Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
I realize that "Trust us, we know this guy is a troll" is not very satisfying. What if we're wrong? What if we are capriciously banning people on impulse? So we try to let people know that we have reasons (and reasoning) for our actions, but like I said, too much detail, or linking to his last few alts, would be telling him something about our pattern-matching.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
Well, we usually don't go into too much detail- no point in giving them tips to avoid identification. But there are several active whom we see regularly.
I think a lot of it is driven by ego. "Curse those Motte mods, how could they clock a superior genius like myself? How dare they ban me? I will prove I am smarter!"
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
If you would like to appeal to the other mods, next time I will let them address your reports (assuming you don't leave - this is, what, your fourth or fifth flounce now?) Perhaps they will agree with you that I have failed to mod both you and the people you are arguing with properly. But I note you are already talking to other mods besides me. Perhaps some introspection would be good for everyone.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
Banned for one week. You seem to be on an unfavorable trajectory.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
Yeah, dude, you're being way too casual and too flippant.
I consider myself chided. And in all seriousness, I apologize that my humor offended you. But you seem pretty humorless, and you were getting into it with other people, and you are getting upset that you get back what you dish out, and if you were being perfectly civil and polite and trying to express yourself without the sneering and the quips, but people kept being mean to you, I would probably mod them, but you can't verbally spar and poke people and then come crying to the mods that someone made a 4chan joke at you.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
Don't know who you were originally, but this is the kind of comment I read the Motte for.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
Can you tell me which states (not individual teachers or schools, but states, as a matter of state policy) taught that the Earth was 6000 years old and dinosaurs are fake, and which ones taught that vaccines are evil?
Tennessee's Butler Act, which was the instigation for the Scopes Monkey Trial, made it illegal to teach evolution or to contradict the Biblical origin story, but even among creationists, Young Earth Creationism is a minority view (maybe not in 1925; I don't know) and I don't think even 1925 creationists claimed that dinosaurs were fake.
Also, can you point to evidence that creationists are, on average, less intelligent than atheists?
Here's the thing: I see your point and somewhat agree with it (national standards for education are probably a good thing), but when you phrase it with this kind of sneering millenium-era atheism, you don't seem to be making an argument, just looking for a chance to demonstrate iamverysmart.
And relevant to our discussion elsewhere, if I really wanted to I could mod this comment as "inflammatory claim without evidence" or "boo outgroup." Which I'm not going to do, despite all the reports and downvotes it got, because I don't think it really is, it's just making your argument in an unpleasant and sneering way. But do you perhaps begin to perceive why we have to make judgment calls about modding posts? You want to make people upset and express your contempt for your outgroup, but you'd undoubtedly find it very unfair and mean if I modded you for this comment.
I am an atheist and I think creationism is stupid, btw. So none of this is coming from a place of personal bias.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
Like, you made a joke that I didn't really get because I'm not online enough and I don't play Elden Ring. @Listening responded with a crack that I sorta got (I mean, I know what 4chan is) and then another that I didn't at all and neither did @netstack ("Crystal Cafe"? Wut? Okay, I know what femcels are, but...)
Am I being too casual here? Am I being too flippant? Should I start rapping my ruler on your desks? Do you want to be free to banter, except then everyone must be very srs bzness when you decide you are offended? We have only a few dials to adjust rules enforcement, and it always boils down to trying to land somewhere between "too much" and "too little." We could smack every single person who makes a post that's just a little bit hostile, a little bit aggressive, or a little bit lazy. Or we could back way off and let people call each other Nazis and shitlibs.
Generally, we try to step in when necessary as a corrective ("No, you can't keep posting like that") or when things are getting too heated. Something that's very clearly breaking the rules will be modded. Calling you names, directly insulting you, etc. Last time you got upset because @Hoffmeister25 said you're "not a serious person" which was, technically a personal insult but less so than the things I've let pass that were said directly to me. He shouldn't have said it, but when you get into the tussle you have to accept a few bruises. (I just got off the mat, some kid landed on my toe and another guy elbowed me in the face. I have owies. That's not supposed to happen and technically you can be penalized for it. It happens all the time and only wusses whine about it.)
Until you started whining (yes, I use that word purposefully, is my comparison too subtle here?) about other people not being modded, I would have rolled my eyes at this entire exchange as an instance of online banter that seems dumb and harmless to me. You are being reported, as usual, for performative offense-taking. Which is not technically against the rules but damn is it annoying. Yes, if someone calls you names they will be modded. If someone makes a crack about you being too online and 4chanified, maybe you should just suck it up because if we have to dial the knobs up, we will dial them up on everyone.
