This Is A Violation Of Rule 2 According To Our Faggot Mod
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (92)
sorted by:
Once again DoM. If you don’t not ban anyone who is pro abortion you are violating your own rules. If you don’t not ban any non Slavic person who uses the term slave you are violating your own rules. It’s time for you to either step down or you are going to single-handedly fracture this sub you subjective cunt.
He's certainly adept at manufacturing rule 2 violations when he's motivated to do so. Like when you violate the safe space he's running for trannies. Never mind the rule 16 retardation. We need someone who's willing to whack the handshake troon when he pops up without engineering a repeat of what happened to Faggit in the '10s.
He’s a subjective cunt who needs to go. Period.
That's not how words work.
Anyways, in case you hadn't fucking noticed, that article was about a man who shot up an FBI building. He was recently gunned down. Already Viva Frei is being accused of inciting the attack.
Your comment is trying to rationalize the attack. Just in case you fucking noticed, that shit gets people targeted, and the only people who are pushing that stupid violent rhetoric are fucking glowies who are trying to get people to end up in fucking federal prison. So knock it off.
This comment by Wray was before the attack, my post and comparison was before the attack. Quit lying out your ass.
We can say the fbi is a bunch of faggots who keep pushing, and it's the truth. They're the dems military wing at this point.
Speaking the truth shouldn't be controversial.
They lied about trump for years, and made shit up to go after him.
I'm not shedding any tears here.
And absolutely none of that is a violation of the rules.
Neither is explaining how or why people shoot feds.
Explanations aren't necessarily agreement, or support.
Except this was supportive. As I said elsewhere, shooting at red coats in the American Revolution was a good thing from an American perspective. Wherefore, when you make that point about the FBI, you're glorifying violence against them, which we can't tolerate.
Well, we can. Unless there's a specific threat as made clear by Supreme Court rulings, we can call them whatever the fuck we want.
I never said it was illegal.
Why is it that you chose to copy and paste rules directly from Reddit to WIN? There should have been consultation with the community considering we're the blood of this forum.
Many of the rules are duplicates, some solely belong to Plebbit - which is a walled-in garden that you can moderate to your heart's content without handcuffing us, and some are very clearly prone to your judgment and abuse.
How do you justify the following?
Long-term users of this community should be able to call each other niggerfaggot, kike, cunt, stormcuck, or whatever derogatory term they want, if they really wish to. The other party can respond in kind or block them to avoid DM notifications.
You should open up the rule book and let us -- again, long-term users -- decide in a sticky. It's not like we're opposed to everything, some of them are good rules, but you're clearly neutering certain comments that can be handled via downvotes or blocks.
I didn't copy them. I made the rules in a rushed fashion because a) it wasn't clear that anyone was going to move over, 10% was AoV's guess and he was correct. b) We didn't really believe we had more than a month left before the whole sub was banned.
I prefer the term Preddit. None of the rules are duplicates though.
It was particularly a slur against a user.
The biggest threat I see has almost nothing to do with the comments themselves. Honestly, the offensiveness of one comment from another isn't really a problem to me. The issue is tactical in nature. What actions are designed to balkanize, subvert, or destroy the community.
I don't really care that specifically altmers called someone niggerfaggot specifically. What I care about is the two larger problems:
It is an excellent way to create drama, and will be weaponized by subversives to create a hostile and inhospitable environment which people will not want to engage with, including regular users. The barrier to entry is 0, this also means that to barrier to leaving is 0. This means that ideological subversives who squat only have to be irritating to drive people out. You can have a walled tolerant society, or an open intolerant one, but you can't have a walled intolerant society, nor an open and tolerant one. Some ethical conduct must be enforced, or subversives will create their own moral standing. It's why the same people screaming at me for being a zionist demand I treat 'stormfag' as an ethnic slur against whites. It's why Trumpeters make reports to me to remove some comments as Intentional Falsehoods, when they are just opinions. These are malicious actions designed to seize control of the sub from the userbase. Or even to destroy it utterly. It's not even really the drama that matters, it's the intent of people who recognize that drama.
