He does do his best to follow the rules and not be too obnoxious, which is why I have always gone easy on him (in context of moderation). Unfortunately, his best is not very good.
Sometimes you simply have to invoke the "go away you stupid piece of shit" clause even if someone is technically following the rules as they're written but not responding to negative feedback like a normal person.
Users have every right to say that, but moderators do not - and certainly not to enforce it. The whole point of places like this is to allow unpopular views to be heard, even if they annoy other users.
Now, if someone is actively spamming every thread and generally being a nuisance, it's something else - but that should be content-neutral. It shouldn't matter if his position is "puppies are cute" or "women are bad" or "Ivermectin cures Covid".
Moderators absolutely do, and should, simply click the I Win when it's clear you're dealing with a pathological little shithead who isn't affected by the normal immune system that communities have. If they can't be trusted to do that in incredibly obvious cases then you need somebody else to have the button, if your community has too many shit for brains libertarians to understand that then they deserve what they get.
I mean, you just listed a bunch of vague descriptors that would describe 90% of the community here if you asked someone who didn't like us about it.
KIA1 mods said that anyone who criticized moderation was a pathological little shithead just trying to stir trouble. I certainly wouldn't give them an out to just ban any criticism.
He's not doing any harm to the community though. If he were, I'd agree with you that at least he has to be slapped down - because the first rule of anything is self-preservation.
Such idiocy is found everywhere. There was a longtime user of KiA2 who left the subreddit because I, not as moderator but as a user, said that Russia was in the right.
He does do his best to follow the rules and not be too obnoxious, which is why I have always gone easy on him (in context of moderation). Unfortunately, his best is not very good.
He’s so repetitive- are we sure he is human?
Sometimes you simply have to invoke the "go away you stupid piece of shit" clause even if someone is technically following the rules as they're written but not responding to negative feedback like a normal person.
Users have every right to say that, but moderators do not - and certainly not to enforce it. The whole point of places like this is to allow unpopular views to be heard, even if they annoy other users.
Now, if someone is actively spamming every thread and generally being a nuisance, it's something else - but that should be content-neutral. It shouldn't matter if his position is "puppies are cute" or "women are bad" or "Ivermectin cures Covid".
Moderators absolutely do, and should, simply click the I Win when it's clear you're dealing with a pathological little shithead who isn't affected by the normal immune system that communities have. If they can't be trusted to do that in incredibly obvious cases then you need somebody else to have the button, if your community has too many shit for brains libertarians to understand that then they deserve what they get.
I mean, you just listed a bunch of vague descriptors that would describe 90% of the community here if you asked someone who didn't like us about it.
KIA1 mods said that anyone who criticized moderation was a pathological little shithead just trying to stir trouble. I certainly wouldn't give them an out to just ban any criticism.
He's not doing any harm to the community though. If he were, I'd agree with you that at least he has to be slapped down - because the first rule of anything is self-preservation.
Such idiocy is found everywhere. There was a longtime user of KiA2 who left the subreddit because I, not as moderator but as a user, said that Russia was in the right.