# Café Location and Moderation Policy discussion



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2016)

Dear Café

It's now been a couple of months since our move to Outskirts of Konoha, and my elevation to modship. So I'd like to open up the discussion on what you think of the location as well as my moderation style, which are both part of the same question.

*Why we moved*

The reason for the move from Downtown Konoha was that the Café under Megaharrison had a very _lasses faire_ moderation style where all kinds of flaming and controversial opinions (e.g. Islamophobia) were permitted. The higher-ups thought that kind of aggressive atmosphere clashed with the rest of Downtown Konoha and might scare newcomers because Downtown was at the time the first section you'd see when logging in.

We can see that *Downtown* currently consists of the Country Club, Fanclubs, and Chucklefudge Woods. *Outskirts* on the other hand consists of the Battledome, Trading Post, Café, Mafia, Roleplaying, and Ad Board.

In other words Downtown is supposed to be for friendly non-manga related discussion, while Outskirts is for various special interests that might be distracting or offensive if placed in another section.

If we want to move back to Downtown we'd have to adopt a more similar moderation style to them, meaning less tolerance of cursing, racism, religionophobia etc. etc.

At the time a lot of us were upset at the move because we thought it was a kind of "punishment", but now that we've cooled down a bit we can maybe see that it's really more about accommodating different discussion styles. So the question is what kind of discussion style we want in the Café?

*Current moderation practice*

My current moderation style is that I try to not allow personal attacks on NF members (or their real-life friends and relatives, which unfortunately is sometimes applicable), but I don't police attacks on abstract groups like races, religions or nationalities; even fairly vulgar ones. I also don't interfere too much with the general "tone" except in extreme cases.

*Matters for discussion*

With that in mind I'd like to know your opinions on how to handle *flaming, attacks on groups (e.g. racism), controversial opinions (e.g. support of dictatorships), trolling, poor tone* and any other matters you can think of that are currently keeping us out of Downtown. You can also voice your concerns with my job performance generally.

_The poll is for advisory purposes only. The mods reserve the right to heed or ignore the outcome as they find appropriate._


----------



## Mider T (Dec 14, 2016)

Noobs post off-topic threads in wrong sections all over the forum, so I'm not sure why you guys keep harping on location.  Move it back to the top, merge all controversial politician threads (Trump central, Duterte central, etc.), enforce threads per day limits, ban people who continously post op-eds as news, post lock people who bait with unreasonable political opinions repeatedly (e.g. I hope the Neo Nazis win, 4th Reich ftw) WITHOUT legitimate explanation.


----------



## Chie (Dec 14, 2016)

Stricter enforcement will just discourage new people from joining. No censorship please.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Disagree 1


----------



## John Wick (Dec 14, 2016)

What mider T basically hit the nail on the head 

Also @mr_shadow clarification on one thing.

criticising stupid practises and policies does not make you racist/bigot correct. 

So like when a certain member calls me a bigot for taking issue with the expulsion of Asians in Uganda or Zimbabwe's treatment of white farmers or the apartheid in south africa it doesn't make me racist towards africans I just dislike deplorable shit. 

Also change teh source policy to prevent stupid overly biased places like brietbart and anti war.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 14, 2016)

Make cafe great again


----------



## Chie (Dec 14, 2016)

VAK said:


> criticising stupid practises and policies does not make you racist/bigot correct.


Just call for non-censorship and you won't have to worry about stupid shit like that.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2016)

VAK said:


> criticising stupid practises and policies does not make you racist/bigot correct.



I'm gonna stop short of answering this question, because it's for the members to decide where they want the line to be drawn. I made the thread so I can listen to your opinions, so I'm going to stay relatively passive and not take sides until I've had a chance to hear from all the regulars.


----------



## Chie (Dec 14, 2016)

I'm going to let you in on a secret. There are two kinds of members:

1. Those who don't want people banned unless they post some really fucked up shit

2. Those who want everyone who disagrees with them banned

Reactions: Agree 3 | Disagree 1


----------



## EJ (Dec 14, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> I'm gonna stop short of answering this question, because it's for the members to decide where they want the line to be drawn. I made the thread so I can listen to your opinions, so I'm going to stay relatively passive and not take sides until I've had a chance to hear from all the regulars.



i don't think people getting caught into a debate and someone making fun of the other user is entirely bad.

example

"Are you stupid? I just pointed out to you that-"

there's nothing wrong with that.

continuously attacking someone's intelligence while not adding into into the argument although should be discouraged and i don't see the issue with a punishment.


----------



## EJ (Dec 14, 2016)

also for the most part there is pretty much only around 3-5 active trolls in this section. if people are idiotic enough to get caught into a large drawn out discussion with them i want to say 'that's on them', but the issue is when the thread itself starts to sink as a result of them.


----------



## John Wick (Dec 14, 2016)

Flow said:


> also for the most part there is pretty much only around 3-5 active trolls in this section. if people are idiotic enough to get caught into a large drawn out discussion with them i want to say 'that's on them', but the issue is when the thread itself starts to sink as a result of them.


there's a new kid on the block now


----------



## Drake (Dec 14, 2016)

I'm fine with coming down on extreme flaming (like personal attacks, not just calling someone an idiot or stupid), extreme racism (ex. advocating for the extermination of certain groups), and trolling, but moderating against poor tone and controversial opinions is too much.

Current moderation has been pretty good for the most part, at least in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chie (Dec 14, 2016)

To a certain degree I'd like to see some extreme censorship for a week or so just to make people realize how stupid of an idea it is.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2016)

What's our definition of "trolling" though?

A lot of the time I have trouble telling if someone is being deliberately provocative or if they just genuinely hold and offensive opinion; c.f. .


----------



## John Wick (Dec 14, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> What's our definition of "trolling" though?
> 
> A lot of the time I have trouble telling if someone is being deliberately provocative or if they just genuinely hold and offensive opinion; c.f. .


just reinstate mega


----------



## Chie (Dec 14, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> A lot of the time I have trouble telling if someone is being deliberately provocative or if they just genuinely hold and offensive opinion; c.f. .


Maybe you should ask people here to suggest new rules (ad verbum) so that they'll get a feeling of what they're actually saying.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2016)

VAK said:


> just reinstate mega



Accept that Assad is gonna win the Syrian Civil War, while we're at it?


----------



## John Wick (Dec 14, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> Accept that Assad is gonna win the Syrian Civil War, while we're at it?


that'll probably happen tho...


----------



## Zyrax (Dec 14, 2016)

I think a big problem with the Cafe which is the case of a lot of problems in here is the Idea of "Objectivism", and I don't mean Impartiality as in Not letting Biases effect the Policies and the way ysers are treated but rather Objectivism in the sense that "Opinion X is the Objectivist one and people who hold it should be given special Treatment and Opinion Y is Wrong and People who hold it should it deserve to be flamed and even banned for it"

A good number of users here seem to take Objectivism to the extreme to the point that they can't Grasp that someone could have a different point of view from  them and simply convince themselfs that everyone who disagrees with them or hold point of views that they disagree with must be mentally Ill because they are so far up their High horse that they can't accept someone disagreeing with them so they tell themselfs that the other person must have something wrong with them

This is a huge problem when it comes to issues that don't really have a clear answer but its rather Subjectivist or rather it depends on where you come from or how you were brought up or your life experiences, in that case its less about right or wrong but rather more about different point of views that people come to for several different reasons. 

I think what could be done to fix the place is to establish that nobody in here should be given special treatment regardless of there views/Nationality/Religion or Lack of/Race and that Punishment Flaming or racism should be given fairly and without bias. 
For example when it comes to Racism if we are going to punish people for it , there shouldn't be this "This isn't Racism, This is (realism)" or whatever, it shouldn't come down to slur against certain groups being cracked down on while turning a blind eye to slurs against another  because of the Mods bias. I would rather there being no punishment for Racism than that because its fucking hypocritical and abuse of power.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 14, 2016)

Best way to fix the Cafe is by removing our mods. Cafe doesn't need more numbers. The repeats we have now is what keeps us afloat.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 14, 2016)

Im tired of scrolling down to see the cafe 
Put us back where we belong!


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2016)

VAK said:


> just reinstate mega



you say that but I don't even  think you were around when he hit below zero. banning or warning people for participating within the same acts he would. 

telling people to 'stop trolling' then literally hours later making a post racebaiting people over his grips with black Americans.

its obvious you don't like mr_shadow, but if your grips with him is that 'he's a hypocrite or incompetent', on his last days mega was 10 x worst.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## John Wick (Dec 15, 2016)

Flow said:


> you say that but I don't even  think you were around when he hit below zero. banning or warning people for participating within the same acts he would.
> 
> telling people to 'stop trolling' then literally hours later making a post racebaiting people over his grips with black Americans.
> 
> its obvious you don't like mr_shadow, but if your grips with him is that 'he's a hypocrite or incompetent', on his last days mega was 10 x worst.


I wuz being sarcastic


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> What's our definition of "trolling" though?
> 
> A lot of the time I have trouble telling if someone is being deliberately provocative or if they just genuinely hold and offensive opinion; c.f. .



well that's the thing, users like @Seto Kaiba will make statements to engage others into an argument but it's not really trolling. he genuinely believes everything he says towards another user.

users like Chie or Kiba however may believe a margin of the crap they talk in regards with, it's obvious they are trolls. like from Kiba he'll make statements such as "God Trump", "black people are retarded for the most part", and continuously disregard logic out of his own emotions. he might believe some of what he talks in regards with, but he knows what he's doing. though if anyone feels antagonized by users like them, that's on them. they should practice enough self-discipline not to take them seriously with their antics.

Chie is a bonafide troll as well. 

the gray area is with these two is that they never outright admit it. sure you have terrible 'trolls' like Klad that will stupidly admit what they are doing, but not these two. at the end of the day, you're going to have make the decision if their antics can go on since it will only encourage others to engage with their behavior, or they'll naturally stop posting in this section or move on. that's just my experience with these things tbh.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 3


----------



## Chie (Dec 15, 2016)

@Flow, you have no idea what you're talking about.

A troll is someone who puts an effort into offending people and getting a response. But just because you're getting offended doesn't mean you're getting trolled, it has to be intentional. And the idea that people can "troll without realizing it" (as you've put it in the past) is an oxymoron.

People who share their opinion or occasionally make broad generalizations (that you happen to disagree with) aren't trolling. Even if they personally insult you they aren't necessarily trolling you.

But since you're having such a big problem with trolls I'd recommend that you'd grow a thicker skin. Because trolls usually pick weak (easily offended) targets.


----------



## Zyrax (Dec 15, 2016)

Flow said:


> on his last days mega was 10 x worst.


He was like that long before that
As early as 2013 he was Called Out by BLUE(out of all people) for Banning Some User Called Smiley because he got in a flamewar with Mael while he only gave Mael a Pat on the back
And guess what, Blue was flamed by certain users(these very same users are the same people who demanded that Mega gets unmodded) here for even pointing it out

One of the biggest problems here is that many would rather have a Shitty Mod who is on "There Team" rather than a Good Neutral one

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1 | Winner 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2016)

Would be really nice if more regulars like @baconbits, @Mael, @Seto Kaiba, @Alwaysmind, @afgpride and whoever else I'm forgetting could respond to this thread.

It's you who are going to live under these rules, so better to be part of making them than just bitching about it later.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 17, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> Would be really nice if more regulars like @baconbits, @Mael, @Seto Kaiba, @Alwaysmind, @afgpride and whoever else I'm forgetting could respond to this thread.
> 
> It's you who are going to live under these rules, so better to be part of making them than just bitching about it later.


i won't bitch unless you revert back to politically correct moderating, don't care beyond that 

you and amanda are doing fine


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 17, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> Would be really nice if more regulars like @baconbits, @Mael, @Seto Kaiba, @Alwaysmind, @afgpride and whoever else I'm forgetting could respond to this thread.
> 
> It's you who are going to live under these rules, so better to be part of making them than just bitching about it later.


 I never bitch about the rules but I'm always ready to give my thoughts if I  am asked.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2016)

afgpride said:


> i won't bitch unless you revert back to politically correct moderating, don't care beyond that
> 
> you and amanda are doing fine





Alwaysmind said:


> I never bitch about the rules but I'm always ready to give my thoughts if I  am asked.



I didn't mean to imply that either of you currently bitches about the rules; just that you should take the chance to contribute.

Sorry if I came off as rude.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 17, 2016)

Okay, here is what I think. I get the sense that the cafe has continued to live on, just look at the the numbers of threads created about the elections in the us. So being away from downtown has not really been the end of the world. Besides, in real life downtown sucks, why would you want to go to a Cafe there since they close at 5. In the outskirts they are open till 11 pm.

If it moves back to downtown there needs to be strict rules because people will just post stuff and negbully you into leaving or to think like them.

If it stays here it keeps the same rules. @Amanda and @mr_shadow are doing great.

I don't know where it could move if the cafe does. I always liked to joke when we first moved down here that a good place would be in the landfill for all the melodrama. Wether it was about the move, a sense self-importance (that the cafe was the most important section of the forum and that people joined because of the Cafe) or the bitching about the new mods because they were actually learning how to do their jobs. Moving it there would have been a great way to make a point clear, though not necessarily resolve the issue.

The problem is that few places work for the cafe. Other sections do not like the Cafe  because of the people who frequent it can make it an unpleasant experience. You can always put it in the bathhouse but the age restriction will beat the purpose of attracting new posters. So instead of saying "Amanda and  mr_shadow are too harsh and driving new users away", they will say "age restriction is driving users away".
But as I'll say below, no matter where you move it, the issue is that Cafe goers do not try to explore the other threads in their section.



Chie said:


> Stricter enforcement will just discourage new people from joining. No censorship please.



But we are not 4Chan. Do you really research mod conditions on forums before you join them? I need to see some numbers before I am convinced this is a real issue and not just naysay.


What is ironic is that the mafia section, which right below the cafe, has very relaxed modding approach. But none of you actually bothered to join a game. So from my point of view having really layed back approach really didn't help the mafia community to grow. Regulars keep it alive and regulars keep the cafe alive.

So now that you know, will you join a game?




makeoutparadise said:


> Im tired of scrolling down to see the cafe
> Put us back where we belong!



Just close the other tabs. I've gotten used to the set up where I only have 3-4 ones opened.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 17, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> I didn't mean to imply that either of you currently bitches about the rules; just that you should take the chance to contribute.
> 
> Sorry if I came off as rude.



It's okay, everyone can have a bad day at work. I sure did a couple days ago.


----------



## Chie (Dec 17, 2016)

Alwaysmind said:


> What is ironic is that the mafia section, which right below the cafe, has very relaxed modding approach. But none of you actually bothered to join a game. So from my point of view having really layed back approach really didn't help the mafia community to grow. Regulars keep it alive and regulars keep the cafe alive.
> 
> So now that you know, will you join a game?


No, because I'm not interested in Mafia. I'm interested in politics, and if I'm not able to express my opinions here I'll express them on some other forum.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 17, 2016)

Chie said:


> No, because I'm not interested in Mafia. I'm interested in politics, and if I'm not able to express my opinions here I'll express them on some other forum.



You just proved my point. 

And no one is censoring you, if you are then you should reread your posts and try to figure out why they were censored.

And hop, one more alert for you


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2016)

^You're under the impression that this is a coddling section, when it's not.  That's why the Cafe has always been molded differently.  The subjects discussed here: politics and religion, evoke strong reactions so we're given more freedom than other sections to express ourselves.  If you're a pansy then maybe you shouldn't open yourself up to criticism with your views.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 17, 2016)

Mider T said:


> ^You're under the impression that this is a coddling section, when it's not.  That's why the Cafe has always been molded differently.  The subjects discussed here: politics and religion, evoke strong reactions so we're given more freedom than other sections to express ourselves.  If you're a pansy then maybe you shouldn't open yourself up to criticism with your views.



