She was out there doing shit and risking her life, when she had children though. That much is true.
Like Lauren's tweet says, even if she hadn't been killed, she could have been arrested and taken from her children. She chose that. Whether or not she panicked before she was killed is not relevant to the argument Lauren is making.
This woman failed her family, intentionally. She prioritized either Somalis or virtue points over the good of her own family. That's a fact.
A bit of a mix, I guess?
Not quite sure myself. He was active for a bit, then wasn't, then got married which pissed off the leftists, so he's a bit more relevant again.
Not quite sure what he's aiming for. I wish him the best, I like the dude, and he certainly did nothing wrong, but he never struck me as the brightest bulb, in general. He can't seem to pick between privacy and shitposting off his name. If he wanted to ride the Rittenhouse fame, he should have committed. If he didn't, he shouldn't be shitposting on Twitter. Eh, not my life, not my problem. He has to figure that stuff out for himself.
You're stupid to think that we moved to this country [because we love it].
Don't worry, retard, no one but fellow retards think that.
Immigration could largely be fixed by not paying you.
Of course you don't love America.
#DeportALL
When you're right, you're right. DEPORT.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm going to be extremely hesitant to dish out a permaban, outside of obvious brigaders who were never a part of the community.
People have brought up Ableist a few times already, so I'll use that as an example. He called for the rape and murder of Muslims today, and I merely verbally warned him, told him not to do that again. No enforcement against him or his thread. If he does it again, I still won't even be timing him out. Merely removing the thread and warning him again. If he can't stop, we'll have to take it from there, but I certainly won't be jumping to a permaban.
I hope to never have to ban anyone. Outside of the brigaders, as mentioned. The point is to keep the community running smoothly. I'm not looking to exclude anyone but the worst of the worst, who are actively shitting up the place. None of the regulars qualify for that.
Absolutely, that would be awesome.
I'm also under the impression that it happened first, but I've argued with leftists that said the video was reversed or something...and since I couldn't find the video, I can't say for sure either way.
But my impression at the time was also that he was attacked first, panicked, and drove forward into another car.
Yup. Like I said, definitely overcharged. Does not deserve that in the slightest.
If he did do wrong, and it wasn't panic/self defense, he should still be charges in line with other similar incidents.
It was absolutely political, even if he were definitely a murderer.
Rule of law means nothing, if it's not applied equally.
I think this is where the good faith of the moderators comes into play.
As I said in the first rules thread, sadly, it's an unavoidable fact.
Just like with any political system. Democracy? Republicanism? Monarchy? Even socialism or communism. It all comes down to how the people wielding the power want to behave.
Thankfully, I do think we've got a good bunch here, but we should still try to set up a rule system where, if we were to abuse our power, it would be blatant and enraging, so the angry masses could proverbially cut our heads off.
It will always come down to the mod team, but we should still make the rules as clear as possible, to hold the mods accountable if nothing else.
Someone stepping over the line is different from someone sprinting past it and the tempered response we've seen so far is encouraging.
Thanks, appreciate it, and that's exactly how I feel. I don't want to have to do anything to the steppers outside of a verbal warning, if they do be steppin'. My main goal is to stop the sprinters; outsiders who are here for bad purposes, and aren't members of the community. In the past, due to lax moderation, they have been given free reign for a while, before they were banned, letting them do much more damage than they should have. Stopping that has always been my primary intent.
Whatever the final rules end up being I think it'll still hinge on you guys being good faith actors at the end of the day if we want any of it to work.
100%. Just how things work, for better or worse.
And, when that happens, I will have to time him out. I don't want to, but if he can't help himself, I will.
I'm happy to be soft on a lot of the other stuff, as I've said, but that sort of threat to other users here is just super uncalled for, and super disruptive. And he's been warned for it before, numerous times.
I just don't want to see outsiders like Bluestorm shitting up the board for months on end again.
As long as I live and breath, you won't see that repeat.
As I've said, shit like that (Bluestorm, Imp alts, pedo jeet, gore jeet, porn jeet, incel jeet, etc.), is the main reason I was interested in mod status at all.
I'd rather fucking not bother. But I like the community, and want to protect it. That's it.
It does a seem a little contradictory with BandageBandolier's approach which is why I'm bringing it up.
Yup. Thankfully, I think we're all pretty restrained, but it certainly is interesting adding six new mods at the same time, who have no connection with each other outside of all being members here. I don't foresee any clashes of personality, but we will have to all decide how we want to handle these things.
