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

undelete

調停者