You can express yourself with insulting the other or using vulgar language is what I am saying.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2016)

Alwaysmind said:


> Okay, here is what I think. I get the sense that the cafe has continued to live on, just look at the the numbers of threads created about the elections in the us. So being away from downtown has not really been the end of the world. Besides, in real life downtown sucks, why would you want to go to a Cafe there since they close at 5. In the outskirts they are open till 11 pm.
> 
> If it moves back to downtown there needs to be strict rules because people will just post stuff and negbully you into leaving or to think like them.
> 
> ...



Thanks a lot for the input.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2016)

Alwaysmind said:


> You can express yourself with insulting the other or using vulgar language is what I am saying.


Sure.  But when it does come out you shouldn't be banned, strong topics evoke strong reactions.  Personally, I don'the see what's so bad about an insult as long as the post is still on topic and brings up legitimate counterpoints.  It keeps the debate more lively.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 17, 2016)

Mider T said:


> Sure.  But when it does come out you shouldn't be banned, strong topics evoke strong reactions.  Personally, I don'the see what's so bad about an insult as long as the post is still on topic and brings up legitimate counterpoints.  It keeps the debate more lively.



Because that implies that you can't articulate your point it clearly and must resolve to 7th grader vocabulary to
Win an argument.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2016)

Alwaysmind said:


> Because that implies that you can't articulate your point it clearly and must resolve to 7th grader vocabulary to
> Win an argument.


Except I just said when the post is on topic and bring up legitimate counterpoints.  We aren't debating in Congress here, humans get fiery and can express themselves with insults and still Garner respect if they know how formulate and support their ideas.


----------



## Zyrax (Dec 17, 2016)

Brolmes says it like how it is


> zaru implying that any of the bullshit people talk about in the cafe is any more significant than fictional character shitposting
> 
> like talking about obama or iran or gay marriage or some insect thread or jesus or any of the other garbage that none of these people have any kind of influential say about in the real world.. making their opinions just as worthless as the ones they have about any other hypothetical shit
> 
> ...





> i dunno if projecting's the word here mr president, maybe generalizing
> 
> but no i'm pretty sure the cafe is just full of dipshits with meaningless opinions about shit that has nothing to do with them and never will.. because the same thing is true about pretty much everyone else in the world who ever talks about stuff like politics to feel like they're discussing stuff that matters and like they're a shrewd young intellectual man-about-town.. when their opinions would only matter if they were real politicians talking about their opinions around a table with other politicians who make decisions about what actions a government will take, instead of discussing them with.. say.. mael
> 
> ...



MUH MATURITY

as if acting like a 13 years old Call of Duty player is mature


----------



## baconbits (Dec 19, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> Would be really nice if more regulars like @baconbits, @Mael, @Seto Kaiba, @Alwaysmind, @afgpride and whoever else I'm forgetting could respond to this thread.
> 
> It's you who are going to live under these rules, so better to be part of making them than just bitching about it later.



In the early days when you guys took over I think you guys tried to police more tone and style than you do now.  I'm cool with the chilling you've done on that.  I wish you were way more strict on people posting op-eds as news pieces in the Cafe.  The sad thing is that op-eds could be a great source of energy for the debate corner but by letting them live in the Cafe you kind of hurt this section and pull debates from the debate corner itself.

I actually like a more lax modding style.  I don't see tho how what people say here is any worse than what goes on in the Chatterbox.  I think we should be able to be modded more laxly AND move to the downtown because that's where we belong.


----------



## EJ (Dec 19, 2016)

yeah, I don't see ANYONE who is in support of the move...besides...@Alwaysmind


----------



## baconbits (Dec 19, 2016)

Well he always supports either what the mods have done or what is against popular opinion, lol.  The kind of personality that could only thrive in the Cafe.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 19, 2016)

Flow said:


> yeah, I don't see ANYONE who is in support of the move...besides...@Alwaysmind



He's a passive-aggressive brown-noser.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2016)

He does suck a lot of staff dick.  He reminds me of the kid that stuck close to the teacher because he didn't have any friends in class.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 19, 2016)

Mider T said:


> He does suck a lot of staff dick.  He reminds me of the kid that stuck close to the teacher because he didn't have any friends in class.



Randall.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gunners (Dec 19, 2016)

mr_shadow said:


> Would be really nice if more regulars like @baconbits, @Mael, @Seto Kaiba, @Alwaysmind, @afgpride and *whoever else I'm forgetting *could respond to this thread.
> 
> It's you who are going to live under these rules, so better to be part of making them than just bitching about it later.



*Negged

Seriously though, leave the section as it is. I don't care about it getting moved up the forum, more so if it comes at the expense of more interference.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 20, 2016)

2016 continues to dissapoint my hopes and asparations


----------



## baconbits (Dec 20, 2016)

makeoutparadise said:


> 2016 continues to dissapoint my hopes and *asparations*



Is that a mix of ass and reparations?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 20, 2016)

baconbits said:


> Is that a mix of ass and reparations?


this sweet booty don't pay for itself you know  especially when it's been enslaved for 500 years


----------



## baconbits (Dec 20, 2016)

Abraham was a player.  They say he owned lots of asses.


----------



## EJ (Dec 27, 2016)

@mr_shadow, if anything you should look at moderating is the source policy as well. People creating threads from breitbart or huffington post should be immediately locked.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Krory (Dec 27, 2016)

Flow said:


> @mr_shadow, if anything you should look at moderating is the source policy as well. People creating threads from breitbart or huffington post should be immediately locked.



And the Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Gizmodo, BBC...

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 28, 2016)

Only because I feel it's come to it. I'm going to call for shadow's removal. Of course, I expect the staff to react in a passive-aggressive manner as they typically do.

Reactions: Dislike 2


----------



## Chie (Dec 28, 2016)

Rey said:


> And the Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Gizmodo, BBC...


I really down know why Flow (or anyone else) is trying to censor the forum.

Yeah, you're not going to have a right wing platform like Breibart push a left wing narrative like CNN would. But that doesn't mean that Breibart doesn't do journalism.

Take the Ohio Islamist who went around stabbing people, CNN didn't write anything on that after it was revealed that it wasn't a school shooting. But Breitbart did. So you need a balance between the two.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 28, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Only because I feel it's come to it. I'm going to call for shadow's removal. Of course, I expect the staff to react in a passive-aggressive manner as they typically do.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 28, 2016)

You think it's funny now, but you've shown that your mood quickly changes when things don't go your way.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 28, 2016)

I do think that banning Mael was in poor taste and showed poor judgment.  Of all the things he's said to be worthy of a ban, and there are many, this last statement wasn't one of them.  People should have a right to be bombastic personalities in the most feisty section of the forum.  Its only natural to be somewhat combative here.

I think when mods try to police tone they go too far.  Focus on eliminating posters who make personal threats, posters who insult other poster's families, direct racism and outright flaming.  I demand that more staff discuss this issue with us vets before a real problem gets started.


----------



## EJ (Dec 28, 2016)

baconbits said:


> I demand that more staff discuss this issue with us vets before a real problem gets started.



fuck yo' couch


----------



## baconbits (Dec 28, 2016)

Flow said:


> fuck yo' couch



Why, because its black?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Dec 28, 2016)

The permanent ban is severe in his case.  A simple ban would be enough.  A permanent ban could be considered if he said the "n word" on someone again or if he was involved in an other pedo case.


----------



## Kitsune (Dec 30, 2016)

This particular situation is being discussed in ANBU if anyone else is interested in joining in.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 30, 2016)

The Café is being modded adequately at the moment, in my opinion. 

The deregulation of the sources policy has improved it (& allows the potential for more improvement) and the current moderation of tone is pretty light-touch. It was admittedly too extreme at the start of Shadow and Amanda's appointments. 

There should only be a 'no bullying' policy. I think that is the intent of the 'no flaming' idea.

[copied and pasted from other thread]

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 12, 2017)

1.) You're ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)

2.) Unban Mael he's funny in a sad way

3.) You all secretly miss me

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1 | Friendly 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 14, 2017)

Who are you again?


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 18, 2017)

erictheking said:


> The Café is being modded adequately at the moment, in my opinion.
> 
> The deregulation of the sources policy has improved it (& allows the potential for more improvement) and the current moderation of tone is pretty light-touch. It was admittedly too extreme at the start of Shadow and Amanda's appointments.
> 
> ...



I second this. Word for word.

If that means that I have to scroll down to get to the Cafe, so be it. I too wouldn't mind moving back to the top, but only if the source policy stays more less the same.


Oh yeah and of course toppling Mega was the best thing that ever happened to the Cafe.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 21, 2017)

I want Mega in charge of the cafe, he will make it great again.

And I also agree with unbanning mael.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> You will recall people wanted to crucify me by the scrotum after I banned Mael...





Flow said:


> So what?
> 
> You don't regress as a result. You learn from past mistakes, and push forward. The shit we're seeing with some of the users here is inexcusable, and you shouldn't be focused primarily on only certain users (ie Mael). Have a neutral standing and implement it to the best of your ability.
> 
> ...



@mr_shadow


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Chelydra said:


> I want Mega in charge of the cafe, he will make it great again.
> 
> And I also agree with unbanning mael.




No, Megaharrison ruined his chances and modded out of spite on his way out and blatantly didn't take the job seriously.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

At the moment I think seems like you're the only one upset about the current moderation style.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> At the moment I think seems like you're the only one upset about the current moderation style.



@Hitt
@Vermilion Kn
@Seto Kaiba
@Gunners
@VAK
@baconbits
@Normality
@Le Male Absolu 
@Alwaysmind



Some of these people may not agree with me, but I'd rather still see their opinion. I might be missing something entirely within my criticism, and I want to see what others have to say.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

I don't have a problem with @mr_shadow this time, my friend.  Even during my last complaint I stated that on average I agree with his method of modding.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@Flow

At least be sensible with the retarded complaints you're going to make. "Shit like Chie and Bender do wouldn't fly."

So this is another complaint about the number of Trump threads.

Once again boo-motherfucking hoo. 

That's hardly something to aim your bile at me.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 24, 2017)

Is @Amanda still actively modding by the way?


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

People complaining about the use of Huffpost I should remind you of the Source policy:



> *1. Sources must be text articles*.
> No Youtube or other media.
> 
> *2. Sources must be reporting.*
> ...


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Le Male Absolu said:


> The permanent ban is severe in his case.  A simple ban would be enough.  A permanent ban could be considered if he said the "n word" on someone again or if he was involved in an other pedo case.



Guys...

@Hitt
@Vermilion Kn
@Seto Kaiba
@Gunners
@VAK
@baconbits
@Normality
@Alwaysmind


The Nf cafe is the wrong place to talk about @Mael ban.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Flow
> 
> At least be sensible with the retarded complaints you're going to make. "Shit like Chie and Bender do wouldn't fly."
> 
> ...



Yes, it is.

You shitting out consistent threads all the time in which some of them your source material is questionable or downright bigoted should be accounted for. You and Chie are one of the same on that regard. 




Bender said:


> People complaining about the use of Huffpost I should remind you of the Source policy:



Since the point flew over your head, I believe a source policy should be implemented to avoid sketchy source material. If you understand that the Huffington post is a terrible source to utilize, why do you continue to utilize it if you can find the same information that is less biased on another website?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> People complaining about the use of Huffpost I should remind you of the Source policy:



HuffPo fails at #2. Honestly, you are pretty bad about being able to discern it. There's nothing wrong with posting multiple stories, it's that you post multiple stories with shitty sourcing.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Flow said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> You shitting out consistent threads all the time in which some of them your *source material is questionable or downright* *bigoted should be accounted for*. You and Chie are one of the same on that regard.





99% of the threads source materia I use are Huffpost. The only thing they're guilty of is the biased tone. If they follow the cafe policy of having verifiable content then they're in the green. 

The logic you're using of biased and bigoted being the same.  

Biased


> unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something.
> 
> "we will not tolerate this biased media coverage"





Bigoted



> having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.








> Since the point flew over your head, I believe a source policy should be implemented to avoid sketchy source material. If you understand that the Huffington post is a terrible source to utilize, why do you continue to utilize it if you can find the same information that is less biased on another website?



Once again, your complaint is in the "preference" territory rather than the following protocol in the cafe. I only use huffingtonpost because it's the first place I stop by for news. Yesterday, I posted that article hastily because I had a schedule to keep.

If I find another news source I like I'll post from there. It's that simple. You're making a real big deal out of something small.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Huffpost. The only thing they're guilty of is the biased tone.



They are guilty of lacking objectivity. Extremely lacking.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> HuffPo fails at #2. Honestly, you are pretty bad about being able to discern it. There's nothing wrong with posting multiple stories, it's that you post multiple stories with shitty sourcing.



Is the source verifiable? That's the number one rule. Fake news is intolerable.

Also @ the bolded



Seto Kaiba said:


> HuffPo fails at #2. Honestly, you are pretty bad about being able to discern it. *There's nothing wrong with posting multiple stories*, it's that you post multiple stories with shitty sourcing.



lol that contradicts what you children were saying in the cafe convo thread:



> There are fourteen fucking threads.





> Lol. I have to admit Bender is vomiting threads right now. Someone needs to put him on a thread limit.




Just an FYI, five of the threads on the first page are mine.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

@Bender you could still avoid criticism by using for instance http://www.reuters.com, WHICH IS FREE and one of the most respected news outlets in the world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

If you understand that they are biased and not credible, you should go towards other new sources @Bender.

You're essentially trying to excuse laziness when you can do a quick google search to post the material. Quit acting like a child.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

> Nah, bro. I don't have a problem with Trump news but you've gone too far lately. I'm not saying not to post at all, just dial it back a bit.



And I will say this again:

FIVE...Not ten, not twelve.. FIVE of the Trump threads on the first page are mine.




> This doesn't absolve you from criticism my friend.  The point of the policy is to allow legit reporting but to allow members to also attack the credibility of those reports within the threads.




So long as the article is verifiable you shouldn't bitch about it.

Also criticism? I don't mind. Complaining? I do. Because you guys are terrible at legitimizing it.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> @Bender you could still avoid criticism by using for instance http://www.reuters.com, WHICH IS FREE and one of the most respected news outlets in the world.



Okay. I'll check it out.

Any other new sources I can my new news posting home rather than huffingtopost?

@baconbits
@SetoKaiba
@Flow


could've have handled things rather than the unproductive complaining about it in the convo thread


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Is the source verifiable? That's the number one rule. Fake news is intolerable.
> 
> Also @ the bolded
> 
> ...



I'm not concerned with what other people have stated. Try to pay attention. 

Huffington Post is a miserable source of information, especially in the recent years they've completely abandoned any attempt to be objective.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Flow said:


> If you understand that they are biased and not credible, you should go towards other new sources @Bender.
> 
> It's verifiable. Something you continue to ignore.
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

> Laziness is you guys not suggesting another source. It's called ritualism.



Yes. It's our fault you're too incompetent to provide proper sourcing. Totally logical conclusion there.

If you can't tell I'm being sarcastic.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender, people shouldn't have to read between the lines and to remain skeptical about a lot of the information pushed out. Something you continuously fail to understand. In a sense, you can barely trust portions of the information that you link within Huff post.

"Ritualism",

Do you see what you have typed before you post a reply? I swear, you have the dumbest excuse towards all the crap you pull.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Any other new sources I can my new news posting home rather than huffingtopost?