This is one of the reasons that Voat was destroyed. A Libertine system allows the free flow of information warfare operations against the users. You can bet your ass you had FBI agents creating flame wars within the forum against FBI agents to balkanize and be wildly divisive.
The level of subversion and obsession by ideological factions is really extreme. For example, do you know why Ahaus667 is behaving the way he is right now? He's not actually sperging out, it's quite calculated. He's actually Imp's alt, and it's how Imp actually lashes out against me for banning him. Imp's a bit of a nut ball, but he's not an idiot, as he moderates a slew of subs. One thing he's doing here is using this alt of his to start shit with me. He's knowingly violating the rules, which is causing him to get banned. He's then engaging in ban evasion, and violating more rules, causing his additional alts to get more bans. All of this is being done to support the narrative of: "DoM is acting wildly out of control and is over-moderating comments! Look how obsessive he is, and how many bans he's throwing out!"
I do wonder if Impy is trying to seize control of the sub for his own purposes and put himself or a loyalist in place. He really doesn't need to. Then again, the ConsumeProduct Nazis are pulling the same stunt. These are aggressive factions that keep trying to secure digital territory. And those guys aren't even the ones I'm most worried about.
The Rule 2 shit is genuinely dangerous. It is exactly the type of thing that plays into the establishment's hand to kill online communities with legitimized force.
Prove it
Why?
...and that was over 2 years ago, and immediately received feedback pointing out flaws. Over time, you've received even more feedback. It's visible in the very 1st sticky.
I can argue for why X shouldn't exist and could be amicably addressed by Rule 1 and a new one mentioning WIN's ToS with minor amendments, but you took that decision out of our hands. Ignoring that, on very most basic technical terms:
You haven't exactly been consistently removing them in the past and I don't want you to be involved, that's why it sticks out. Again, we don't need this coddling necessarily; at the very least, we should be able to decide that 1st before your enforcement.
Same goes for the rest of your argument, which I've seen before. Again, we should be able to decide what risks we want as a community, and you can use account age / seniority as a litmus check or deep weight...and it won't always be pro-freedom: for example, the majority probably agree in that we do NOT want porn here.
If we lose this community due to our own insensibilities since things play out as you say, then we can go create and participate in others. Or you can successfully convince the core user base to be equally prescient as you. Either way, the community should decide.
And you can't justify everything with the bad-faith argument anyway. Rule 7 about '500 followers' is a good example of pure-Plebbit; if the absence of the rule results in bad-faith media postings, 'spam' succinctly covers it.
I don't know about that, but he was spamming this forum before the latest controversy and then doubled-down worse afterward. We're fine with nuking unnecessary floods of posts; 1 complaint thread for visibility is a perfectly good compromise.
However, the drama actually exists because some of us have always held this rule base with contempt. Latest incident is being leveraged to vent, otherwise we'd downvote the rest, block if wanted, and move on.
Is it illegal within the jurisdiction and is it banned by WIN's terms? If not, then even though I agree to an extent, I still don't think you should be making judgments on what is 'dangerous'.
Porn and salacious material are entirely different content.
Max posts, reposts, and spam are still all different concepts.
Except I know how this plays out and the community is not going to have shit to say in it. One faction is going to dominate either through censorship or harassment. You're going to try and have a situation where "everybody decides", and in reality, you're just going to start a war. It's either going to look like KiA1 (abandoned), ConsumeProduct (explicitly Nazi), one of Imp's forums (explicitly incel), or VOAT (mostly shills and trolls).
And it's not like you have a real sense of community here. What do you all do? GoldenPains has a book club, but hardly anyone reads it. ACP is building a damned video game, and he's begging for playtesters.
If you want me to have less say over what should and shouldn't be allowed, who's the fucking pillar to the community that I can reach out to? Truth is, if I were to shut this community down, I don't think you'd notice after a week.
It's really not about whether or not you might 'lose' this community. I don't know what you are doing to keep it.
I don't have to make a judgement on the concept of the violence. It's beyond clear that calling for violence is dangerous in general.
I said each can be consolidated and you definitely can't argue in good faith that they can't.
Let it be the original posters who migrated here first, they had the most to lose.
We post threads and topics of interest, and read and reply. It's a message forum, what else there is to do? We aren't going to plan mutiny or treason, and we don't have any particular call to action since those days are gone.