I think Ableist's thread was clearly violative, so I see no problem removing similar ones in the future, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Thus, the warning. If he (or others, not trying to single him out) can't moderate their approach, that's on them.
I'm not after anyone and, just to be clear, even if it did happen again, I'm not even timing him out. Just removing the thread, and giving another warning. He'd be immediately welcome to repost with a nonviolent title. I'm not looking to declare war on anyone here, and want to be as hands off as possible.
The Alex Fields thing is a bit complicated. He was definitely overcharged, and doesn't deserve his current situation.
There was also a ton of misinformation from both sides, so it's hard for me to unequivocally declare him completely innocent, either. I simply don't know.
I think the fact that he mainly hit another car, and not the crowd, is a bit mark in his favor. He's either an incredibly incompetent terrorist, or not a terrorist.
His car was definitely attacked, but a lot of the videos have been removed, so it's hard to say if it was attacked before or after the incident. I'm thinking before, but you could definitely make the counterargument too.
Lastly, and most importantly perhaps, he was definitely threatened previously. A leftist professor or TA (forget which) bragged openly about waving a rifle in his face before the incident. So Alex Fields definitely had a fucking gun pointed at him some time before he sped into the car/crowd.
Sure, add back in the 'psycho' bit. Seems like a solid middle ground.
Yeah I'll be honest, I don't really know where I stand on Ableist's post. Lol.
I think it was definitely violative. If I wanted to come down heavy, I could definitely justify removing it. And, as I said, I would remove it going forward, if he wanted to keep posting that sort of thing.
The "don't be a fag" clause will require a lot of good faith on the part of the mods
I already ruined and/or fixed that. Sorry and/or you're welcome.
I'm really happy with how this is turning out.
Appreciate it! I hope to be able to both improve things and, more importantly, keep things running smoothly.
My only suggestion is more clarity on where the line in drawn for the new rule 1. Ableist's latest post illustrates the problem.
Personally, I just warned him, as I don't like censorship...but I'd remove the thread if it happened again. That shit just isn't productive, and is dangerous to the site if someone took notice...which they probably won't, to be fair. But it's still not a good idea.
That's likely going to be my approach in general, at least to regular users; warnings, but no action, but then removal of violative content if behavior continues and, hopefully, not having to even reach the point of time outs.
But, yeah, can't say I was a fan of that titling of that.
As I said in the other thread, before I saw you created a new one:
Sorry to nitpick, but new R2 is both too vague and too vulgar. As funny as "don't be a fag" is, it's not really the tone I personally would like to go for.
Other than that, it's looking good. We trimmed a lot of the fat, while still keeping the necessary stuff.
Sorry to nitpick, but new R2 is both too vague and too vulgar. As funny as "don't be a fag" is, it's not really the tone I personally would like to go for.
Other than that, it's looking good. We trimmed a lot of the fat, while still keeping the necessary stuff.
In-thread stickies still aren't working. So, if you want attention, you may want to do a 'proposed rules phase 1' new thread or similar.
First thing that springs to mind regarding "illegal violence" is it could actually be less clear, as opposed to more. Maybe something like "legally unclear violence," although that's getting wordy.
But, with "illegal violence," I could say something like "you should be shot in the head," and, if called out, say that I meant by a firing squad after being found guilty, or similar. It's easy to modify 'legal violence' into a threat. Although that would still be a R2 violation, so I suppose it's covered. Still, something to be careful of.
I get what you're going for with R3, but it's a little verbose and unwieldy. And already largely covered by R2. In my opinion should either be reworded or removed.
Other than that, looks good!
One potential addition I thought of, some notification that new arrivals are on probation, and will be held to a higher standard. Gives us a bit of wiggle room to smack a bitch, while still keeping us accountable to the regulars. Something like "New arrivals are expected to behave in good faith." I hate good faith rules, but if it's specific to new people, I think it would be fine.
the only interactions this user has here are posting this weird stuff and antagonising regulars.
Yup. He's also essentially threatened people, you could definitely ding him for that if you wanted.
I suppose going forward we could have a 'don't be an obvious shitbird, if you're not a regular here' sort of rule. That might be a good way to go; a nice medium between tight filters that stifle growth, and open borders. You don't get full rights till you've been here a while.
I'll leave this particular case up to you, but I don't think anyone would mind if you "briganded" the dude. Like I said, he's not an actual user here, and is clearly not operating in good faith.
Not personally, no. Seems like like a ton of work.