I've heard a lot of good things about www.*breitbart*.com


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yes. It's our fault you're too incompetent to provide proper sourcing. Totally logical conclusion there.



I could care less if you did. It would be appreciated if you did. 

But no, you want to be childish and just diss the source. Articles that were posted that used huffingtopost the nf cafe mods didn't complain because the source was verifiable. That's enough for me. I'm not going to go out of my way to please you just because you dislike Huffingtonpost.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Flow said:


> "Ritualism",
> I swear, you have the dumbest excuse towards all the crap you pull.




My categorizing an actual manner in which I do things is an "excuse". Riiight.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Ok, I'm not going to get anywhere with you. My complaint wasn't just towards Bender @mr_shadow.

It's also in regards with threads that are created to deliberately mislead the public.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> My categorizing an actual manner in which I do things is an "excuse". Riiight.



As of right now, I'm not going to continue pointing out the flaws in your mentality here, others have and will continue to do so if you keep trying to pull the crap that you do in regards with your source material.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> I could care less if you did. It would be appreciated if you did.
> 
> But no, you want to be childish and just diss the source. Articles that were posted that used huffingtopost the nf cafe mods didn't complain because the source was verifiable. That's enough for me. I'm not going to go out of my way to please you just because you dislike Huffingtonpost.



If you could care less that means you do care...Actually, there were numerous referential sources we had here. Not an absolute list, but a list of what sources to generally avoid vs. those that are generally more reliable and objective. Don't know what shadow did with it though...

Because the source is shit. It's not childish to point out a clear lack of objective reporting from a source. It's not childish to point out that you litter the section with stories from these biased sources. Your low standards and criteria says a lot.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Flow said:


> Ok, I'm not going to get anywhere with you. My complaint wasn't just towards Bender @mr_shadow.
> 
> It's also in regards with threads that are created to deliberately mislead the public.




Finally, some goddamn honesty. 

See, I knew you guys were making this out towards me.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba

My standards are low because the threads aren't closed like @Chie and on the grounds that they aren't closed for not meeting the cafe's policy.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Finally, some goddamn honesty.
> 
> See, I knew you guys were making this out towards me.



I tagged you and @Chie in another thread where I copy/pasted the exact same post there into here on the previous page.

Don't try and act obtuse, I know you saw it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Seto Kaiba
> 
> My standards are low because the threads aren't closed like @Chie and on the grounds that they aren't closed for not meeting the cafe's policy.



Do you even know what you're trying to say here?


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@Flow and @Seto Kaiba

In addition to being "ritualism" I guess you could also call it "lax" for me not adhering to your greedy complaints about using another source.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Flow and @Seto Kaiba
> 
> In addition to being "ritualism" I guess you could also call it "lax" for me not adhering to your greedy complaints about using another source.



Dude. Stop using words if you don't know what they mean, you just look stupid.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Flow said:


> I tagged you and @Chie in another thread where I copy/pasted the exact same post there into here on the previous page.
> 
> Don't try and act obtuse, I know you saw it.



Yeah, I'm aware of what you did. And your complaints are pretty damn inane. 

@Seto Kaiba

Do you?

You're literally throwing a hissy fit because of huffingtonpost.

First in the cafe convo it was "too many threads" and now you guys are moving it "Bender keeps using huffingtonpost as a source" and other hurr durr.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Dude. Stop using words if you don't know what they mean, you just look stupid.



Quit beating around the bush about what it is you guys are complaining about.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Okay. I'll check it out.
> 
> Any other new sources I can my new news posting home rather than huffingtopost?



The major international news agencies are the  (AP), Reuters,  (AFP), and Bloomberg. Out of those, Reuters and (I think) Bloomberg are free while AP and AFP have paywalls. You can however often find the articles from AP and AFP reprinted on other news sites like  and Yahoo - look for the prefix (AP) or (AFP) at the start or end of the article.

The main English-language newspapers would be the  and  for America, and The Guardian and  for Britain. The Guardian and Telegraph are IIRC free, while NYT has a paywall after X nr of free articles. Never read WP's site, so don't know about that. Then there's of course the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times for economic-political news.

The most important English-language television stations are , BBC and -sigh- . People will stone you for posting the latter, but given its influence I thought I had to at least acknowledge its existence.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Yeah, I'm aware of what you did. And your complaints are pretty damn inane.
> 
> @Seto Kaiba
> 
> ...



My issue is and has always been your sourcing. As I stated to you before, you're just taking your ideological shits here no different than Chie.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Yeah, I'm aware of what you did. And your complaints are pretty damn inane.



So why are you acting as though that "You knew this was an elaborate plot to target you specifically?"


----------



## Hitt (Jan 24, 2017)

Here's my two cents, since I've been tagged at least twice in this thread.

1.  Sources.  I think we need to be a tad more strict here with these.  *CNN *gets a lot of shit lately for instance, but still I feel is a far better source than garbage like *Mother Jones*, *Breitbart*, *Infowars*, or *Huffington Post*, all of which put their own far left or far right spin on whatever they "report" on.  As suggested before *Reuters *remains one of the most respected news sources in the world and is the closest you'll ever get to truly objective reporting IMO.  Other good sources include the *Christian Science Monitor*, which despite the (rather misleading) name actually does some damn fine science reporting and the like.

2.  Baiting/Trolls.  The last thing I want is some kind of martial law style modding going on but we have to have some limits here.  But it especially comes into focus when it comes to thread titles which brings me to

3.  Thread creation.  We have all kinds of clickbait titling going on, especially with our favorite polarizing figure of the day Donald Trump.  Just do what the original rules state, post the TITLE, copy and paste it even, of the article.  Then quote the relevant parts of it.  Post the link.  _Then _post your commentary/whatever.  This should be the golden rule here and I don't see why it can't be followed.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Hitt said:


> 2.  Baiting/Trolls.  The last thing I want is some kind of martial law style modding going on but we have to have some limits here.  But it especially comes into focus when it comes to thread titles which brings me to
> 
> 3.  Thread creation.  We have all kinds of clickbait titling going on, especially with our favorite polarizing figure of the day Donald Trump.  Just do what the original rules state, post the TITLE, copy and paste it even, of the article.  Then quote the relevant parts of it.  Post the link.  _Then _post your commentary/whatever.  This should be the golden rule here and I don't see why it can't be followed.



Exactly how I feel. Utilize good judgment for the trolling here. It's not going to be perfect and I'm sure as hell you will face critisim for doing so, but screw it.

We see what happens when you let two rabbits in. They breed the fuck out of control and won't stop until you intervene and slice their fucking genitals up.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> My issue is and has always been your sourcing. As I stated to you before, you're just taking your ideological shits here no different than Chie.



Chie's sources from that article I posted are contradictory. Mine aren't. Either be more specific with these asinine gripes or you guys are just rampantly bitching. 

The issue has been settled that you guys want sources other than huffingtonpost to be used.



Flow said:


> So why are you acting as though that "You knew this was an elaborate plot to target you specifically?"



Because you guys weren't being specific at all. I know that it was about me. For fuck sake, the last half of the day you guys were venting about the anti-abortion article.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Hitt said:


> Here's my two cents, since I've been tagged at least twice in this thread.
> 
> 1.  Sources.  I think we need to be a tad more strict here with these.  *CNN *gets a lot of shit lately for instance, but still I feel is a far better source than garbage like *Mother Jones*, *Breitbart*, *Infowars*, or *Huffington Post*, all of which put their own far left or far right spin on whatever they "report" on.  As suggested before *Reuters *remains one of the most respected news sources in the world and is the closest you'll ever get to truly objective reporting IMO.  Other good sources include the *Christian Science Monitor*, which despite the (rather misleading) name actually does some damn fine science reporting and the like.
> 
> ...




Okay, good. This is very constructive.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Chie's sources from that article I posted are contradictory. Mine aren't. Either be more specific with these asinine gripes or you guys are just rampantly bitching.
> 
> The issue has been settled that you guys want sources other than huffingtonpost to be used.



I'm not gonna say you can't really be this dense, because you can be. I've been upfront about it. You cannot discern reliable sourcing from ideologically-driven ones. You then try to shift the blame for this onto everyone else, and the responsibility in improving on this to everyone else as well.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@Hitt

Thank you for being the most rationale minded person here and providing good input.


----------



## EJ (Jan 24, 2017)

@mr_shadow, to highlight you don't need to have a strict policy on this stuff, but there has to be a limit somewhere (in regards with the trolling and flaming).


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba

Sigh....If the facts match up with other sources then you can't bitch that it isn't legit. End of story.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm not gonna say you can't really be this dense, because you can be. I've been upfront about it. You cannot discern reliable sourcing from ideologically-driven ones. You then try to shift the blame for this onto everyone else, and the responsibility in improving on this to everyone else as well.




I think you should give the guy a break since he seems to be responding to the suggestions.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> The major international news agencies are the  (AP), Reuters,  (AFP), and Bloomberg. Out of those, Reuters and (I think) Bloomberg are free while AP and AFP have paywalls. You can however often find the articles from AP and AFP reprinted on other news sites like  and Yahoo - look for the prefix (AP) or (AFP) at the start or end of the article.
> 
> The main English-language newspapers would be the  and  for America, and The Guardian and  for Britain. The Guardian and Telegraph are IIRC free, while NYT has a paywall after X nr of free articles. Never read WP's site, so don't know about that. Then there's of course the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times for economic-political news.
> 
> The most important English-language television stations are , BBC and -sigh- . People will stone you for posting the latter, but given its influence I thought I had to at least acknowledge its existence.




Okay good to know. I'll make sure to bookmark these whenever I look for news on my iphone


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Seto Kaiba
> 
> Sigh....If the facts match up with other sources then you can't bitch that it isn't legit. End of story.



I don't know if you really do suffer from some learning disability, but I think I've expressed to you very clearly that a source that lacks objectivity can compromise dispensing legitimate facts and taint the discussion on the issue if that is the referential source used to facilitate it. I've pointed this out to you before it became a real issue, and you clearly have not taken anything from that. The last time, you had the mods cover for your ineptitude, but that's not always gonna be the case.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I think you should give the guy a break since he seems to be responding to the suggestions.



He'll forget in a week.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@mr_shadow

He's not going to. He's going to continue holding a grudge for the Anti-abortion thread until he's agreed with.

Get the fuck over it Seto and move on.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Just an FYI, five of the threads on the first page are mine.





Bender said:


> And I will say this again:
> 
> FIVE...Not ten, not twelve.. FIVE of the Trump threads on the first page are mine.



Bro, be honest: you've posted more than five threads in the last few days.  We only need one @Saishin , lol.



Bender said:


> So long as the article is verifiable you shouldn't bitch about it.



No, that's absolutely wrong.  The fact that we have to verify your articles already points out how flawed your sourcing has been.  There is a lot to criticize about your threads, namely these issues:

Frequency
Tone of the OP
Bias of the article
Questionable Sourcing

And I could name other critiques.  Let's just be honest: your threads have not been good, that's why you have the left (@Flow ), the more moderate left (@Seto Kaiba ) and the right, myself, all criticizing them.  This is not us teaming together.  It just means you did the impossible: you created a problem that all of us can agree on, lol.



Bender said:


> Also criticism? I don't mind. Complaining? I do. Because you guys are terrible at legitimizing it.



Well I'm not going to get into how you characterize it.  One man's whining or complaint is another man's pleasant concern.  I'll just say we ain't lying, whether you view it as complaining or not.



Bender said:


> Any other new sources I can my new news posting home rather than huffingtopost?
> 
> @baconbits
> @SetoKaiba
> @Flow



The best sources to me are AP and Reuters because those are sources that are meant to be used by the papers as well.  After that any major newspaper or network is legit.  Even the Huff Post can be okay if you read the article first and see how the tone is.  I've seen articles on the Huff Post that have been critical of the right but mainly fair.  Other times, like the article you posted yesterday, its just a hit piece.  The Hill and the Politico are also decent.

But if you read the article first you can usually tell what's okay.  Even the Blaze and Mother Jones have decent reporting from time to time.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @mr_shadow
> 
> He's not going to. He's going to continue holding a grudge for the Anti-abortion thread until he's agreed with.
> 
> Get the fuck over it Seto and move on.



The one thread is just the time I chose to go at you for it. Try to remember, because it was just on the last page, it's that you have constantly posted threads with shitty sourcing. You use HuffPo a lot for example, and many times, in a more patient manner I've told you of their unreliability.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

To the extent Reuters has a bias, it would be that their target audience (at least for the website) would seem to be Wall Street investors. They are mainly interested in reporting on stories that might affect people's investments, which -granted- is almost anything geopolitics-related, but still gives them a bit of Capitalist tunnel vision. The criteria for whether or not an event is implicitly good or bad is whether or not it favors free trade and a market economy.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

I think I've tossed enough lighter fluid on this fire and I didn't intend to do that.  Onto the main topic about trolls: trolling should be allowed so long as it doesn't completely derail the thread and it isn't descending into personally insulting other posters or their families.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Bro, be honest: you've posted more than five threads in the last few days.  We only need one @Saishin , lol.



Translation: you want the mega thread back. Everything Drump says and does is news worthy now.




> No, that's absolutely wrong.  The fact that we have to verify your articles already points out how flawed your sourcing has been.



The only verification is the facts. You think the tone in the article was necessary to quantify the source. That's stupid.





> And I could name other critiques.  Let's just be honest: your threads have not been good, that's why you have the left (@Flow ), the more moderate left (@Seto Kaiba ) and the right, myself, all criticizing them.  This is not us teaming together.  It just means you did the impossible: you created a problem that all of us can agree on, lol.



The criticism from Seto Kaiba and Flow is so more personal-oriented it's laughable. We had to spend a page of arguing until they made it clear this is about the thread sourcing.


And again this all comes to the same conclusion:




> The best sources to me are AP and Reuters because those are sources that are meant to be used by the papers as well.  After that any major newspaper or network is legit.    I've seen articles on the Huff Post that have been critical of the right but mainly fair.  Other times, like the article you posted yesterday, its just a hit piece.  The Hill and the Politico are also decent.




Suggestion of new articles

and criticism of the piece I posted yesterday



> Even the Huff Post can be okay if you read the article first and see how the tone is.




How difficult is it to understand that I made a mistake about not thinking carefully about posting the article?  Without using histrionics or inflammatory remarks.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> To the extent Reuters has a bias, it would be that their target audience (at least for the website) would seem to be Wall Street investors. They are mainly interested in reporting on stories that might affect people's investments, which -granted- is almost anything geopolitics-related, but still gives them a bit of Capitalist tunnel vision. The criteria for whether or not an event is implicitly good or bad is whether or not it favors free trade and a market economy.



I think that WSJ is a great paper.  They have a right leaning bias but they try to clean up their tone.  I think the NYT has a left leaning bias but I would have no problem with another poster using either as a source even if I might challenge the content of a specific article every now and then.

But to be honest most of the media seems to have degraded into "gotcha" reporting.  It will be very difficult to find completely unbiased reporting in the foreseeable future.  I hope we're not returning to 1800's media, where papers took a side and reported that way.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Even Amanda has had an off day and did something impulsive like locking a thread before realizing it wasn't a Youtube video



> Edit: as second thought, I'll let this live - there's an article there under the video.
> 
> Sorry about the blunder, I was being trigger happy.

Reactions: Creative 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> The criticism from Seto Kaiba and Flow is so more personal-oriented it's laughable. We had to spend a page of arguing until they made it clear this is about the thread sourcing.



You illiterate...ugh. I made that clear from the beginning.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 24, 2017)

Flow said:


> Ok, I'm not going to get anywhere with you. My complaint wasn't just towards Bender @mr_shadow.
> 
> It's also in regards with threads that are created to deliberately mislead the public.



