What happened?

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

How many times have you been banned for calling someone a racist?

That I cannot answer not many times but I only call someone a racist when they are suggesting racist things. I could be wrong but I believe that may have been my first time.

 

[PhilFish]

That I cannot answer not many times but I only call someone a racist when they are suggesting racist things. I could be wrong but I believe that may have been my first time.

Ok. So how is one... abusive

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Ok. So how is one... abusive

Isn't it abusive when you actually didn't directly call someone a racist and get banned for it?
Again I don't call anyone racist unless they suggest racist things.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

Huh?

Yes. Thinker was banned for ratings abuse. Maybe thinker ought not abuse ratings.

?

Huh what?

You just posted this....

"And if your discomforted by some unseen person on a political website giving you a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down a , or some other rating, then maybe you're the one with the problem and all to have that looked at"

You just said that if the ratings bother a forum member that said forum member should basically ignore them and toughen up or they have a problem of some type.

But instead of giving that same advice to someone who reports ratings "abuse" you're banning those whom you perceive to be the offending party.

You don't think that you and SW are sending mixed signals?

 

[Dawg]

ching. winner.



ps. on a sunday at 5pm? how many were expected to be on.

"ching"...……..another dislike from nw for wishing Dolly Happy Thanksgiving!

"ching" is correct

 

[Dawg]

Both "sides" (sad that we have sides in the USA) are pm'ing me saying their side is unfairly moderated.

One "side" it appears has decided not to post anymore.

Fact is, both sides are moderated equally, its just there are so many posts that hundreds of posts a day go unmoderated, giving the view from each side that their side is moderated differently when in fact we just don't have the man power to moderate everything. And the users made the rules and agreed to the rules in a chat a few weeks ago and were reminded then that the moderation is very similar to speeding tickets. If you speed you may get temp banned.

I don't think it's actually unfairly moderated, BUT, when I get banned for calling someone a fag and I'm called a "d***sucker" and Mod deleted post after reported and nothing was done to 4/15...…………….there's where the speeding confuses members.

(lmao, another dislike from the rating abuser, but, it knows he will not be banned for abusing down ratings) no wonder Topix investors lost their investments

 

[Dawg]

Huh what?

You just posted this....

"And if your discomforted by some unseen person on a political website giving you a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down a , or some other rating, then maybe you're the one with the problem and all to have that looked at"

You just said that if the ratings bother a forum member that said forum member should basically ignore them and toughen up or they have a problem of some type.

But instead of giving that same advice to someone who reports ratings "abuse" you're banning whom you perceive to be the offending party.

You don't think that you and SW are sending mixed signals?

No one down rates now like 'youcanthandledatruth'...……..he down rates EVERY non-libs post...…………...now_what also and bear claw and when called on it now_what goes back and removes dislikes and then post don't break the rules...…...I proved to him in this thread he name calls while advising member to not name call...…….."derp"=stupid/foolish

LMFAO...…..the lil' don't break the rules dislikes again...……….do continue proving you're the typical ahole liberal...……...now lets see how many dislikes disappear from my alerts

 

[Bear Claw]

No one down rates now like 'youcanthandledatruth'...……..he down rates EVERY non-libs post...…………...now_what also and bear claw and when called on it now_what goes back and removes dislikes and then post don't break the rules...…...I proved to him in this thread he name calls while advising member to not name call...…….."derp"=stupid/foolish

LMAO


You really have issues to deal with.

Please seek help and medical care!

SERIOUSLY!!

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

No one down rates now like 'youcanthandledatruth'...……..he down rates EVERY non-libs post...…………...now_what also and bear claw and when called on it now_what goes back and removes dislikes and then post don't break the rules...…...I proved to him in this thread he name calls while advising member to not name call...…….."derp"=stupid/foolish

Yep.

Everything you said.

 

[Dawg]

Once again. For everybody to digest. It is roughly the same four, sometimes 5, sometimes 6 posters from both sides that are banned repeatedly, and consistently because of their behaviors not the moderators were the administrators behaviors.

Not a plot. Not a left vs right. Not a right vs left.

The same posters with the same behaviors.

That is who is ruining it for all the other posters.

Everything else is of fiction, made up by each side against the other.

Meanwhile the site continues to average between 600 and 700 posts a day, day in and day out, month-over-month, year after year.

I'm glad Dolly started this thread...…...it's time members and admin had an Open conversation and the 5 or 6 due to those that can't beat them Report and the 5 or 6 don't unless called a "d***sucker"...………(impeachment hearing same deal)

If the 5 or 6 are ruining it for other posters, why are there 600/700 post a day and how many post when the bad 5 or 6 are banned?

I assume after 8 years I'm one of the 5 or 6 posted of, but, I am what I am...……..and I'm not Popeye.

 

[Dawg]

And if your discomforted by some unseen person on a political website giving you a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down a , or some other rating, then maybe you're the one with the problem and all to have that looked at

Negative, up or down is not a problem, 20/30/60 in a row is the problem...…………..alerts full of only dislikes and if you ignore them you don't see their post but they see yours and play the same dislike game.

 

[Dawg]

Huh?

Yes. Thinker was banned for ratings abuse. Maybe thinker ought not abuse ratings.

?

How about youcanthandledatruth………...no one abuses ratings to non-libs as it does?

 

[Dawg]

Transparency evidently ended posting to thread...………..not surprised

 

[PhilFish]

Huh what?

You just posted this....

"And if your discomforted by some unseen person on a political website giving you a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down a , or some other rating, then maybe you're the one with the problem and all to have that looked at"

You just said that if the ratings bother a forum member that said forum member should basically ignore them and toughen up or they have a problem of some type.

But instead of giving that same advice to someone who reports ratings "abuse" you're banning those whom you perceive to be the offending party.

You don't think that you and SW are sending mixed signals?

Hmm.. no. He was actually doing it real time... On and on...on top of the previously reported

What's the issue...are you he?

 

[Dawg]

Hmm.. no. He was actually doing it real time... On and on...on top of the previously reported

What's the issue...are you he?

You have the IP's....is he he?

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

Hmm.. no. He was actually doing it real time... On and on...on top of the previously reported

What's the issue...are you he?

Ummm.....no. I am not he.

I am just pointing out the fact SW is banning people for ratings abuse and you're telling people to toughen up and ignore them while saying if the down ratings bother you then you might have a problem.

Again my point is you two are sending mixed signals.

 

[PhilFish]

Ummm.....no. I am not he.

I am just pointing out the fact SW is banning people for ratings abuse and you're telling people to toughen up and ignore them while saying if the down ratings bother you then you might have a problem.

Again my point is you two are sending mixed signals.

yeah, i can see where you could see that.

what i was referring to was a real time back and forth between the persons involved.. literally flaming the reports box and the posts with their silliness.

i maybe should have said that earlier.

meanwhile, the ratings abuse by the person in question is a violation of the rules.

 

[Dolly]

Um, I didn't mean to start a fight. I'm sorry.

 

[Bear Claw]

Um, I didn't mean to start a fight. I'm sorry.

Fear not. It is just the repukes here out of control as usual!!

Normal day for them.

Enjoy Thanksgiving.

BC

 

[PhilFish]

Um, I didn't mean to start a fight. I'm sorry.

no fight.

there's just the usual invective being thrown about... like the post immediately following yours.


deliberate stuff like that