Social War Room Lounge V197: Look at me, I am the captain now.

[nac386]

What? I swear I've seen DaDubbs dished out for someone calling Trump an, *insert, lol.

@Ruprecht can you clarify?

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Based on the mod’s little history lesson, he probably should not have been allowed back in the first place. He had more than enough in his history to just be banned.

But I don’t really understand how the “no accusations” rule is applied. Apparently you can call anyone a file, as long as they don’t post here. People do that every day. You can call people file defenders. You can say half the country wants to “normalize filia.” That’s all allowed. But Fawlty was not allowed to ask a guy who brags about paying for sex how he knows they are of age? That seems bizarre.

@Ruprecht is that accurate?

I'm going to convince Hunter Biden to post here and turn this place into a fucking ghost town.

Also...

 

[Deleted member 579584]

Not sure if they're serious, but it's not remotely accurate "information" you're getting. Bad enough that he gets banned for no reason, now people are telling crazy lies about him when he's not here.

stop crying

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yea, if it was that price tag, you wouldn’t have much of a national debate of it. It is significantly costly and would certainly raise taxes. I think the main argument for it is the average person would pay less in premiums/receive an increase in pay related to how much higher their taxes would go up.

I mean even student debt is 1.6T

The estimate was spectacularly bad. Most have it in the low $30-trillion range over 10 years, or around $3T a year (100x what he said). Taxes would have to be raised a lot, and it would be by far the biggest item on the budget. I'd guess that the average person would save money in taxes + premiums + out-of-pocket healthcare costs (though this would depend on how it functioned, and I have some concerns about the politics of it leading to some bad decisions that would make this not true), but the median person probably wouldn't, though the increase might be modest and a fair trade for the increased security and other benefits (like separating employment from healthcare access).

Based on the mod’s little history lesson, he probably should not have been allowed back in the first place. He had more than enough in his history to just be banned.

If they wanted to keep him away for stuff from more than a decade ago (that isn't being represented accurately ITT), that's one thing. But they let him back and then banned him after years of good behavior essentially because the mods are too stupid to understand their own rule.

But I don’t really understand how the “no accusations” rule is applied. Apparently you can call anyone a file, as long as they don’t post here. People do that every day. You can call people file defenders. You can say half the country wants to “normalize filia.” That’s all allowed. But Fawlty was not allowed to ask a guy who brags about paying for sex how he knows they are of age? That seems bizarre.

@Ruprecht is that accurate?

The rules vary depending on who you piss off, apparently.

What? I swear I've seen DaDubbs dished out for someone calling Trump an, *insert, lol.

The Diplomat called Bill Clinton one. No one cares.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

stop crying

Hey now. I'd be just as defensive if you were banned.

Homies gotta be homies. Also did you see my post? Today is the anniversary of John Brown's execution.

Since you're the only person who took my incredible advice on watching Good Lord Bird I thought you'd find it interesting.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Homer Simpson contacted Crave about it, so he ruined it for everyone.

I'm not saying going to Crave was the right call, but in Homer's defense he had several people -including a mod- saying that he was not just a , but sexually abusing his own kid. And it went on for quite a while.

 

[Deleted member 579584]

Hey now. I'd be just as defensive if you were banned.

Homies gotta be homies. Also did you see my post? Today is the anniversary of John Brown's execution.

Since you're the only person who took my incredible advice on watching Good Lord Bird I thought you'd find it interesting.

I understand where you are coming from but the mods made the decision for what fawlty did. Yeah I did read that and I also got another book about him. Also got this book today

Ted A. Smith
Weird John Brown: Divine Violence and the Limits of Ethics (Encountering Traditions)
4.4 out of 5 stars (3)Reviews

Print List Price:
$24.00
Kindle Price:
$14.16

 

[Ruprecht]

Based on the mod’s little history lesson, he probably should not have been allowed back in the first place.

But I don’t really understand the “no accusations” rule. Apparently you can call anyone a file, as long as they don’t post here. You can call people file defenders. You can say half the country wants to “normalize filia”, and that’s all allowed. But Fawlty was not allowed to ask a guy who brags about paying for sex how he knows they are of age? That seems bizarre.

@Ruprecht is that accurate?

I really never looked into Fawlty's history. I was here when he was posting from his Ransom account as a Ron Paul supporter, and was banned, but I never caught what for.
It was perfectly obvious to me when I was modded though that his account was on thin ice due to some excessive history of e-drama. I also caught some of the same push back on moderation and attempts to advocate for posters he thought were unfairly done by, but after a few exchanges I just ignored that.
The thing is really clear though. For whatever reason it's a topic that's overly common in the War Room, and even lead to posters contacting Crave about accusations.
That has to stop.
Both direct and implied accusations will not be tolerated, as spelt out in the rules.
In Fawlty's case he continued the same discussion where Trotsky had been banned for the accusation, and made the same implication by asking how he avoids sleeping with minors when using hookers in a region that's known for it. There was no excuse for it, he tagged Oeshon into the thread to continue that same discussion. Whether it was pushing back on moderation by trying to say the same thing less directly, or just trying to get back at Oeshon for Trotsky being banned is really pretty irrelevant. It won't be tolerated and he had no chances left (he'd been previously warned and carded over the same rule, although not accusations).
It's unfortunate that the same obsession seems to be part and parcel of American politics, however to the extent that there are public accusations or cases involving political figures (or MMA fighters for that matter), that discussion will be allowed here.
Calling other posters " defenders" and " enablers" also won't be allowed, although we rely on people reporting those posts. I know I'm certainly not reading through that sort of shit otherwise.