FAKE NEWS


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He'll forget in a week.



Even I don't want to use Huffingtonpost after closely examining the content of that article.

The US retardedly elected the most bigoted shitstain in the world and  because of how liberal oriented Huffpost is we'll likely see a continual amount of personal opinions littered in a factual argument.

So I'll take a break from using them as a news source.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Translation: you want the mega thread back. Everything Drump says and does is news worthy now.



Bro, you know I don't have a problem with you personally, right?  Let's start there.  I have no problem with you personally. I don't think you made that mistake intentionally.  This is not an attempt to roast you, just talking about sourcing.  It would be like if you caused an accident at work and that led to a safety meeting.  Is the meeting all about you?  No.  But you did spark the conversation.  Just take this in the same way, because by personalizing everything you literally missed every point I've made in this thread. 



Bender said:


> The only verification is the facts. You think the tone in the article was necessary to quantify the source. That's stupid.



No, the tone is important as well.  Look at yourself.  You're acting defensively because you think our tone is aggressive.  If you think we moderated our tone you'd probably be more reasonable.  I'm not saying the tone is more important than the facts; I'm saying that often times the tone is the first sign that facts may be out of order.  



Bender said:


> The criticism from Seto Kaiba and Flow is so more personal-oriented it's laughable. We had to spend a page of arguing until they made it clear this is about the thread sourcing.



I didn't see it that way, myself.  And for me its more than sourcing.  You make too many threads, just being honest with you, bro.



Bender said:


> How difficult is it to understand that I made a mistake about not thinking carefully about posting the article?  Without using histrionics or inflammatory remarks.



I honesty didn't see you admit you made any mistakes until the last couple posts.  And I find it hard to believe that you can look at my posts and find something inflammatory in there, man.  Let's be real.


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

@baconbits

Yeah I know you wouldn't be inflammatory.

Your name isn't Flow or Seto Kaiba.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> Even I don't want to use Huffingtonpost after closely examining the content of that article.
> 
> The US retardedly elected the most bigoted shitstain in the world and  because of how liberal oriented Huffpost is we'll likely see a continual amount of personal opinions littered in a factual argument.
> 
> So I'll take a break from using them as a news source.



/thread


----------



## John Wick (Jan 24, 2017)

Someone want to give those of us that were working while this was going on a play by play?

My only issue is the double standards whereby others will flame a say cuntish things and not get so much as a warning I'm taking about @Seto Kaiba who can't debate without being a prick or accept winning gracefully. 


and yet shadow will moan about me

same goes for others. 

fair enough if I flame someone, but if they flame back then what do they suddenly get a free pass or something @mr_shadow?


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

VAK said:


> Someone want to give those of us that were working while this was going on a play by play?
> 
> My only issue is the double standards whereby others will flame a say cuntish things and not get so much as a warning I'm taking about @Seto Kaiba who can't debate without being a prick or accept winning gracefully.
> 
> ...



1. Nobody ever reports Seto, actually, and I don't care about him enough to stalk him.

2. He usually has some kind of argument.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> 1. Nobody ever reports Seto, actually, and I don't care about him enough to stalk him.
> 
> 2. He usually has some kind of argument.




So if you have some kind of valid argument you can fill your posts with abuse?


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

VAK said:


> So if you have some kind of valid argument you can fill your posts with abuse?



Since it's you asking, I'm gonna say "no".

I think the world is better off that way.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Since it's you asking, I'm gonna say "no".
> 
> I think the world is better off that way.


so this brings me back to my point about double standards...

stop having them it makes you look well since you're a hypocrite I can't tell you what it makes you look like but lets just say it starts with C and has a U in it and ends with a T.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 24, 2017)

VAK said:


> so this brings me back to my point about double standards...
> 
> stop having them it makes you look well since you're a hypocrite I can't tell you what it makes you look like but lets just say it starts with C and has a U in it and ends with a T.



The rule should be that you try your best not to be offensive, and if you see others being offensive you report them. If I find them as offensive as you do, I'll take action.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

Maybe it's because you don't debate at all, and you constantly try to go on deeply personal assaults on an individual and nothing more. What's more is it's just you spazzing out at a person for whatever reason because they rile up those emotional insecurities of yours.

"That's retarded" "You're being retarded" "Are you an idiot or something?" "This is a retarded argument", etc. Followed up by my argument is a far and wide contrast to how you just go after someone like Normality like she just rejected your advances or something. I'm a jerk, and I've openly admitted to that numerous times, but what I'm not is someone like yourself that just loses it in often quick succession. I took your side on the WT thing, but then you did that same to other people for even slightly offending you.

Like, people's economic circumstances, and lifestyle for example are of no concern to me unless they make it the issue, but you seem to take a great interest in them. Particularly even when they ARE debating you on a matter, and you lose, you have to try and console yourself trying to contrast those personal circumstances or your assumptions of them.

Example, your constant sour grapes when you say even though I may know more on the social sciences side, what you know matters and you're family is rich, etc., etc. Nobody gives a shit about that. 

This is just more of @VAK's characteristic bitterness towards others.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Maybe it's because you don't debate at all, and you constantly try to go on deeply personal assaults on an individual and nothing more. What's more is it's just you spazzing out at a person for whatever reason because they rile up those emotional insecurities of yours.
> 
> "That's retarded" "You're being retarded" "Are you an idiot or something?" Followed up by my argument is a far and wide contrast to how you just go after someone like Normality like she just rejected your advances or something. I'm a jerk, and I've openly admitted to that numerous times, but what I'm not is someone like yourself that just loses it in often quick succession.
> 
> ...


My parents are poor mate I've got more money than my mum and dad unless you know any rich pharmacy dispensers and middle level accounts guys?

I didn't come from money and I've made that abunduntly clear to all those that moan oh only the rich and well off can succeed in life. 

I don't have fucking sour grapes considering I fucking admitted it to your fucking face as a concession if I had sour grapes I wouldn't have said yes seto I acknowledge your superiority in this particular field.


See what I mean about you not accepting winning with grace.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

VAK said:


> My parents are poor mate I've got more money than my mum and dad unless you know any rich pharmacy dispenser and middle level accounts guys?



Well, pharmacy managers in grocery stores here can make over 100,000 a year if you want to know, and well over 50,000 at the least annually.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, pharmacy managers in grocery stores here can make over 100,000 a year if you want to know, and well over 50,000 at the least annually.


a pharmacy dispenser she's not a pharmacist. 

well that's more than here my dad never earned anywhere near that.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Maybe it's because you don't debate at all, and you constantly try to go on deeply personal assaults on an individual and nothing more. What's more is it's just you spazzing out at a person for whatever reason because they rile up those emotional insecurities of yours.



You sometimes argue.  Sometimes your entire post is literally nothing but random insults with the vague implication of an argument.  I've pointed that out before.  The thing that saves you is that your target is me and I'm not going to report something of that level.  So... carry on being a jerk I guess.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 24, 2017)

what happened


----------



## Bender (Jan 24, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> what happened



Too much.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You sometimes argue.  Sometimes your entire post is literally nothing but random insults with the vague implication of an argument.  I've pointed that out before.  The thing that saves you is that your target is me and I'm not going to report something of that level.  So... carry on being a jerk I guess.



You know, everyone who says this has thought they were special in this regard. I'm actually quite tame with you. I don't treat you like Bender or something.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You know, everyone who says this has thought they were special in this regard. I'm actually quite tame with you. I don't treat you like Bender or something.



I had a great Yugioh joke with you playing a Kuribo and having some blue eyes in your hand but I can't remember the punchline anymore... I'm getting old.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 25, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Is @Amanda still actively modding by the way?


she has not been online for a month now 

I think she may took a break from here because she was burned out
she told me several times that she feels bad whenever she comes here


----------



## John Wick (Jan 25, 2017)

I think she meant that because she was speakin to you.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 25, 2017)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NICE ONE BRO XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 25, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> she has not been online for a month now
> 
> I think she may took a break from here because she was burned out
> she told me several times that she feels bad whenever she comes here



Who could blame her, with all the vakjobs (sp?) running wild.

Reactions: Winner 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 25, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> she has not been online for a month now
> 
> I think she may took a break from here because she was burned out
> she told me several times that she feels bad whenever she comes here



Considering the number of users that bitch at mod on here; I honestly don't blame her. Hell, I even hate spending more than an hour on the forum


----------



## EJ (Feb 1, 2017)

@Amol@Flow I'm not gonna ban anyone for having disgusting opinions, because that would mean I have to define which opinions are acceptable and not, which I think is immoral. Either ignore the rightists or debate them, for I'm not silencing them.

@mr_shadow,

Don't generalize my complaints towards you. I have called for you to utilize good judgment when moderating this forum and to stop playing obtuse to trolls such as Chie. Chie and KingKiba or whatever the hell is name is have been the basis of my complaints thus far, so please save me with that bullshit. 

I asked where Chelydra talked about killing children, not called for him to be banned. 

tl;dr, Quit being scared and acting obtuse to the blatant trolling within this section.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Flow said:


> @Amol@Flow I'm not gonna ban anyone for having disgusting opinions, because that would mean I have to define which opinions are acceptable and not, which I think is immoral. Either ignore the rightists or debate them, for I'm not silencing them.
> 
> @mr_shadow,
> 
> ...


Ignore them if you don't like what they say, it's not fucking hard I do it with dickheads like Thorin, WT, Zyrax and Gunners.


----------



## EJ (Feb 1, 2017)

I do ignore users like Chie and KingKiba for the most part, it's when entire pages of discussions are derailed because of their nonsense. 

I'm not sure if KingKiba trolls all the time though.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Flow said:


> I do ignore users like Chie and KingKiba for the most part, it's when entire pages of discussions are derailed because of their nonsense.
> 
> I'm not sure if KingKiba trolls all the time though.


discuss around them then.


----------



## EJ (Feb 1, 2017)

Which again, I do for the most part.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to stay silent towards mr_shadow. He should take action and stop being too afraid to do anything.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

shadow always deflects with that shit. Amol was claiming being harassed, and considering VAK I wouldn't rule it out. The guy has fucking issues.

God you are such a shitty mod, @mr_shadow

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Amol (Feb 1, 2017)

@mr_shadow 
I don't think you understand how modding works. It is your job to mod their opinion or what is purpose do you think mod has in any section?
When someone advocates killing children you are supposed to take care of it. If not ban you can always delete the post and warn the poster.
But you have to do _something_.
Same thing goes with Chie. You are literally ignoring more than half sections of complains about him.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> shadow always deflects with that shit. Amol was claiming being harassed, and considering VAK I wouldn't rule it out. The guy has fucking issues.
> 
> God you are such a shitty mod, @mr_shadow


Fuck off seto. 


he pmed me threatening to neg me for replying to chie. 

he did so, so then I negged him in return for being a cunt that fucking tried to censor me. 

I did the very thing he did and threatened to do and he started whining like a bitch. 

Stop projecting your own inadequacies and failings onto me.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> Fuck off seto.
> 
> 
> he pmed me threatening to neg me for replying to chie.
> ...



I'm skeptical of the take of a guy that seems to have history of erratic behavior.

Projecting? The guy who has to constantly tell how much he makes like it matters? Soothe himself over his relative lack of knowledge on a matter?  You've got issues. Mael level issues, and I'm not throwing him under the bus but it is true. 

shadow is a complete fucking hypocrite.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm skeptical of the take of a guy that seems to have history of erratic behavior.
> 
> Projecting? The guy who has to constantly tell how much he makes like it matters? Soothe himself over his relative lack of knowledge on a matter?  You've got issues. Mael level issues, and I'm not throwing him under the bus but it is true.
> 
> shadow is a complete fucking hypocrite.


Soothe myself?

I admit on certain issues I'm ignorant unlike you who proclaim yourself to be a fountain of information that all in the cafe must drink from and listen to in order to better their lives.

I've never seen you admit you're wrong nor have I ever seen you accept victory gracefully you're a shit person and a shit winner and it's ironic that you critcise me for my boasting thinking it makes me look like a cutn but a guy that can win but has no class whatsoever is no better if not worse.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## aiyanah (Feb 1, 2017)

hohohoho its spicy in here
i was gonna suggest moving the cafe up but i'll just watch the show instead

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> Soothe myself?
> 
> I admit on certain issues I'm ignorant unlike you who proclaim yourself to be a fountain of information that all in the cafe must drink from and listen to in order to better their lives.
> 
> I've never seen you admit you're wrong nor have I ever seen you accept victory gracefully you're a shit person and a shit winner and it's ironic that you critcise me for my boasting thinking it makes me look like a cutn but a guy that can win but has no class whatsoever is no better if not worse.



See, there's that insecurity of your's. 

I'm capable of being wrong, but look at the current state of this section, it's not gonna happen often. Arguments here are rarely a graceful matter. Also, you don't boast, you soothe yourself, and there is a fundamental difference.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> See, there's that insecurity of your's.
> 
> I'm capable of being wrong, but look at the current state of this section, it's not gonna happen often. Arguments here are rarely a graceful matter. Also, you don't boast, you soothe yourself, and there is a fundamental difference.


I don't care if you like me

I know my abilities and have proven to be superior to you in the financial planning this is statement of fact until you can disprove it.

I am anything but insecure unlike you I don't need validation from NF to be considered a "genius" round here like you, that because he's not sure everyone else know's he has to prove it to everyone else by always being right.

you're projecting your on fears and doubts onto me fuck off now.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 1, 2017)

Muh Being Understanding


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 1, 2017)

there's nothing mr_shadow can or should do to punish trolls like chie and thorin and so on

the onus is on u guys, as the community, to not all be benderfishes

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> know my abilities and have proven to be superior to you in the financial planning this is statement of fact until you can disprove it.
> 
> I am anything but insecure unlike you I don't need validation from NF to be considered a "genius" round here like you, that because he's not sure everyone else know's he has to prove it to everyone else by always being right.
> 
> you're projecting your on fears and doubts onto me fuck off now.





> in social science and other pointless shit I'll accept you're smarter than me which I've admitted but bruh lets face it if I actually studied this bullshit instead of science I'd be far above your level.



ABLUBUBUBB IF I STUDIED YOUR *POINTLESS SHIT* (totally not pathetically passive-aggressive) I WOULD BE ABOVE YOUR LEVEL



VAK said:


> I know my abilities and have proven to be superior to you in the financial planning this is statement of fact until you can disprove it.



I've given nothing of the way of this topic. This is just you licking your wounds so to speak.



VAK said:


> yes we all know in pointless social science and political aspects seto you are fucking smarter than me, but in maths and science I'm far more intelligent than you can ever hope to be are you happy now is that what you wanted to hear to inflate your little ego, because you seek validation over the internet.



ABLBBUBUBUBBUB I MAKE MORE MONEY THAN YALL SO FUCK YOU

You're insecure as fuck.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> ABLUBUBUBB IF I STUDIED YOUR *POINTLESS SHIT* (totally not pathetically passive-aggressive) I WOULD BE ABOVE YOUR LEVEL
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> ABLUBUBUBB IF I STUDIED YOUR *POINTLESS SHIT* (totally not pathetically passive-aggressive) I WOULD BE ABOVE YOUR LEVEL



well yeah unless you're implying social science is more difficult than actual science?



> I've given nothing of the way of this topic. This is just you licking your wounds so to speak.


I'm right till proven otherwise



> You're insecure as fuck.


By the dictionairy definition of the term I'm not you are blublbulbubu I want to prove my superiority so keep throwing around terms from a subject he's not familiar with and try to get victory through dishonest means, because I;m a cunt that can't measure up


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> well yeah unless you're implying social science is more difficult than actual science?
> 
> 
> I'm right till proven otherwise
> ...