But we'll point out censorious fucks and remind each other to boycott those companies, educate ourselves on the vax and seek out opinions when facing extremely hard choices, or merely amuse ourselves. Anonymity and some familiarity and thus empathy enables that.
People like YesMovement who kept this forum going in earlier days when the content was dry. Busy atm, but if you want a list of names, no worries -- I can collate them.
Report spam when infested with roaches; post gaming and culture news, even when I know the articles will be under-appreciated in terms of general interest; hell, I'm submitting posts extremely frequently despite preferring commentary over posts. And the above. Again, these are extremely natural.
We don't need a successful book club or game dev project to be a community. Those people knew it might be niche, and took that risk. That's OK.
Edit: Forgot to addresss:
Your judgment is questionable in latest case, as before maybe we should stick to illegality and WIN TOS. If not, core community buy-in should be critical.
you just incited violence against ConsumeProduct by calling the users nazis. in historical context shooting the nazis was justified and morally good.
The title of OP's post was to insinuate that shooting FBI agents was a good thing. I just called ConsumeProduct National Socialists because they are. Just because someone is a National Socialist, doesn't mean it's okay to punch them, let alone shoot them.
I wasn't targeting a user on him being Imp, and Imp apparently came in and shut me down on that, so clearly I was wrong.
All that being said, I absolutely don't think my actions are the biggest source of drama. I think that the efforts to intentionally balkanize the userbase are the biggest source of drama. The most legitimate complaints against me are that I don't moderate enough, not that I'm over moderating.
I see stuff like this as no different than a group of Feminists coming in, saying that men should kill themselves, then claiming I'm being overly subjective and divisive if I ban her. Literally, the white nationalists complain all the time that Imp is given unlimited ability to hate on white women, even though he's one of the single most banned users here. I'm accused of running special apologetics and defense of troons and jews because I don't allow people to call for either of them to be mass executed. Meanwhile, these same people are absolutely furious that I would dare to allow someone to call them a stormfag, and claim that it's an anti-white racial slur.
These are utterly bad faith arguments that are solely designed to pressure me to stop moderating (which I already do very little of), so that they can use unlimited amounts of social pressure on the rest of the user base.
No, I told you the grounding of my moderation philosophy. The specific case here is that he did violate Rule 2 by insinuating that killing FBI agents was necessary. Therefore, he got banned.
The rest of what he's doing is intentionally trying to cause drama to drive me out.
Well, duh. I'm in a position of (minimal) authority. Wherefore every subversive action needs to target me in order to undermine that authority and seize power for itself.
I'm not saying that any complaint is inherently subversive. It's that subversion requires me to be attacked in one way or another.
That’s not what my post or the article is about, try harder you lying faggot
"Let me glowpost or you are fracturing the sub."
How the fuck is that a glow post??
Because apparently saying anything the faggots consider sensitive is glowposting. I got a ban for asking u/onetruephilosoraptor what he’s done with his life when he was/is on a full blown tds crybully binge that DoM has enabled. DoM has single-handedly made this sub toxic for anyone who isn’t a weak willed faggot/ crybully.
Yes please go back and show where I started the ad hominem..
Sorry but to call me the “Bully” is hilarious, maybe learn to read?
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Harassment
That isn't exactly the case. Pinging people isn't necessarily harassment by default. If he keeps sperging out on 1TP, then it would be different.
You keep sperging on me and Imp, when are you banning yourself?
I don't pay that much attention to you, and I've been kind to Imp.
Guy is a literal free speech absolutist. If he doesn't please you, no one will.
Of course, no one will let you glow either. So talking about a crybully binge.
That's not how it works. Assuming away constraints does not make them go away.
Free speech absolutist
Constraints on speech
Pick one
This is so sadly pathetic of a lie. Why not go back to KIA if you’re already this delusional.
lol, what? Then you don't know him. Doesn't surprise me that a glowie would make claims about someone he doesn't know anything about.
The only person glowing here is you
It sure seems to me to advocate violence against the FBI.
So you are saying that calling someone hitler is advocating violence against them? This should be entertaining
Yes, if your post had used the Hitler example to justify violence against the FBI, would be no different.