Remember last time, when I told you I would like you stay around? I still think that! Despite all the people insisting you are a performative troll and probably not even a woman. (I still think you are for real, and my trolldar is pretty good, though certainly not 100%.) But, pay attention and take me seriously: toughen up, sweetheart.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
I do not understand the mental illness that drives such persistent and pointless trolling.
We had an eye on you from the beginning, but the antiphrasis is a dead giveaway. You were about 8% subtler this time. I guess if you keep refining your technique you might last a bit longer each time, but really, why don't you just find something better to do with your life?
See your next alt in a few days, I guess. Sigh
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Okay. I wasn't sure which way to read your comment, but nonetheless, a low effort "You know what he meant" isn't much better.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
@grognard just got banned for this. Make your meaning clear and plain and do not appeal to an imaginary consensus. You are allowed to argue things like "Everyone with a Hispanic name should be deported," but you actually have to state your argument and make your case, not just handwave at it because you aren't willing to type out what you really mean.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Your first post was low effort culture warring, but "We all know why" is piling consensus-building on top. No, we do not all "know why." We can certainly infer your meaning, but if you wanted to make an argument that anyone with a non-Anglo name is not American and has no right to be here, you should have actually made that argument, not simply asserted it with a "We all know."
Your record is a terrible one of randomly attacking the ethnic group of the day. Whether you are trolling or just a sincere and dedicated ethnonationalist who hates everyone and rotates between targets, you've accumulated half a dozen warnings, two tempbans, and a strong suspicion that you're just another shit-stirring alt.
Two week ban, probably permanent next time.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
11d ago
Don't post low-effort comments whose only purpose is to express disagreement or your low opinion.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
15d ago
Probably not helpful per se, but I'm thinking of the oldish days in which mods were expected to put up with blunt-to-the-point-of-against-the-rules commentary on their decisions as part and parcel of the awesome power they wield.
This is kind of true. In the oldish days, we had an unofficial policy that the rules were not enforced as strictly when people were sounding off against mods. We understood and expected that people would often get pissed off about being modded, and so we'd let people bitch and whine about moderation and even take shots at us and not mod them the way we would if they spoke to another poster the same way.
It got very tiresome, though. People abused the privilege and thought it was open season to dump on us every time they didn't like how a mod ruled. Eventually we said "That's it, you don't get to abuse us just because we're mods."
(I say "us" but I can't actually remember if I was a mod while this policy was still in effect. I think it changed either just before or just after I became a mod.)
I'll tell you frankly: I'd be okay with loosening up and letting people like Steve take his shots at us, but only if y'all would be fine with us not being expected to be impartial and modly in our responses. I am not sure the people who want to give us "blunt feedback" would enjoy our blunt feedback about their conduct and posting history. Every time someone complains about how converged or biased we are, I remember how that complainer wrote a tirade at us which they then deleted, just because they know we can see deleted comments, or dropped hostile DMs on us while they were banned, or wrote an antagonistic report, or keeps making the same claim that we've addressed and refuted multiple times until you are a liar would be an accurate characterization.
I'm not saying I want mod feedback to become petty flamewars, but we are held to a higher standard. You want people to be able to bite our ankles with impunity, but when I (in an admitted deficiency of patience) said bluntly "Stop the ankle-biting. Now" - Oh, that was too hostile?
I get that some people think that letting people blast us is part of a mod's job, and to a large degree it is, but I don't think it's our job to let someone say the same dishonest thing over and over again, as belligerently as possible, and never tell them to knock it off.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
16d ago
I appreciate the feedback. So here's my take, and I will plead with you and @SteveAgain and all the other critics to actually read what I say.
First, regarding @justawoman. You say we ignored "very obvious bait." I told her I did not like the performative "quitting" and that we weren't going to delete her account for her. Beyond that, please be specific: what actions do you think we should have taken? Should I have banned her for that post? Being obnoxious about how you're going to take your toys and go home is cause to be told to leave or stop with the theatrics, which is what I did. When people keep doing the same obnoxious schtick over and over, eventually yes, they will be told they'll get banned if they keep it up. (That's why I modded @SteveAgain; the first time you say "Oh, I see you're letting leftists get away with everything," we'll patiently point out how you are mistaken. The tenth time, we're getting fed up. He was not modded for that sort of ankle-biting the first few times.)