If it's not so hard, why do you suck at it comparatively speaking? Are you conceding to being an idiot, then? What you're doing, what I hope anyone can see is you're just trying to comfort yourself. I don't have to denigrate nor do I care about, your financial knowledge or your personal income or wealth. Yet you see fit to drop that each time you clearly lose a debate, like a thin-skinned version of Blue almost.

I don't care. Like I said, this is just you trying to comfort yourself over something completely irrelevant to whatever is discussed. You drop that crap all the time like any even gives a shit. We discuss politics, not your fucking paycheck.

OK. You just admitted inferiority in knowledge on those matters at hand, so what would you know the difference between when I throw around terms and even moreso, in a topic I'm unfamiliar with, or that I'm using dishonest means? Once again, transparent insecurity.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> If it's not so hard, why do you suck at it comparatively speaking? Are you conceding to being an idiot, then? What you're doing, what I hope anyone can see is you're just trying to comfort yourself. I don't have to denigrate nor do I care about, your financial knowledge or your personal income or wealth. Yet you see fit to drop that each time you clearly lose a debate, like a thin-skinned version of Blue almost.
> 
> I don't care. Like I said, this is just you trying to comfort yourself over something completely irrelevant to whatever is discussed. You drop that crap all the time like any even gives a shit.
> 
> OK. You just admitted inferiority in knowledge on those matters at hand, so what would you know the difference between when I throw around terms and even moreso, in a topic I'm unfamiliar with, or that I'm using dishonest means? Once again, transparent insecurity.


Oh my fucking god are you fucking illiterate I am not trying to comfort myself you dense friend.

i could give less fucks than when assad gasses his own people on your opinion of me. 

Are you a qualified clincial psychologist? yes or no? if not I don't think you're the right person to judge my mental flaws and it's fucking retarded of you to try.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> Oh my fucking god are you fucking illiterate I am not trying to comfort myself you dense friend.
> 
> i could give less fucks than when assad gasses his own people on your opinion of me.
> 
> Are you a qualified clincial psychologist? yes or no? if not I don't think you're the right person to judge my mental flaws and it's fucking retarded of you to try.



Sure you aren't...it's not like your statements are pretty much textbook indications of insecure behavior. Your need to compare my *assumed* area of focus to your own to make yourself feel better about, to feel above, your lack of knowledge on the former, is totally something a secure person would do.

Is that why you spaz out in the same way each time?

You give yourself away so easily, VAK.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Sure you aren't...it's not like your statements are pretty much textbook indications of insecure behavior.
> 
> Is that why you spaz out in the same way each time?
> 
> You give yourself away so easily, VAK.


Ok Dr, I'll be sure to get a diagnosis from a guy that isn't a twat.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> Ok Dr, I'll be sure to get a diagnosis from a guy that isn't a twat.



As I've stated many times before, you share a lot of Mael's flaws so maybe you should.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> As I've stated many times before, you share a lot of Mael's flaws so maybe you should.


In that same breath, maybe you could study a stem subject maybe you'd be able to live a more comfortable life.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> In that same breath, maybe you could study a stem subject maybe you'd be able to live a more comfortable life.



I like your assumptions. It just proves my point.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 1, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I like your assumptions. It just proves my point.


Well why don't you enlighten this ignorant person with your wealth of knowledge.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 1, 2017)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 1, 2017)

VAK said:


> Well why don't you enlighten this ignorant person with your wealth of knowledge.



Haven't I done so before, to your own concessions in the past? Your little swipes like the one you tried before are your insecure assumptions over details only few know of me, and those you certainly know none of. They're irrelevant, just like yours are. Yet you constantly put them up because you need to comfort yourself. You're in a political section, yet you bitch about political knowledge. Which is pretty stupid to boot.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 1, 2017)

Amol said:


> @mr_shadow
> I don't think you understand how modding works. It is your job to mod their opinion or what is purpose do you think mod has in any section?
> When someone advocates killing children you are supposed to take care of it. If not ban you can always delete the post and warn the poster.
> But you have to do _something_.
> Same thing goes with Chie. You are literally ignoring more than half sections of complains about him.



My job is to keep discussion on topic and in a reasonably civilized tone, not to be a thought police.

I'm not going to silence anyone for the opinions they post. If you don't like Chie or whoever you can stop replying to his threads and hope he goes away.

The Cafe is not a liberal echo chamber and it's not a right to only see opinions you agree with. Trump won the election and Trumpism is therefore a legit political standpoint whether you agree with it or not.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 2, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> My job is to keep discussion on topic and in a reasonably civilized tone, not to be a thought police.
> 
> I'm not going to silence anyone for the opinions they post. If you don't like Chie or whoever you can stop replying to his threads and hope he goes away.
> 
> The Cafe is not a liberal echo chamber and it's not a right to only see opinions you agree with. Trump won the election and Trumpism is therefore a legit political standpoint whether you agree with it or not.



How is anyone stupid enough to believe this? You don't even believe it. You just hide behind it to excuse your incompetence. 

You are inept, impotent, and incompetent.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> My job is to keep discussion on topic and in a reasonably civilized tone, not to be a thought police.
> 
> I'm not going to silence anyone for the opinions they post. If you don't like Chie or whoever you can stop replying to his threads and hope he goes away.
> 
> The Cafe is not a liberal echo chamber and it's not a right to only see opinions you agree with. Trump won the election and Trumpism is therefore a legit political standpoint whether you agree with it or not.



You keep making these broad generalizations when I have critisized people on both left and right.

and I agree with @Seto Kaiba, you're making these excuses. The only trolls that I have been consistent with is Chie, KingKiba and Thorin. You keep acting obtuse though, even at one point stating shit like "You're the only one complaining about it" to excuse yourself ignoring the shit.

Like I said, if you were adopting a relaxed modding style why do it specifically after banning users like Mael from the Cafe? That's too much of a damn coincidence.

For the record, again, I never called for Chelydra to be banned. But it's obvious as hell users like Chie and Thorin are trolls. I don't have an issue ignoring them individually, but when threads are derailed daily because of their bullshit (specifically Chie) then there is a problem because others don't know how to ignore them.


----------



## God (Feb 2, 2017)

Maybe have all the regulars collectively put him on ignore and be done with it?


----------



## Amol (Feb 2, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> My job is to keep discussion on topic and in a reasonably civilized tone, not to be a thought police.
> 
> I'm not going to silence anyone for the opinions they post. If you don't like Chie or whoever you can stop replying to his threads and hope he goes away.
> 
> The Cafe is not a liberal echo chamber and it's not a right to only see opinions you agree with. Trump won the election and Trumpism is therefore a legit political standpoint whether you agree with it or not.


That is exactly the problem shadow.
You believe they represent right.
They don't. Chie has no side. He himself once admitted that he purposefully takes controversial side.
That is trolling. 
And since when advocating killing children classifies as being 'Right/Republican' ? That classifies as being psychopath not republican.
You must have very low opinion of republicans if you think that.
Since when anybody who criticizes Trump automatically becomes liberals?
How do you know that I am a liberal ?
No body wants a liberal echo chamber here. That is straw man from you. Just because we want few trolls gone doesn't mean we want right to gone from here. I have less than flattering opinion of baconbits but you won't find me arguing to ban him.
You are taking all of us for idiots shadow. Maybe there is some merit to our complains if majority of cafe is saying it, just maybe. It is kind of insulting just to be dismissed like that. 
It is mod's job to weed out extremes. Otherwise maybe we will have someone here who advocates raping women because that is man's right or someone arguing slavery should be back because blacks are inferior monkeys.
Is this you want ?
This place to become home of degenerates because you don't want to thought police?
Think about it.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 2, 2017)

u guys all act like u DONT want to argue lol

tsundere for trolls gg


----------



## Bender (Feb 2, 2017)

I ain't gonna ask for anyone to be banned or anything buuuut I getting the feeling that the newest Nf cafe troll is a dupe account of a former nf cafe troll.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 2, 2017)

I am not banning Chie. The End.

Thorin trolls sometimes by making on-sentence racist posts, which he then deletes moments later thinking mods can't see deleted posts (we can). But he's gotten better lately and often nobody reports him anyway.

@Bender Yeah, that's Let's Fighting Love. We ban him on sight because duping is against the rules. The actual content of his recent posts is not ban-worthy though, so I'm not going after him for being a Trumpeter.


----------



## Bender (Feb 2, 2017)

Yeah, c'mon guys Chie is so hilariously dumb. Don't ban him for being a raging tumor. Bacon is too smart to make fun of... (snrk).. and if Chie is gone things will be boring.

@mr_shadow

It's not cuz he a Trumpeter it's just a wee-bit suspicious soon as he starts posting on nf it's in the nf cafe.


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I am not banning Chie. The End.
> 
> Thorin trolls sometimes by making on-sentence racist posts, which he then deletes moments later thinking mods can't see deleted posts (we can). But he's gotten better lately and often nobody reports him anyway.
> 
> @Bender Yeah, that's Let's Fighting Love. We ban him on sight because duping is against the rules. The actual content of his recent posts is not ban-worthy though, so I'm not going after him for being a Trumpeter.



Ahh, so convenient that you pick this style of modding after banning people you don't like.

You're no better than Megaharrison, and you've regressed. As long as everyone here has the understanding that you've targeted people for less over the people that you're now advocating for or defending.

You're a coward at that.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Bender (Feb 2, 2017)

@Flow

Geezus man. Ain't it enough he allow us to insult the shit out of each? Chie (even tho most annoying fuck in nf cage) doesn't need to be banned unless really do serious shit.


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

It's not hard to ignore Chie, but other users have a difficulty understanding that there is no point engaging him in politics. When different threads get derailed continuously for weeks, yeah it becomes an issue.

@mr_shadow tries to generalize the complaints as "Oh, the Cafe isn't a Liberal echo chamber", but that isn't what is being argued. There are plenty of users that have expressed right wing sentiment all the time and I rarely see people call for them to get banned and that again is not what I was arguing. I never even called for users like Chelydra to be banned despite them having screwed up beliefs. I'm talking about 2-3  users, two of which mr_shadow understands they are in fact trolls but is too incompetent to do anything about it.

I don't mind the flaming but as @Seto Kaiba stated when someone has made it their MO to contribute absolutely nothing to the section besides trolling then it becomes a problem. What if everyone began to act in this manner?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

I think you boys are going way too far with this.  Other than radical opinions these guys have done nothing wrong.  The Cafe should be a place where radical muslims should be able to post alongside rightwing nationalists, communists, fundamentalist Christians and secular atheists.  The viewpoints should not be what you argue contributes to the ban.  Its the behavior, either flaming or harassment, that we should be focused on.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I think you boys are going way too far with this.  Other than radical opinions these guys have done nothing wrong.  The Cafe should be a place where radical muslims should be able to post alongside rightwing nationalists, communists, fundamentalist Christians and secular atheists.  The viewpoints should not be what you argue contributes to the ban.  Its the behavior, either flaming or harassment, that we should be focused on.



I'm talking about two users, both in which mr_shadow understands they troll and has already flat out admitted it in this very thread (on this page or the one previous in regards with Thorin). 

You're being overly defensive here, just stop man.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> I'm talking about two users, both in which mr_shadow understands they troll and has already flat out admitted it in this very thread (on this page or the one previous in regards with Thorin).
> 
> You're being overly defensive here, just stop man.



No, you guys claim they're trolling.  I don't think they are, I think they have opinions you guys refuse to take seriously, which is far different than trolling.


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> No, you guys claim they're trolling.  I don't think they are, I think they have opinions you guys refuse to take seriously, which is far different than trolling.



Right, Thorin throwing shade on different occassions to get my attention and even going into my VMs to call me an ape, that was really just him trying to engage into a battle of opinions in regards with evolution which I should had taken seriously. @Roman can confirm this.

Chie talking about invading Mexico and all the other...

You know what bacon, nah son. I'm not feeling all this explaining for something so obvious. I try to keep myself from being lazy at times but man, you really need to pay attention to who you defend and not just because they confirm to your ideology.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Roman (Feb 2, 2017)

Please tell me how someone who stated we should invade Mexico is not trolling?

At the very list, ban people known to have dumb opinions. There's a difference between that and a radical opinion.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> Right, Thorin throwing shade on different occassions to get my attention and even going into my VMs to call me an ape, that was really just him trying to engage into a battle of opinions in regards with evolution which I should had taken seriously. @Roman can confirm this.



You guys constantly throw shade at each other.



Flow said:


> Chie talking about invading Mexico and all the other...



I took that as an obvious joke.  But even if it wasn't so long as he isn't flaming he's allowed to have stupid opinions.



Flow said:


> You know what bacon, nah son. I'm not feeling all this explaining for something so obvious. I try to keep myself from being lazy at times but man, you really need to pay attention to who you defend and not just because they confirm to your ideology.



I don't have to agree with people to defend their right to post in the Cafe.  At some point you need to stop making this as if I have a personal agreement with these folks.  I actually like all the people who debate Chie and Thorin, not the other way around.  I don't have any ideological affinity with those posters.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 2, 2017)

Roman said:


> Please tell me how someone who stated we should invade Mexico is not trolling?
> 
> At the very list, ban people known to have dumb opinions. There's a difference between that and a radical opinion.



lol...


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You guys constantly throw shade at each other.



Who is you guys? I ignore him for the most part. 







> I took that as an obvious joke.  But even if it wasn't so long as he isn't flaming he's allowed to have stupid opinions.



Which he defended in an actual argument. It's where I began to suspect that he was trolling. And if he was just 'joking' in his argument while knowingly arguing with people that were taking him seriously, that points exactly to what just about everyone in this section knows besides yourself man.

I understand you dislike the mob-mentality way of thinking and it's good that you do, but you play devil-advocate way to much bacon. Even when it's right there in front of you.





> I don't have to agree with people to defend their right to post in the Cafe.  At some point you need to stop making this as if I have a personal agreement with these folks.  I actually like all the people who debate Chie and Thorin, not the other way around.  I don't have any ideological affinity with those posters.



I believe you're clueless on Thorin for the most part and made a broad sweeping generlization as opposed to understanding why exactly people think he's a troll (as if you even needed one when you can just look at his posting history in the Cafe). 

For Chie, I believe it is due to his political stances which again, I think you are delusional with.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 2, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> We had a guy just advocate killing entire races of people, and you wanna bitch about that? At least I can prove when someone is being an idiot or ignorant.



So? Was Bioness banned from the Cafe when he did the same?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> I understand you dislike the mob-mentality way of thinking and it's good that you do, but you play devil-advocate way to much bacon. Even when it's right there in front of you.



I personally don't care if he was serious or not.  No matter what he said the Cafe is the place to say and respond to that.  Or ignore it if you want.



Flow said:


> I believe you're clueless on Thorin for the most part and made a broad sweeping generlization as opposed to understanding why exactly people think he's a troll (as if you even needed one when you can just look at his posting history in the Cafe).



I don't know the dude but if he's a jackass just refute him.  That's what debating is for.



Flow said:


> For Chie, I believe it is due to his political stances which again, I think you are delusional with.



Then debate him.  I marvel you guys claim to want to debate and then want the mods to ban the people who make the worst arguments from the opposing sides.  Take that easy win with a smile, my nig.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 2, 2017)

Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> So? Was Bioness banned from the Cafe when he did the same?



Yeah, he was! Especially when he kept going on about it.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 2, 2017)

this changes some things


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I personally don't care if he was serious or not.  No matter what he said the Cafe is the place to say and respond to that.  Or ignore it if you want.



It's not a matter if you care or not. Entirely irrelevant.