So saying the fbi is hitler is advocating violence?
Saying "don't use violence against Hitler" in response to the FBI saying "don't use violence against FBI agents" most certainly is.
You'd have to be a retard to think that lmao
LOL! If this is glowposting then your support of abortion is genocide posting. Ban yourself faggot.
I can't ban anyone. But you're being retarded as usual. Even if abortion were 'genocide', the point is that it is legal, and that posting in its favor is not going to endanger the existence of this forum.
You, on the other hand, are actively agitating for violence, which is why you are a glowie.
It’s not violence if it’s legal somewhere! Can you tell me how this sub is “endangered”. Whose the big scary you fear faggot. This isn’t Reddit.
This is so tediously stupid. I compared the FBI to redcoats and that is agitating violence? The FBI’s own actions agitated violence. That somehow makes it my fault for calling it out?
How would you rewrite rule 2 to make its application more fair and protect the forum? (with the restriction that you can't just remove it)
Don’t break the law. Pretty fucking simple.
That's already rule one. Don't you think there needs to be something specifically for glowposts that are trying to egg people on, which could be used as evidence that this place is fomenting violent revolution or mass shootings? Such speech may not be illegal, but may get us shut down.
I am not agreeing that your banned post was a violation of rule 2 either, but I get his reasoning.
There's also some stuff that does not violate 'the law' but still attracts negative attention from law enforcement and others.
It's hosted in the US, so it's American laws that matter.
Besides, I'm not calling for violation of abortion laws. I'm saying that it should be legal. You're also free to call for revolution to be made legal, while not calling for illegal revolutionary actions.
We still have registrars and hosters. Did you completely miss that ConsumeProduct was taken down? What do you think will happen if you call for violence and mayhem, as you do, besides getting the attention of the feds?
Sounded like that to me, but I'll take your word for it if you say it wasn't.
Since most people believe that "violence against redcoats" was justified, I think the reasonable reading of your post is that it's also justified against the FBI.
Whether or not it is, it's counterproductive at the moment, and calling for it most certainly is counterproductive.
You mean the reason we have the 4 amendment? Which anyone with a small knowledge of American history would know. Btw the same advocator of “violence” John Adams defended the redcoats in court.
What’s counter productive is pretending forced self censorship is the solution
Yes, and during your little 'Revolution'?
You want to be able to freely incite violence? Then you should go away from here.
Well I happen to live in Saudi Arabia, where the state considers faggotry a crime to be punished by death.
By your logic I get a free pass on calling for the systematic killing of faggots and trannies then.
If glowposting upsets someone then they should head back to reddit where they fucking belong.
No deal. If you want to glowpost, then you get out. Sounds much better.
What is the point of this place if you impose the same bullshit rules as reddit?
Just go back to reddit Tony. There's no reason for you to be here. Reddit already provides the environment you're after.
You thought this place exist so you can glow and incite violence?
That's not why we created it.
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction5
Would they allow me to discuss solutions to the tranny problem there?
If they were as blaise as what OP got dinged for I doubt youd ever have an issue. Idk where they would draw the line.
Dom knows two states of existence.
Being a massive faggot mod, or chewing on dried foreskin.
Bad-jacketing is "the practice of creating suspicion—through the spreading of rumors, manufacturing of evidence, etc.—which allude to bona fide key organizational members as being either FBI/police informers, or guilty of offenses such as skimming organization funds."[1] Scholar Mark Anthony Neal writes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under J. Edgar Hoover used the technique against the Black Panther Party (BPP) and other Black Power organizations as part of its COINTELPRO operations.[1] Neal writes that this technique was effective in isolating key individuals, forcing them out of the organization, and that its effectiveness was enhanced by the tendency of Black Power activists to divide among "rigid racial, ideological, and increasingly gendered" lines.[1] The practice was notably used by the FBI informants to create a climate of suspicion within the Black Panther Party[2] and American Indian Movement (AIM),[3] which resulted in the murder of a number of AIM activists that had been subjected to bad-jacketing, including Pedro Bissonette,[4] Byron DeSersa[5] and Anna Mae Aquash.[6]