I hope it wasnтАЩt. Yes, the comments were on the aggressive side and, I agree, obnoxious. When it was suggested to that individual that they be less abrasive though, they conceded that was a valid point. Unless the desire is for this site to be an echo chamber with no dissent allowed, there was nothing just from yesterdayтАЩs posts that was ban-able for a first offense imo. There should certainly be room for discussion about if COVID restrictions went too far, albeit in a much more polite way. But since the comments are still there, unlike those from this thread, IтАЩm thinking it is not the same person.
ItтАЩs not helpful if folks speculate about moderation decisions. ItтАЩs not possible for us to discuss them, so it just risks creating a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding.
That said, weтАЩve provided objective information about elections for more than twenty years, so any suggestion that we are interested in creating an тАЬecho chamberтАЭ is baseless.
Sure you can discuss moderation decisions, itтАЩs your site your rules. In fact IтАЩd argue itтАЩs your duty to do so, especially on the Discord channel where you are asking people to pay for access. Thinking back to the two folks who were banned on DKE within the past several years I definitely remember a statement regarding the banning of the last one (deadpool?) and think there were comments about the first one as well basically saying that the ban was due to repeated offenses and there were multiple ignored warnings.
I frequently found the moderation on DKE heavy handed and uneven and spoke out on occasion when I felt appropriate because I believe it was allowed. If it is not on here then I will absolutely stop.
And there absolutely is a factor of group think here. There have been several instances where someone posts something factually incorrect and it is liked by and agreed to by others just because it fits their pre-defined narrative. IтАЩve been guilty of it myself.
Yes, it's always possible for groupthink to emerge in any setting. But that's not what you said. You said.
"Unless the desire is for this site to be an echo chamber with no dissent allowed"
The notion that this is the kind of site we want is absurd on its face.
As for our moderation decisions, I don't mind people bringing them up or even criticizing us. What is problematic, though, is when people speculate about why certain decisions have been made. Yes, in very broad terms, we can address moderation decisions, but we can reveal very little because pulling away the curtain will just teach trolls and others who wish to harm this community how to evade us.
I recall one of the situations you're referring to and I found that particularly frustrating because one personтАФwith no basisтАФstarted a thread saying a user had been banned *for their views*. This was not at all the case, and I was forced to correct the record because the speculation got really out of hand. I'd really prefer not to have to do that sort of thing ever again.
As I've said many a time, I have to ask people to put their trust in us. We've been doing this a very long time, and a lot of people like it here. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better community. We'll never be perfect, but there's no such thing as perfect anyway when it comes to humans. So I think we have a strong track record that should have earned us the benefit of the doubt.
I am going to upgrade to a paid subscription here(so I guess that will put me on Discord??)
You have chosen... wisely.
If you post that same thing repeatedly, I'm sure you will be blocked if you haven't been already.
I assume this was the antimask guy from yesterday. TBH, I'm surprised he made it through the day. Obnoxious.
I hope it wasnтАЩt. Yes, the comments were on the aggressive side and, I agree, obnoxious. When it was suggested to that individual that they be less abrasive though, they conceded that was a valid point. Unless the desire is for this site to be an echo chamber with no dissent allowed, there was nothing just from yesterdayтАЩs posts that was ban-able for a first offense imo. There should certainly be room for discussion about if COVID restrictions went too far, albeit in a much more polite way. But since the comments are still there, unlike those from this thread, IтАЩm thinking it is not the same person.
ItтАЩs not helpful if folks speculate about moderation decisions. ItтАЩs not possible for us to discuss them, so it just risks creating a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding.
That said, weтАЩve provided objective information about elections for more than twenty years, so any suggestion that we are interested in creating an тАЬecho chamberтАЭ is baseless.
Sure you can discuss moderation decisions, itтАЩs your site your rules. In fact IтАЩd argue itтАЩs your duty to do so, especially on the Discord channel where you are asking people to pay for access. Thinking back to the two folks who were banned on DKE within the past several years I definitely remember a statement regarding the banning of the last one (deadpool?) and think there were comments about the first one as well basically saying that the ban was due to repeated offenses and there were multiple ignored warnings.
I frequently found the moderation on DKE heavy handed and uneven and spoke out on occasion when I felt appropriate because I believe it was allowed. If it is not on here then I will absolutely stop.
And there absolutely is a factor of group think here. There have been several instances where someone posts something factually incorrect and it is liked by and agreed to by others just because it fits their pre-defined narrative. IтАЩve been guilty of it myself.
Yes, it's always possible for groupthink to emerge in any setting. But that's not what you said. You said.
"Unless the desire is for this site to be an echo chamber with no dissent allowed"
The notion that this is the kind of site we want is absurd on its face.
As for our moderation decisions, I don't mind people bringing them up or even criticizing us. What is problematic, though, is when people speculate about why certain decisions have been made. Yes, in very broad terms, we can address moderation decisions, but we can reveal very little because pulling away the curtain will just teach trolls and others who wish to harm this community how to evade us.
I recall one of the situations you're referring to and I found that particularly frustrating because one personтАФwith no basisтАФstarted a thread saying a user had been banned *for their views*. This was not at all the case, and I was forced to correct the record because the speculation got really out of hand. I'd really prefer not to have to do that sort of thing ever again.
As I've said many a time, I have to ask people to put their trust in us. We've been doing this a very long time, and a lot of people like it here. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better community. We'll never be perfect, but there's no such thing as perfect anyway when it comes to humans. So I think we have a strong track record that should have earned us the benefit of the doubt.
I agree, and as someone who has been a moderator or admin on various sites over the years, I definitely sympathize.
I thought it was, but I couldn't place his personal name that he stated.
Yes it sure will!
I will be upgrading after my next poker gameЁЯСН
I hope you crush your opponents!
Planning on thatЁЯСН
And then afterwards, I guess I will have to learn this Discord stuff????