It's the trolling that I keep pointing towards and that you keep side-stepping.




> I don't know the dude but if he's a jackass just refute him.  That's what debating is for.




I'm not going to refute a troll. I've pointed out continuously that I ignore the three users I have mentioned in the thread for the most part.

And for the love of God bacon, if you don't know about his history why are you trying to argue with me in regards with him trolling or not? If you were speaking specifically about Thorin here.





> Then debate him.  I marvel you guys claim to want to debate and then want the mods to ban the people who make the worst arguments from the opposing sides.  Take that easy win with a smile, my nig.



Again, a generalization. I haven't called for people like Chelydra to be banned or even users like IchLiebe. I've been very specific, so save me that "You just don't like people with controversial opinions and want them banned."

Man are you even paying attention to what I've been typing?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> It's not a matter if you care or not. Entirely irrelevant.
> 
> It's the trolling that I keep pointing towards and that you keep side-stepping.



I don't get what you expect Shadow to do about this when what you're claiming is trolling someone else could argue is a wild argument.



Flow said:


> I'm not going to refute a troll.



Why not?  It seems to me like he needs to be put in his place by the posters, not the staff.



Flow said:


> I've pointed out continuously that I ignore the three users I have mentioned in the thread for the most part.
> 
> And for the love of God bacon, if you don't know about his history why are you trying to argue with me in regards with him trolling or not? If you were speaking specifically about Thorin here.



No, I was speaking generally about him, Chie and KingKiba.  I know more about Chie and Kingkiba than Thorin.  It seems to me that if Thorin is harassing you he should be reprimanded.  But if its just the little tit-for-tat stuff I've seen in the Cafe threads I've been a part of its much ado about nothing.



Flow said:


> Again, a generalization. I haven't called for people like Chelydra to be banned or even users like IchLiebe. I've been very specific, so save me that "You just don't like people with controversial opinions and want them banned."
> 
> Man are you even paying attention to what I've been typing?



Its hard to tell what you want, then.  Cite the offensive bits because I'm with @mr_shadow on this one: I have no idea what you expect to be done.


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I don't get what you expect Shadow to do about this when what you're claiming is trolling someone else could argue is a wild argument.



Yeah, you. You're just about the only person I have seen so far that has stated Chie wasn't a troll. 





> Why not?  It seems to me like he needs to be put in his place by the posters, not the staff.



Because I don't aim towards communicating with an individual that is being intentionally obtuse to incite a reaction out of people. 

I mean, are you now asking me why I refrain from feeding trolls now?




> No, I was speaking generally about him, Chie and KingKiba.  I know more about Chie and Kingkiba than Thorin.



Then quit speaking in regards with Thorin.





> It seems to me that if Thorin is harassing you he should be reprimanded.  But if its just the little tit-for-tat stuff I've seen in the Cafe threads I've been a part of its much ado about nothing.



And adding nothing of substance with the Cafe to incite reactions out of people specifically by trolling, that should be gone after as well. 



> Its hard to tell what you want, then.  Cite the offensive bits because I'm with @mr_shadow on this one: I have no idea what you expect to be done.



You know what bacon, I'm willing to bet you're oblivious to what some of the main things people have been saying in regards with Chie. 

-Arguing we should invade Mexico -Trolling
-Saying Obama has been the cause of death for more people than Hitler - Trolling
-Misleading thread titles that mr_shadow ignored:
-Saying if someone traveled to Britain and befriended a  Muslim they would be raped -Trolling


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 2, 2017)

the problem with chie is you can tell he's trying to get a rise out of people and sometimes will overplay his hand (think of infamous post he deleted) in order to bait that reaction but you also get the notion that he's not completely disingenuous

i do solemnly believe he's a nationalistic trump supporter, but he just exaggerates and exacerbates his ideologies to incendiary effect 

so, the problem, in essence, is he's not someone who is 100% trolling all the time (which is what some people are inclined to believe elsewise why would they attempt to go head 2 head with him in any given issue)

he's not even the worst troll in the cafe by a long shot


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> If I were a mod and I _knew _someone was trolling and stacked evidence to support my claim and utilized good judgment, I would bring up my concerns with the other staff and talked about recommendations.



So basically you don't know what you'd do but you want @mr_shadow to know with absolute certainty.  Got it.



Flow said:


> By all means, you can allow yourself to get trolled by individuals and try to sway them to your way of thinking if that's your way of handling it. I have yet to see that ever happen out of my years on the internet, but please, go ahead and prove me wrong.



To each his own approach.  People often say they're trolling when they honestly want to see a response.



Flow said:


> I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it would be foolish to speak in regards with a subject you know nothing about as opposed to jumping into an argument trying to play devil's advocate for the hell of it.



I was agreeing with your ass.



Flow said:


> I can argue with you back and forth for days over this.



Why not?  You're a cafe poster now. 



Flow said:


> In my opinion, you just have poor judgment in regards with shit like this bacon. The quote below this one goes to show.
> 
> It's the same thing with Megaharrison and how you tried to jump to his defense when ever he received a lot of critisim when just about everybody could see he was regressing.



I'm more permissive when it comes to forum behavior, admittedly.  If I was modding I'd be a bit more strict but not much stricter than Shadow already is.


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> the problem with chie is you can tell he's trying to get a rise out of people and sometimes will overplay his hand (think of infamous post he deleted) in order to bait that reaction but you also get the notion that he's not completely disingenuous
> 
> i do solemnly believe he's a nationalistic trump supporter, but he just exaggerates and exacerbates his ideologies to incendiary effect
> 
> ...



When Zero was active, I would give it to him when he was going after bacon and his family..


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> So basically you don't know what you'd do but you want @mr_shadow to know with absolute certainty.  Got it.



Really now, putting words in my mouth?

I'm pretty sure I implied by recommendations to head for a warning, or some kind of ban. Next time, I'll be extra specific for you bacon. I know you have a hard time seeing stuff that's right in front of you. 



> I'm more permissive when it comes to forum behavior, admittedly.  If I was modding I'd be a bit more strict but not much stricter than Shadow already is.



Amanda was 10X better than the shit he's pulling now, and I wasn't optimistic about her at first. 

Shadow has modded not just out of spite, but is now too afraid to do anything as a mod. He's way too incompetent to be a mod as nice of a guy as he is.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> Really now, putting words in my mouth?
> 
> I'm pretty sure I implied by recommendations to head for a warning, or some kind of ban. Next time, I'll be extra specific for you bacon. I know you have a hard time seeing stuff that's right in front of you.



You weren't specific at all.  Yeah, I was clowning but the point was to get you to see that you literally said nothing.  So let me ask you specifically: do you think the poster should be banned or simply warned?



Flow said:


> Amanda was 10X better than the shit he's pulling now, and I wasn't optimistic about her at first.



I don't think so.  She wasn't bad but in my mind she deferred to @mr_shadow .



Flow said:


> Shadow has modded not just out of spite, but is now too afraid to do anything as a mod. He's way too incompetent to be a mod as nice of a guy as he is.



He's not incompetent.  He hasn't dealt with some posters that you don't like and you're frustrated.  But putting myself in his shoes I would have done the same thing.


----------



## EJ (Feb 2, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You weren't specific at all.  Yeah, I was clowning but the point was to get you to see that you literally said nothing.  So let me ask you specifically: do you think the poster should be banned or simply warned?



Warned about 2-3 times, and bring up stacked evidence to support my claims as best as I could.

I would even try speaking with the user before hand on a separate account to goad them into admitting they were trolling. 

If the user isn't a problem in other sections and gets along well, I'd make it a section ban.




> I don't think so.  She wasn't bad but in my mind she deferred to @mr_shadow .



Their modding was similar at first, but nah I stopped being skeptical when I saw her warning her own friends or people she associated with, and didn't seem to waver to one spectrum over the other despite the fucked up sentiment an individual would be expressing either left or right.



> He's not incompetent.  He hasn't dealt with some posters that you don't like and you're frustrated.  But putting myself in his shoes I would have done the same thing.



He is incompetent, as I've already stated. He has modded out of spite, and relaxed his modding once he got who he didn't like out of the section he modded then conveniently stopped.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 2, 2017)

Flow said:


> Warned about 2-3 times, and bring up stacked evidence to support my claims as best as I could.



Okay.  Now if he warns them will you be happy?



Flow said:


> Their modding was similar at first, but nah I stopped being skeptical when I saw her warning her own friends or people she associated with, and didn't seem to waver to one spectrum over the other despite the fucked up sentiment an individual would be expressing either left or right.



I think this is a case of "absence makes the heart grow fonder".



Flow said:


> He is incompetent, as I've already stated. He has modded out of spite, and relaxed his modding once he got who he didn't like out of the section he modded then conveniently stopped.



I don't like how the Mael case was handled.  But I think if he handled Mael like he's handling Chie, VAK and others I would have been happy.


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Okay.  Now if he warns them will you be happy?



If that's all he does, then no. He should take action against individuals utilizing good judgment.




> I think this is a case of "absence makes the heart grow fonder".



No, I liked how things were being moderated and made post during the time frame of when they were modding. Again, you speak of things you know little about.



> I don't like how the Mael case was handled.  But I think if he handled Mael like he's handling Chie, VAK and others I would have been happy.



I disagree obviously in regards with modding but you cannot access 1 out of the three individuals the same. VAK and Mael are similar.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 3, 2017)

Basicly what @The Handsome Klad talked about last year has only gotten worse 
The whole "Pet Project" complex is pretty much all what defines the section nowdays with 95% of the threads being about Pro  Vs Anti Trump posters all trying to spread their agenda  with nobody left bothering to diversify the topics unless it suits their agenda


----------



## Amol (Feb 3, 2017)

I nowadays just pretend that Cafe doesn't have a Mod.
shadow has covered his eyes then saying that he isn't saying any trolls in Cafe. 
He is opposite of Trump in that way.
Trump is ruining America with his aggressiveness while Shadow is ruining Cafe with idleness, King Tommen like behavior. :carprone


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 3, 2017)

Mr Shadow is a liberal communist Militia Nazi who eats little babies and kicks puppies
He also smells

Nyahnyahnyah


----------



## baconbits (Feb 3, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Mr Shadow is a liberal communist Militia Nazi who eats little babies and kicks puppies
> He also smells
> 
> Nyahnyahnyah



Puts it all in perspective, lol.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2017)

Amol said:


> I nowadays just pretend that Cafe doesn't have a Mod.
> shadow has covered his eyes then saying that he isn't saying any trolls in Cafe.
> He is opposite of Trump in that way.
> Trump is ruining America with his aggressiveness while Shadow is ruining Cafe with idleness, King Tommen like behavior. :carprone



Crown me, and you will see a Cafe the likes of which you have never seen before...


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

mr_shadow: you're the only one complaining so...

*more people complain than before*

mr_shadow: nope not taking any action. End of discussion


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 4, 2017)

This thread is a bitch made embarrassment.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 4, 2017)

@Flow

When I get home on Monday I'll read through Chie's whole post history and see if there are any grounds for the trolling accusation.

Will that make you happy?


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

My irritation with how this section is being modded would lessen if it's not just towards Chie, but towards any users that gravitated towards the bullshit he's pulled. Which isn't really a lot. I can't think of anyone else besides him currently TBH. And I try to remain a realist, I don't see you doing anything even after viewing his post. You aren't going to catch users like them expressing that they are trolls in a blatant manner.

The best you can do is utilize good judment which again I don't see you using to the best of your ability. There will never be a perfect system of modding, which is why I think you need @Amanda to come back, or need to mod someone else to balance out the shit that you aren't connecting with in which other users here have been irritated with.

As for the flaming, again, I don't want this to be a carebear section or just reflect political views that I like or agree with. But there is obvious lines that should be drawn somewhere. And it shouldn't just be limited to personal insults. Saying "^ (use bro) are stupid because[insert argument lacking substances here]" shouldn't be tolerated. I don't care how much of a tl;dr someone types. What you're basically saying to trolls with your policy @mr_shadow is the more trollish your post is, the better the chance it has to being excused.

Like your modding policy has seriously regressed the past few months, and I have a hard time understanding how you don't even see this.

And the sourcing for the threads that have been excused his just flat-out horrible. Is that thread with the Breitbart shit still open?


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 4, 2017)

@Flow

We've had this same source policy since May.

The reason I've been less active since banning Mael is the section wanted me drawn and quartered for it, so I backed down a bit to let things cool down.

Since then I've also been traveling a lot:

December 19-December 31: In Sweden for Christmas and Western New Year.

January 1-January 7: In Changchun and Beijing to celebrate the 10th anniversary of my first visit to China.

January 8-15: In Shanghai to meet up with wife visiting her parents.

January 16-26: Back at work in Hong Kong.

January 27-February 5: In Chongqing for Chinese New Year.

So you can see that in the past 7 weeks I've spent less than 2 in my normal place of residence, and therefore haven't been that focused on what is ultimately _a hobby that I do for free_.


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

The source policy really shouldn't changed in the first place and if anything should had been reformed.

I understood you were vacationing at one point, but being told "Nope, no issues here. Everything is fine and dandy" is what caused me to start complaining because you were ignoring large parts of how this section was detoritating for the worst. I mean seriously, telling someone to 'shut their fucking gook' or whatever is inheritantly worst than going around spreading racism from other users?

There should be another mod that has filled the role because this isn't honestly a section that should be neglected for a long time. 

Seriously, don't try to use that "I do this for free" shit man, I understand vacationing and not being around to manage the section. You've excused some pretty blatant shit that shouldn't been excused in the first place which was already brought up towards you by multiple users. That's what I'm mainly complaining about.

If you don't feel as though you can mod this place that frequently honestly, there should be another mod that should take over the section in your absence.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 4, 2017)

Flow said:


> The source policy really shouldn't changed in the first place and if anything should had been reformed.
> 
> I understood you were vacationing at one point, but being told "Nope, no issues here. Everything is fine and dandy" is what caused me to start complaining because you were ignoring large parts of how this section was detoritating for the worst. I mean seriously, telling someone to 'shut their fucking gook' or whatever is inheritantly worst than going around spreading racism from other users?
> 
> ...



Who do you suggest since most of the people that would be put forwards are heavily biased and unlikely to be fair/impartial and those that would be are either not well known or not firm enough to be taken seriously.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 4, 2017)

@Flow

I'll be back to my normal routine come this Monday and will then have time to mod the section as usual.

We should definitely have a second Cafe mod again though. Would you like to nominate someone in particular? (Can PM if you don't want anyone else to see)


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 4, 2017)

afgpride is clearly the best choice
everyone else is too partisan or too caustic


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 4, 2017)

or trolls.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 4, 2017)

Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> afgpride is clearly the best choice
> everyone else is too partisan or too caustic


Erictheking is far more diplomatic, plus if he's a mod he can't meme or provide us with comedic relief can he?


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> @Flow
> 
> I'll be back to my normal routine come this Monday and will then have time to mod the section as usual.
> 
> We should definitely have a second Cafe mod again though. Would you like to nominate someone in particular? (Can PM if you don't want anyone else to see)





Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> afgpride is clearly the best choice
> everyone else is too partisan or too caustic



@afgpride as another mod

@baconbits as adviser for the Cafe section.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 4, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> We should definitely have a second Cafe mod again though. Would you like to nominate someone in particular?


Either Gunners or Baconbits , they have shown themselfs to be one of the few able to be objectivist and wouldn't try to make the section their echo chamber.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

I agree. @Gunners for mod as well.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Chie (Feb 4, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Either Gunners or Baconbits , they have shown themselfs to be one of the few able to be objectivist and wouldn't try to make the section their echo chamber.