More bluntly, I find the (rather visible) pity/condescension towards leftist unpopular points of view distasteful for a powermod
As an aside, what do you mean by "powermod"? Because the only powermod here is Zorba. If I am more visible, it's just because I am more active, not because I have more authority than any other mod. I suppose de facto that does give me more authority, but I just want to clarify, if you were under the impression that I am "in charge" of modding, that I am not.
As to your point: when I said "doing a good job," I did not mean I find her arguments particularly compelling or convincing. (And as another aside to @justawoman, at the risk of being accused again of being "pitying/condescending," that I'm sorry you're the example under discussion here, it's not meant to call you out.) I meant that she is clearly very woke and very feminist and willing to stand by her opinions despite being dogpiled and downvoted heavily. That takes a certain amount of determination. I am less impressed by the repeated threats to leave because we're such a hive of scum and villainy, but I really do hope she sticks around because some diversity in viewpoints is good. It was not meant to be pitying or condescending. I was being as polite as I can be given that I don't actually agree with her much, and that as you have demonstrated, any expression of personal opinion by a mod is given disproportionate weight.
As I understand you're trying to keep it balanced as all things should be or something, but this is exactly how you get the affirmative action accusations.
This isn't entirely correct. We aren't trying to keep it "balanced," we're trying to keep it fair. @justawoman has in fact been warned (with mod hat!) several times. She is not getting extra slack for being a leftist. Was I maybe a little nicer to her than I would be to a rightist throwing a temper tantrum? Possibly, but rightists who throw temper tantrums usually do so because they really want to hate on their enemies and they're pissed off that we don't just let them do that. I plead guilty as charged to being less sympathetic to that.
The second instance here is, well... I won't deny that @jeroboam's post is against the rules, but considering that he was rather obviously baited in a much less subtle way (really, argumentum ad Hitlerum in current_year?), I think a "proper" modhat warning would've more than sufficed, especially seeing as the bait itself remains unnoticed.
So with regard to @upsidedownmotter - as I said, he has been warned about his behavior. But as for that specific post? My personal opinion is that:
The right-wing rehabilitation of South Africa bears a resemblance to the rehabilitation of Hitler among some on the right.
is not exactly a detailed or high quality argument, but other than disagreeing with it (and/or being pissed off that you disagree) what rule do you think is broken? He added all the caveats we expect people to add when they want to make an assertion about their outgroup. Argumentum ad Hitlerum is obnoxious, you're right! But it is not in itself against the rules. If you think comparing rehabilitation of South Africa and apartheid to rehabilitation of Hitler is a bad argument, that is what the Motte is for: to advance (potentially bad) arguments and be tested against those who disagree. I am not being rhetorical: on what grounds do you think that argument should be prohibited? We do not prohibit bad arguments!
Notably, both posts were downvoted to hell - I hesitate to point this out, seeing as nobody likes getting dogpiled and updoot total isn't a very reliable metric (certainly a very gameable one), plus as you note downthread we're not a democracy so by itself this means jack shit. Still, it might serve as a very rough approximation of community reception when/if you ponder if it really is the children who are wrong.
Being downvoted to hell is a good indicator that a post presents an argument badly. It is less of a good indicator that it's a post that breaks the rules. A lot of people really don't seem to understand that crappy arguments are not inherently against the rules, and that failure to mod someone for them does not mean the mods agree with them.
For example: "Trans women are women!" is a post that would almost certainly draw a lot of reports for "Inflammatory claim without evidence" or "Consensus-building." But it is not actually against the rules for someone to assert that if that's what they believe. If you posted it as a one-liner, I'd probably warn you that it's low effort and you actually need to make an argument, not just assert things. But saying something that is very unpopular, pisses people off, (and that I personally disagree with) is not against the rules.
To repeat the obvious, which I have futilely pointed out many times: when someone posts a bad argument, and you reply with a personal attack against the poster and I mod you, that does not mean I agree with the OP or think their argument was good! It means that someone writing a bad argument does not mean the rules don't apply to responses.
This is why, incidentally, we have people regularly posting about how the Holocaust is a hoax and everything is the fault of Jews and not getting banned. Despite being reported a lot. Sometimes they get modded when they become too heated or get too broad in their generalizations about Jews- and we get criticisms that we're just protecting Jews and trying to ban wrongthink. I recently went back and forth with @DecaDeciHuman about this. He repeatedly claimed that we have banned "certain viewpoints" but won't tell us what those viewpoints are.
