This Is A Violation Of Rule 2 According To Our Faggot Mod
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
...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'.
you just incited violence against ConsumeProduct by calling the users nazis. in historical context shooting the nazis was justified and morally good.
That’s not what my post or the article is about, try harder you lying faggot