@baconbits wouldn't be too bad, he's active too. I don't think I've seen Gunners.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 4, 2017)

Flow said:


> Which isn't really a lot. I can't think of anyone else besides him currently TBH


I can name three


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> I can name three



Who?


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 4, 2017)

Flow said:


> Who?


WT VAK and Overwatch


----------



## EJ (Feb 4, 2017)

How is @VAK similar with Chie? I see a Mael comparison.


----------



## Chie (Feb 4, 2017)

How is Mael similar to me? The guy was a Leftist.


----------



## Drake (Feb 4, 2017)

Chie said:


> How is Mael similar to me? The guy was a Leftist.



He is probably saying Mael is similar to VAK, not you.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 4, 2017)

Flow said:


> How is @VAK similar with Chie? I see a Mael comparison.


He actually admitted saying fucked up things purely to rile people up and got called out on it


----------



## Chie (Feb 4, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> He actually admitted saying fucked up things purely to rile people up and got called out on it


I don't do that though.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Amol (Feb 5, 2017)

I would recommend @afgpride and @Seto Kaiba .
They are one of the most neutral posters of cafe. I have seen then praise and berate both sides be it left or right. Infact iirc they were one of the top hater of Clinton on election time. They also call bullshit to when they see Right doing it . So they have no issue of being a partisan like say baconbits whose worship to republicans is too obvious.
Most importantly they are not passive. I don't think either of them would hesitate to take action if situation demands it. This is something we need from cafe mod. Someone who can act.
Frankly mod doesn't even need to perma ban someone if he is trolling. He can just ban him for a week or just for three days. Troll gets the message that trolling won't be tolerated while he still gets another chance to improve himself. Balance can be achieved without going completely lax or unnecessarily aggressive while modding. If that someone just refuses to stop trolling then it is not on Mod that he got section banned as he had been given a fair chance before that.
P.S.: Gunners isn't much active in cafe . I haven't seen him post in a while.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 5, 2017)

Amol said:


> I would recommend @[B]afgpride[/B] and @[B]Seto Kaiba[/B] .
> They are one of the most *neutral* posters of cafe


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 5, 2017)

If we're going to mod its either gotta be afg, gunners or seto.

Reactions: Disagree 2


----------



## God (Feb 5, 2017)

Gunners is the best choice, but stop arguing with mods Espi, it accomplishes nothing.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 5, 2017)

I'm gonna crank up my policing of trolling a little bit and see if it makes y'all happier.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 5, 2017)

Only if we actually establish whats Trolling is

Its too much of a vague buzzword


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 5, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Only if we actually establish whats Trolling is
> 
> Its too much of a vague buzzword



Trolling = making racist/sexist/nationophobic/religiophobic and other such remarks with no believable argument only for the sake of causing a stirr.

This was always against the rules, but I'm gonna get firmer at enforcing it.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 5, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Trolling = making racist/sexist/nationophobic/religiophobic and other such remarks with no believable argument only for the sake of causing a stirr.
> 
> This was always against the rules, but I'm gonna get firmer at enforcing it.


That's less vague but my main concern is legitimate opinions being targeted as "Trolling" due to being controversial


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 5, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> That's less vague but my main concern is legitimate opinions being targeted as "Trolling" due to being controversial



I look at the user's history and check if it's likely to be a legit opinion or just for the lolz.

If their post history for the past day is:

Muslims suck!
Women suck!
Blacks suck!
Liberals suck!
Oda sucks!
Game of Thrones sucks!

Then you start to suspects a pattern...


----------



## God (Feb 5, 2017)

Shinryu banned. Shadow becoming the mod we need.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2017)

God said:


> Shinryu banned. Shadow becoming the mod we need.



三年不鸣，鸣必惊人。
"If a bird has been silent for three years, its first cry will shake the Earth"

-Chinese proverb

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2017)

Please consider users like Thorin as well. 

The guys goes around posting one line troll post all the time.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> Please consider users like Thorin as well.
> 
> The guys goes around posting one line troll post all the time.



He's definitely on the watch list.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> Please consider users like Thorin as well.
> 
> The guys goes around posting one line troll post all the time.


Overwatch aswell


----------



## baconbits (Feb 6, 2017)

erictheking said:


> This thread is a bitch made embarrassment.



Tell me about it...

@Gunners would probably be awesome.  If people don't have a problem with me I would mod but if it caused some uproar with the left wingers it wouldn't be worth doing.

I don't agree with either @afgpride or @Seto Kaiba .  AFG doesn't post here primarily.  Seto toes the line of flaming himself too often to be an example.  Both are quality posters that would not make good mods.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 6, 2017)

Anybody got Believe It!'s current contact info?

No reason, not even sure why I brought it up.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2017)

And will there be something done about the source policy?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> And will there be something done about the source policy?


It's better to allow all sources and allow criticism of the sources in the thread than to try to ban "bad" sources.

Because let me go ahead and show you how the thread to debate this would go:

You'd start with someone from the traditional left-leaning side giving a bunch of "bad" sources to ban, like Breitbart, Red State, Infowars, whatever.

Bacon, or someone traditionally right-leaning would counter with a bunch of "bad" sources on the other side, like Buzzfeed, Gawker, etc.

Someone would make a joke about Faux news.

Someone else would make a serious suggestion that Fox News should be banned.

Chie would then come in and suggest that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, etc should all be banned because they're Fake News as identified by Meister Trump.

The thread then dissolves into a 300 page monstrosity trying to determine exactly what level of vigor should be used and how to evenly apply it to all sources.  It ends with a list of sites that no one is really happy with and with people continuing to challenge sources that don't fall on that list but arguably should be on it from one point of view or another.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

@mr_shadow 

Erictheking 
Baconcits


make these ningen mods because anyone else that has been suggest, Gunners, Seto etc will be biased will show favouritism and will be the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of mega they'd be leftist dickheads.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 6, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> It's better to allow all sources and allow criticism of the sources in the thread than to try to ban "bad" sources.
> 
> Because let me go ahead and show you how the thread to debate this would go:
> 
> ...



You summarize the debate well except I wouldn't take that position.  To me the current policy is best.  I'd rather have people actually read the article itself and then critique.  Do people magically believe that the same reporter working at Breitbart will write an illegitimate article but get hired by the NYT and only post legit stuff?  To me the source is important but often times the tone and the claims being made within the OP are even more important.  Yeah, I'll criticize someone who is always posting Mother Jones articles, but its better to have that than to pretend that the AP, my preferred source, is always legit.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> @mr_shadow
> 
> Erictheking
> Baconcits
> ...



@baconbits is a nice user, but he has shown to be oblivious to a lot of antics a lot of users engage in. I could also see him continuously giving users the benefit of the doubt many times as opposed to taking action despite them going way over the line at times.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> @baconbits is a nice user, but he has shown to be oblivious to a lot of antics a lot of users engage in. I could also see him continuously giving users the benefit of the doubt many times as opposed to taking action despite them going way over the line at times.


As opposed to the nothing that's being done right now. 

amanda is awol
Shadow don't listen

at least bacon is open to the idea of intereacting with members

the other options are biased and basically flamers and have done before name one time either of my aforementioned choices have flamed or verbally abused another member

I'll pull up a chair.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> @baconbits is a nice user, but he has shown to be oblivious to a lot of antics a lot of users engage in. I could also see him continuously giving users the benefit of the doubt many times as opposed to taking action despite them going way over the line at times.



Well you ain't wrong on the fact that I'm more of a live and let live type when it comes to forum behavior.  On the other hand when I'm in charge of something in real life I tend to get people who don't obey the rules.  The stuff I focus on is different than the stuff you do.  Plus I don't know why you treat that stuff so seriously, like it really affects your life.  I think most of you in this thread could use a bit of chill.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 6, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You summarize the debate well except I wouldn't take that position. To me the current policy is best. I'd rather have people actually read the article itself and then critique.


Not intended as a slur there, someone would come in and (rightfully) point at the bad sources on the left too.  But yeah my opinion it's clearly better to simply allow all sources and let people object to the source in the thread if there's merit to it.



baconbits said:


> Do people magically believe that the same reporter working at Breitbart will write an illegitimate article but get hired by the NYT and only post legit stuff?



Oh, I absolutely believe that (or at least things similar to that) happens.  But even there there's the problem that it's hard to tell if it's the reporter that's choosing to have a different style for one publication than another (there are certainly reporters that troll from time to time) or an editorial decision of the paper itself to require certain "tone" in their publication.  So ultimately the question is moot.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2017)

*Gonna put a disclaimer here:*

1. This is still an informal consultation, not an official mod "election".
2. I don't get to hand-pick my partner. It has to be approved by the other mods.

In other words, whoever gets the most nominations in this tread will not automatically be the new co-mod.

I will of course show the discussion to the other mods so they can take it into consideration, but ultimate discretion is with them.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> As opposed to the nothing that's being done right now.
> 
> amanda is awol
> Shadow don't listen
> ...



He just banned Shinryuu and is talking about taking more action. We will see. 

And if you're saying you are content with a user that doesn't do anything as mod, why are you suggesting anyone to begin with? I believe you're so irritated by Gunners and SetoKaiba you randomly tried to suggest two users, one of which I fail to see why you think has a huge grasp on this section to mod it. @erictheking

I could see baconbits being adviser however. He could make good suggestions and has been around this section for a long time.  



baconbits said:


> *Well you ain't wrong on the fact that I'm more of a live and let live type when it comes to forum behavior. * On the other hand when I'm in charge of something in real life I tend to get people who don't obey the rules.  The stuff I focus on is different than the stuff you do.  Plus I don't know why you treat that stuff so seriously, like it really affects your life.  I think most of you in this thread could use a bit of chill.



The bolded is what I meant in my statement @VAK.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> He just banned Shinryuu and is talking about taking more action. We will see.
> 
> And if you're saying you are content with a user that doesn't do anything as mod, why are you suggesting anyone to begin with? I believe you're so irritated by Gunners and SetoKaiba you randomly tried to suggest two users, one of which I fail to see why you think has a huge grasp on this section to mod it. @erictheking
> 
> ...


Gunners hardly posts anymore and has shown an outright disdain for me so he can't be trusted to be unbiased
seto hates baconbits and dislikes me but don't hate me cost he's jelly of me so he'll tolerate me but be a dick towards bacon. 

Eric the king while being unknown has shown to be level headed and polite towards other users and I think personally he'll be a better choice because I'm sure if asked he'd be willing to step up.


Hell I'd be a better mod than seto and if I were selected I would stop posting all together in the cafe and only enforce the rules because I don't add much to debates other than try to get some cheap laughs so if I were to stop contributing nothing would be lost. 


sadly my history of banning and shit posting prevents my ascension, however unlike others that want to have those two modded to have their little power play these two have shown none of the bias those two will show. 


Hell Nas is a far better choice than any of the others mentioned but he's been awol cos of life and being busy.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> Gunners hardly posts anymore and has shown an outright disdain for me so he can't be trusted to be unbiased



He didn't respond to your bait a lot of times man. I saw you within the cafe continuously trying to start beef with him and I saw you pointing towards some argument you both had weeks/months prior just to start up on a whim.

And a lot of people have had issues with you if you're talking about beef. That doesn't invalidate them from becoming mods automatically.



> seto hates baconbits and dislikes me but don't hate me cost he's jelly of me so he'll tolerate me but be a dick towards bacon.



I'm not arguing for Seto Kaiba to become mod or have suggested him. I would say he could be an adviser though. In fact I'm for @baconbits suggestion that there should be some veteran users of the Cafe that should be sought out to ask suggestions from before making drastic decisions towards the section itself. 



> Eric the king while being unknown has shown to be level headed and polite towards other users and I think personally he'll be a better choice because I'm sure if asked he'd be willing to step up.



TBH, I don't see him post that often. And there are plenty of users that are level headed within this section. It doesn't automatically mean they would make a great mod.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 6, 2017)

I think an Important thing to remember here is what Happened Between Mega and Kitsune three years ago 
Lets not repeat that and make sure that Mr Shadow the second mod  would be willing to co operate and discuss rather than one of them or both having a passive aggressive attitude torwar the other


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

Flow said:


> He didn't respond to your bait a lot of times man. I saw you within the cafe continuously trying to start beef with him and I saw you pointing towards some argument you both had weeks/months prior just to start up on a whim.
> 
> And a lot of people have had issues with you if you're talking about beef. That doesn't invalidate them from becoming mods automatically.
> 
> ...




it does when they can't be impartial which is what a mod is supposed to do it why despite his flaws that is something I feel shadow does quite well since he can seperate his personal feelings from his duties.

the same cannot be said of anyone else that's been nominated.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> Gunners hardly posts anymore and has shown an outright disdain for me so he can't be trusted to be unbiased
> seto hates baconbits and dislikes me but don't hate me cost he's jelly of me so he'll tolerate me but be a dick towards bacon.
> 
> Eric the king while being unknown has shown to be level headed and polite towards other users and I think personally he'll be a better choice because I'm sure if asked he'd be willing to step up.
> ...



I don't want to be a mod, but I don't dislike you I just think you're pitiful sometimes. I don't hate bacon either, though recent matters have made me lose a lot of respect...I wouldn't bother with people b/c I dislike them anyway.  I dislike most people, you know. 

The things I care about most are proper sourcing and trolling. I don't mind contentious atmosphere, or babying language. So many here have enormous difficulty in distinguishing tone from content, as I've mentioned many times before. 

If you stop spazzing out when someone shatters your self-esteem, I don't think you'd have much an issue anyway.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't want to be a mod, but I don't dislike you I just think you're pitiful sometimes. I don't hate bacon either, though recent matters have made me lose a lot of respect...I wouldn't bother with people b/c I dislike them anyway.  I dislike most people, you know.
> 
> If you stop spazzing out when someone shatters your self-esteem, I don't think you'd have much an issue anyway.


really because the venom in your posts leads me to think otherwise. 


if you could post more like this without sniping someone I might be inclined to agree with you.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> really because the venom in your posts leads me to think otherwise.
> 
> 
> if you could post more like this without sniping someone I might be inclined to agree with you.



I dislike shadow far more than I do you or bacon. 

That's something you always do, I don't see how you can possibly complain.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I dislike shadow far more than I do you or bacon.
> 
> That's something you always do, I don't see how you can possibly complain.


because that's one of the things that I feel disbars me from being a mod since I can't post without allowing my emotions to seep in just like you. 

plus I prefer shit posting and rocking the boat. 

someone that's going to be a leader on the other hand has to occupy the moral high ground so people can't turn around and say we ll you used to why can't I.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> because that's one of the things that I feel disbars me from being a mod since I can't post without allowing my emotions to seep in just like you.
> 
> plus I prefer shit posting and rocking the boat.
> 
> someone that's going to be a leader on the other hand has to occupy the moral high ground so people can't turn around and say we ll you used to why can't I.



I'm willfully hostile. You probably don't notice, but all the times you've tried to get on my personal life, I don't care. If I'm arguing I indulge in the moment, in the atmosphere of contention. That's what I care about.

This is what separates you and I, since you pondered about it before.

PFFFFT. You think the MODS here have ANY moral highground? It's just a circlejerk of cronyism! It's a our tiny example hilariously enough of what's wrong with politics. Modship isn't a meritocracy!


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm willfully hostile. You probably don't notice, but all the times you've tried to get on my personal life, I don't care. If I'm arguing I indulge in the moment, in the atmosphere of contention. That's what I care about.
> 
> This is what separates you and I, since you pondered about it before.
> 
> PFFFFT. You think the MODS here have ANY moral highground? It's just a circlejerk of cronyism! It's a our tiny example hilariously enough of what's wrong with politics. Modship isn't a meritocracy!


of course they don't which is why we should try to break the broken system of circle jerkin that we have unless you're happy for it to continue?