Can you see how exchanges like this, or attacks by the likes of @SteveAgain, who ignores every time I respond to him at length as I am doing with you now, make me more skeptical of people who earnestly insist that they really believe we (or I) are biased and not actually listening to feedback?
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
16d ago
I don't take pride in being broadly disliked, I just accept that a small number of people have big emotions.
You speak of "getting through to me" - assuming I actually took seriously the notion that you want to engage in good faith and have a real conversation, have you ever considered, even for a moment, that you might be wrong about something? I mean, I briefly thought that was possible, when I called you out on a false accusation and you admitted it and apologized! "Wow, maybe he's actually calming down and trying be reasonable," I thought. But no, the very next day you were back to the same behavior and the same accusations.
I've just typed more words than I swore I was ever going to waste again with you, because I can't quite let go of mistake theory. I'm actually a very forgiving person - probably too forgiving. I hold out endless hope that our worst posters might someday chill out. But the fact is, yes, a number of people (and you are definitely one of them) just want us to let their side spew unfiltered rage and hate without moderation, ban anyone on the "other" side, and get very unhappy when we won't do that. Most of the criticisms you refer to are along those lines. "Look at how many downvotes you got for telling someone to stop boo-posting! Obviously the community supports boo-posting!"
We have always factored community sentiment into moderation, but you don't speak for the community, nor does "community sentiment" mean it's a democracy. So yes, I can take being hated by people like you. But if you ever decide you want to talk like a human being, let me know.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
16d ago
There's a difference between blunt feedback and ankle biting. If you want to question or criticize a mod decision that is of course allowed, but posting things like "What" or whining that we don't ban leftists and claiming we practice "affirmative action" is something Steve does constantly and has been told to stop. Just as we almost never mod people for reports, even people who constantly write spurious reports, but we had to tell him to stop writing reports calling people subhuman and talking about how leftists deserve to die. If you make it your goal to abuse the system and annoy us, yes, we're going to tell you to stop.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
17d ago
He's been warned to stop deleting posts or he'll be banned.
And you've been warned to stop goading mods and making things up. The last few times we've let pass, but the ankle-biting will stop. Now.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
18d ago
It seems like I’m getting reported for having an opinion people don’t like, not for breaking the rules
Unfortunately, yes. We ask people not to do this, but they do. For what it's worth, it's obvious when (and who) does this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
19d ago
When you aren't getting in snark fights with people you do a good job of representing a point of view that is rare here. It is a very unpopular point of view, so yes, people are going to be mean, and they are going to downvote you. There is only so much we can do about meanness. Personal attacks are not okay, but being edgy and condescending, rude but not quite attacking? It's a judgement call, which means some of the unkind things you think should be modded won't be.
I assure you, you are getting reported a lot and you can take satisfaction in the knowledge that we're not going to ban you just because some people really want us to ban you.
That said, a common failure mode of leftist posters here is to get in lots of fights, get reported constantly, and eventually lose their cool. We won't give you any special consideration or passes, even if you are being dogpiled. So, that's just how it is.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
19d ago
It is not. This isn't the place for starting discussions if you have "privacy" concerns that require you to almost immediately delete everything you post. If you keep doing it you will be banned.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
19d ago
I don't recall you actually reporting any of those comments. It's rather unfair to accuse us of not meeting you in good faith when you prefer to complain in public.
Generally speaking we don't jump on every petty snipe. Calling you a "deeply unserious person" isn't very nice ( @Hoffmeister25 consider yourself chided) but you've been kind of snippy too.
Look, stay or do not stay, but you know what irritates me personally? Someone who keeps going on performatively about how they're leaving, but sticks around to keep fighting.
Fwiw I would rather you stayed, but you cannot decide you're here to poke people with sticks and then whine that you get poked back.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
20d ago
Pretty sure she set her own account to private. If Zorba actually deleted her content, I was not aware of it, or I've forgotten.
Is it? I guess you're right, it does depend on how broadly you define creationism. (Some Christians say they believe evolution happened but God guided it, which is close to intelligent design but not quite, IMO.) But my impression at least from more intellectual and scientifically-educated creationists is that most of them don't necessarily believe the world is literally 6000 years old.
More options
Context Copy link