 

[Yehudim]

I'm not saying going to Crave was the right call, but in Homer's defense he had several people -including a mod- saying that he was not just a , but sexually abusing his own kid. And it went on for quite a while.

Was his personal info ever out there? I would agree with him if that was the case.

You just know at some point someone who isn’t in on the joke will seriously think he is a phile and will try to contact his friends and family about it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Was his personal info ever out there? I would agree with him if that was the case.

You just know at some point someone who isn’t in on the joke will seriously think he is a phile and will try to contact his friends and family about it.

It was. People knew who he was irl, and a (at the time) staff member was actively telling people to attack him in that way. Like, I love RR and he'll always be my boy, but that was beyond the pale. And nobody would listen to Homer, party because he melted down dramatically and partly because of his own history as a pain in the ass accusing people of being creeps. It's fantastic that the powers that be have changed the policy now imo. That whole thing was a giant stain.

 

[My Spot]

Ive seen yall talk about donuts but I dont know the story ? Clue me in dude ?

Fawlty admitted to having sexual relations with a jelly donut. Because that apparently impresses women who are already creeped out by you as it is.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Speaking of meters. ..

My meter is pretty accurate.

I have a fitbit inspire.

What about you guys?

 

[My Spot]

Dude was following a female poster around like a lost puppy and posted a picture of his bare ass in the Plats to try and woo her....

His ass looked like a hairy version of Hank Hill and it backfired immensely.

Remember his "what happened to me" selfie?<Lmaoo>

 

[Yehudim]

It was. People knew who he was irl, and a (at the time) staff member was actively telling people to attack him in that way. Like, I love RR and he'll always be my boy, but that was beyond the pale. And nobody would listen to Homer, party because he melted down dramatically and partly because of his own history as a pain in the ass accusing people of being creeps. It's fantastic that the powers that be have changed the policy now imo. That whole thing was a giant stain.

Makes much more sense now.

Of course you generally don’t get that much hate without intentionally provoking it, so a large part of it was his fault.

Fucking dopes spend years in troll communities dedicated to bashing each other and suddenly are surprised that when they put their personal info out there, that some troll is going to use it against them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Both direct and implied accusations will not be tolerated, as spelt out in the rules.
In Fawlty's case he continued the same discussion where Trotsky had been banned for the accusation, and made the same implication by asking how he avoids sleeping with minors when using hookers in a region that's known for it.

I don't see how any competent, adult English speaker can defend the claim that there was an implied accusation of philia there. The discussion was about his level of potential culpability in child sex trafficking/slavery based on the level of participation he acknowledged, without an implication that he was participating on a different level (e.g., actually hiring child prostitutes). The Trotsky ban was at least temporary and of someone who frequently has yellows, but it was similarly misguided. Meanwhile, there are any number of trolls who do nothing but make empty, thread-derailing posts who are allowed to continue with impunity. So the poor moderation hurts on both ends.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

People just need to follow the rules. It isn't that difficult .

I mean how hard is it to stay off dubs, not get yellow carded or banned??!!
This shit isn't rocket science.

 

[JDragon]

Speaking of meters. ..

My meter is pretty accurate.

I have a fitbit inspire.

What about you guys?

I don't know, but what do you think about this study?

meter walking plus motivational interviewing program for Thai schizophrenic patients with obesity or overweight: a 12-week, randomized, controlled trial

 

[My Spot]

I'm not saying going to Crave was the right call, but in Homer's defense he had several people -including a mod- saying that he was not just a , but sexually abusing his own kid. And it went on for quite a while.

Problem is Homer himself had been doing that for years.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Makes much more sense now.

Of course you generally don’t get that much hate without intentionally provoking it, so a large part of it was his fault.

Fucking dopes spend years in troll communities dedicated to bashing each other and suddenly are surprised that when they put their personal info out there, that some troll is going to use it against them.

For sure. You have to expect that people will hound you if you're a confrontational poster that fucks up. It totally crossed a line, though, when they brought his kid into it and had a staff member leading the charge. Sure, his pleas were a bit of a "world's tiniest violin" type situation, but imo that should have passed much more quickly once the tone and content got so dark and foul. The internet is psycho, and people had his irl identity.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't see how any competent, adult English speaker can defend the claim that there was an implied accusation of philia there. The discussion was about his level of potential culpability in child sex trafficking/slavery based on the level of participation he acknowledged, without an implication that he was participating on a different level (e.g., actually hiring child prostitutes). The Trotsky ban was at least temporary and of someone who frequently has yellows, but it was similarly misguided. Meanwhile, there are any number of trolls who do nothing but make empty, thread-derailing posts who are allowed to continue with impunity. So the poor moderation hurts on both ends.

I think you're blind here.
You can't ask someone what they do to avoid sleeping with minors in the context of that discussion without implying that's what's happening.