Also notice how long I held off posting about my "wealth" as you put it I always maintained a level of ambiguousness on it till a member called me out as being poor, I don't think I'm uber wealthy but it's dumb to say I'm poor.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba @VAK

Your gay flirting has nothing to do with the moderation policy of the Café. Take any off-topic discussion to the Convo.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 6, 2017)

wow why did u delete my post u ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

@mr_shadow 

you actually read any of my on topic posts?


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2017)

Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> wow why did u delete my post u ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)



Because I figured it was part of the Seto vs VAK discussion.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2017)

VAK said:


> @mr_shadow
> 
> you actually read any of my on topic posts?



I do, but I'm not disclosing my own preference in the co-mod discussion.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 6, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I do, but I'm not disclosing my own preference in the co-mod discussion.


Idc about you init just like to know that my input and rationale had been noted


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 8, 2017)

*SAY IT LOUD*

*SAY IT PROUD*

*
Spoiler:  



MOD ZYRAX


*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 8, 2017)

I came into this thread really thinking you were going to say something legit.


----------



## EJ (Feb 8, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I came into this thread really thinking you were going to say something legit.



I'm surprised you didn't agree with him. Devil's advocate is right up your alley bro.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 8, 2017)

Caesar didn't need a co-Consul anyway.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 9, 2017)

Flow said:


> I'm surprised you didn't agree with him. Devil's advocate is right up your alley bro.



I don't fall in line with everyone else's thinking.  If I myself haven't seen evidence to reach a conclusion I'm not going to jump onto that train with you guys.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 9, 2017)

Can we try and keep things serious in this thread? I want people to be able to come here and look at the transcript of what we've discussed and agreed on regarding moderation policy, so don't clutter it with irrelevant memes and arguments.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 10, 2017)

For real
Something should be done about the Debate section to make it.......have more debates
90% of the threads there are Circlejerks


----------



## Gunners (Feb 10, 2017)

I can't be bothered to find my previous post in this thread.

1) I don't think the section should move up the forum. Its location is irrelevant and I'd rather not have the section subjected to harsher rules.

2) I don't think the section requires more moderators. People have a tendency to speak as though the section is some uncontrollable fire. From what I have observed, _flaming _has not escalated to the point of causing long term problems. Things get heated from time to time and some members follow others around but it typically remains as mere trifles and fails to disrupt topics as a whole.

For me, asking for more moderators is tantamount to asking for more interference than what the current staff are capable of.

3) I don't think Shadow is doing a bad job. I don't agree with every decision he makes or time he decides to step in. However as a whole he has moved away from trying to micromanage every conversation in the section.

I do think he should take action against the slew of Donald Trump threads. I think at this point, it is necessary to set a standard for new Donald Trump threads e.g. Does it present a new issue? Is it significant?

I don't think it is too much to ask thread starters to write a couple of sentences justifying the existence of a new Donald Trump thread. If they can't be bothered to do that or the justification is poor, it should go in a mega thread.

Side note: Is it possible to use the rating feature as a means of handing out soft warnings and flagging posts. The former would be used by members of staff as a means of letting a member know he is getting carried away; the latter is a public alternative to the report system.

The debate section is on the members. Nothing is standing in the way of its growth. I do think the section should be pruned so that its direction can be redefined. I think good ideas would be creating threads where people argue against the stance they would usually take.


----------



## Rain (Feb 10, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> For real
> Something should be done about the Debate section to make it.......have more debates
> 90% of the threads there are Circlejerks



I agree, but honestly Zyrax i have yet to see you seriously debate something?


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 10, 2017)

Rain said:


> I agree, but honestly Zyrax i have yet to see you seriously debate something?


Its mainly because I don't take this olace seriously enough

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 11, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Its mainly because I don't take this olace seriously enough



Then why'd you post this? 



Zyrax Pasha said:


> For real
> Something should be done about the Debate section to make it.......have more debates
> 90% of the threads there are Circlejerks



Step your lie game up.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 11, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Then why'd you post this?
> 
> 
> 
> Step your lie game up.


The fact that I don't take this place seriously is the reason why I suggested that
To make the debate section less of a joke


----------



## Amol (Feb 11, 2017)

Then get out of here Zyrax.
If you are not being serious here by your own admission then you really have no place talking here. You can't possibly expect us to take you seriously now, can you?
You will turn into a joke if everything here is a joke to you.
That is how it works. 

---------------------------
Every section needs two mods. It is kind of stupid to expect single Mod to be available 24/7. Most of the sections do have atleast two mods for precisely that reason.
It is unreasonable to expect shadow to mod probably the most volatile section by himself. By forum standards he should have a help. That much is obvious imo.


----------



## Rain (Feb 11, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> The fact that I don't take this place seriously is the reason why I suggested that
> To make the debate section less of a joke



Then start participating, you're not a dumb guy.


----------



## Amanda (Feb 12, 2017)

Flow said:


> ---which is why I think you need @Amanda to come back, or need to mod someone else---





Flow said:


> If you don't feel as though you can mod this place that frequently honestly, there should be another mod---



I'm leaving, but agreed that it's better to have two mods.


----------



## Deleted member 73050 (Feb 12, 2017)

Mods should create a dupe called "Donald Trump", mod it, have the user title be "Supreme moderator of this continent" and basically mod the place harshly.


----------



## Deleted member 73050 (Feb 12, 2017)

Ah nvm Mega exists


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 12, 2017)

Baconbits may be someone I disagree with but I think out of anyone on the forum I've seen him be able to treat people fairly. Why should a mod have no beliefs? At least he is a nice guy with a sense of humor. I don't spend much time in the cafe but I don't see how he's not the obvious moderator candidate when Seto, who is also at least intelligent and engaged, admits to being willingly hostile. Which is a super dysfunctional leadership quality.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 12, 2017)

I'll still come back if you all apologize and ask me nicely.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Mider T (Feb 12, 2017)

Zyrax toes the line of actual debate.  He'll make a statement criticizes the current discussion but won't actually involve himself in it.  It's the equivalent of commenting on people's yelling match then leaving the room.


----------



## Bender (Feb 13, 2017)

Last post before I hit the sack

I think @Hitt should be new nf cafe mod. Out of everyone that has posted here for a while he has pretty good judgement. That and he least easily provoked person on forum. If not him then maybe Law could be one of the mods in this section.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 15, 2017)

~M~ said:


> Baconbits may be someone I disagree with but I think out of anyone on the forum I've seen him be able to treat people fairly. Why should a mod have no beliefs? At least he is a nice guy with a sense of humor. I don't spend much time in the cafe but I don't see how he's not the obvious moderator candidate when Seto, who is also at least intelligent and engaged, admits to being willingly hostile. Which is a super dysfunctional leadership quality.



mods are not selected on leadership quality. Otherwise hothead Naruto back in the day and Mega would've never made it to staff.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 15, 2017)

How it should be though. that's just my personal opinion and not how it is though.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 15, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Zyrax toes the line of actual debate.  He'll make a statement criticizes the current discussion but won't actually involve himself in it.  It's the equivalent of commenting on people's yelling match then leaving the room.



You need to have your pupil step up his game, then.

---

If staff and folks go with it I'd have no problem helping out @mr_shadow but honestly the cafe also needs all the posters in the section to step up their game as well.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 16, 2017)

~M~ said:


> How it should be though. that's just my personal opinion and not how it is though.


What do you mean?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 16, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> What do you mean?



He means that mods should be chosen for a degree of leadership quality even if that's not the way they choose mods or have chosen mods in the past.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 17, 2017)

baconbits said:


> He means that mods should be chosen for a degree of leadership quality even if that's not the way they choose mods or have chosen mods in the past.


Well that's right


baconbits said:


> but honestly the cafe also needs all the posters in the section to step up their game as well.


I think the problem in this is that most of the Regulars are fine with the Current status quo and don't really care if the Sections stagants or even Declines 
So the only solution is either for an  influx of new users who diversify the place and bring new  ideas  which is impossible at this point
Or for the staff to give the place a "push" 
Or for us to simply accept the current state of this place 

By a "push" I mean policies that will make the section more interesting


----------



## baconbits (Feb 17, 2017)

I don't think policies will do much to push us.  I post here so I can't lie: I may be part of the problem.  I just want a vigorous discussion of the issues of the day.  I think we could do more to spur the debate corner and the philosophy section.  I have ideas like rankings, one on one debates, team discussions and things like that, but it would require everyone to buy into it and I'm not sure people are willing to buy into all of that.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 17, 2017)

Any ideas are better than no ideas. It's consistent with the truth that inaction is usually worse than incorrect actions. At least with attempted progress people learn. 

I'm no regular to the section but it seems like things are pretty stagnant and the only exciting things are Chie's ""fake news"" threads


----------



## baconbits (Feb 17, 2017)

If people don't buy into a idea tho...

Remember my thread of the month idea?  That flopped like an NBA player taking a charge.


----------



## EJ (Feb 18, 2017)

~M~ said:


> Any ideas are better than no ideas. It's consistent with the truth that inaction is usually worse than incorrect actions. At least with attempted progress people learn.
> 
> I'm no regular to the section but it seems like things are pretty stagnant and the only exciting things are Chie's ""fake news"" threads



Not just Chie at a specific point, other users got in on it as well.

It took for different users to berate certain users constantly for them to change what they were doing in which others at times still slip up.


----------



## EJ (Feb 18, 2017)

Also, I'm starting to believe the Shinryu ban was kind of a sacrifice to appease the mob mentality. 

Is a new mod being considered for the Cafe? I'd argue we would need two. @Hitt, @Vermilion Kn  would be great. What about even that @Cyphon guy?


----------



## Rain (Feb 18, 2017)

@baconbits  for mod because he's very active, fairly respectful and obviously cares a great deal about the section. Furthermore, his moderating style will be laissez faire which is what is ultimately best suited for a place such as this one.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 18, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I don't think policies will do much to push us.  I post here so I can't lie: I may be part of the problem.  I just want a vigorous discussion of the issues of the day.  I think we could do more to spur the debate corner and the philosophy section.  I have ideas like rankings, one on one debates, team discussions and things like that, but it would require everyone to buy into it and I'm not sure people are willing to buy into all of that.


Well I too have suggestions
The problem like you said is that a lot of people might not like it and even leaves if Mr Shadow adopts it so it might backfire with people leaving and not enough  new people who like the changes coming in to replace

For example in the Case of the Debate section I would suggest either Changing the name or making it stricted so that there would be more debates
By that I mean that many threads there aren't debates at all, a Debate requires different sides, Most of the threads there nowdays are circlejerks. 
By stricter rules I mean threads being closed down if its clear that its became a circlejerk without any debate 
Theres also that the OP's Would have to be in a way that encourages debates, for example the Opening Posts in the  threads  about Feminism/Alt Right/whatever Idealogy treats those like an "Other" rather than an Idealogical Opponent,  rather than Calling out Those people for a debate/Discussion  to discuss there beleifs its pretty much "Let's mock those Retards". As fun it was to mock landwhales in the Feminism Thread, it shouldn't have been the most active thread in that section for more than two years. Stricter rules could prevent

Of course while said rules could work out they could turn off many regulars and may even in the long run kill off the Debate section for good. This also applies to any kind of reform or new Policy


----------



## EJ (Feb 18, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Well I too have suggestions
> The problem like you said is that a lot of people might not like it and even leaves if Mr Shadow adopts it so it might backfire with people leaving and not enough  new people who like the changes coming in to replace
> 
> For example in the Case of the Debate section I would suggest either Changing the name or making it stricted so that there would be more debates
> ...



No, this is partly a terrible idea. Seriously closing threads down when more people adopt a specific standpoint? Look @Zyrax Pasha, you can hate circle jerks with a passion but that doesn't mean you stop a debate if more people are aligned on a specific side as opposed to another.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 18, 2017)

Flow said:


> No, this is partly a terrible idea. Seriously closing threads down when more people adopt a specific standpoint? Look @Zyrax Pasha, you can hate circle jerks with a passion but that doesn't mean you stop a debate if more people are aligned on a specific side as opposed to another.


Except That's not what I am advocating at all

It could be argued that it is inevitable for a side to eventually dominate the debate, especially if the Demographics of the place supports gives them an Advantage.
For example most people in here are in Democrats in the American Political line so no matter what happens the discussion is going to be biased torward them.
And I can honestly say that this applies to anywhere in the internet, its going to be biased torward a demographic  depending on what site/Language of the Site/topic of the site regardless and that should be accepted as a fact.

What I am saying is if a thread goes too long(And I don't mean a couple of days, but rather weeks or even a Month) without someone from  the opposing side posting, like say the Feminism thread  after that Boardwarrior or whatever left. Then it clearly outlived its purpose and should be closed to make room for new threads and new debates.


----------



## EJ (Feb 18, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> What I am saying is if a thread goes too long(And I don't mean a couple of days, but rather weeks or even a Month) without someone from  the opposing side posting, like say the Feminism thread  after that Boardwarrior or whatever left. Then it clearly outlived its purpose and should be closed to make room for new threads and new debates.



I would say months in this case.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 18, 2017)

I like the idea of a debate section prune. Start from scratch. Popular ideas can be remade and people can structure their arguments from there


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 18, 2017)

Should just change it to a Speakers Corner.

It should be a free for all for any topic one wishes to discuss. Don't make it into some kind of debate club, that's the last thing we need.

Might as well can the Philosophy forum along with it. Those threads can comfortably fit into a Speakers Corner kind of forum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rain (Feb 18, 2017)

I personally currently find the debate section unappealing because most of the discussion is based around particular identities and issues (feminism, i*c*st, alt right, racism, religion - basically every thread is something like this). 

I realize this is important and currently so popular on both sides of the spectrum but still i would much prefer to see users debating global, world-historical topics and ideas. 

Some examples: economic schools and practices, philosophy, historical epochs and events, even various historical people, socioeconomic structures and yes, ultimately ideologies - but ideologies in the sense of universalist, global visions - I would put an emphasis on fascism, liberalism and communism as the principal and most interesting ones.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 18, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Should just change it to a Speakers Corner.
> 
> It should be a free for all for any topic one wishes to discuss. Don't make it into some kind of debate club, that's the last thing we need.
> 
> Might as well can the Philosophy forum along with it. Those threads can comfortably fit into a Speakers Corner kind of forum.


Which is why I made it renaming it a part of my  suggestions
If you want to keep it as a debate section then it has to be reformed
If you want it the way it is then rename it and merge it with the  two inactive sections under it


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 18, 2017)

Tbh it wouldn't hurt to merge the philosophy and debate sections they have had a lot of overlap


----------



## Bender (Feb 19, 2017)

I tip my hat to you @mr_shadow for finally closing Chie's troll threads


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 19, 2017)

Bender said:


> I tip my hat to you @mr_shadow for finally closing Chie's troll threads


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 20, 2017)

Hitt would make a good mod as well.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 20, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Well I too have suggestions
> The problem like you said is that a lot of people might not like it and even leaves if Mr Shadow adopts it so it might backfire with people leaving and not enough  new people who like the changes coming in to replace
> 
> For example in the Case of the Debate section I would suggest either Changing the name or making it stricted so that there would be more debates
> ...



Its hard to blame you for killing something that's almost dead already, tho.  Let's face it, the philosophical section has hardly anything in it anymore.  The troll threads get more hits than the serious ones.  As for your specific ideas I'm honestly not opposed to your ideas.  I think the OP's should be more provocative, stating an opinion or question that is clear.  I don't think the thread should be closed down if its a circle jerk, tho.  Most of the times those threads die off on their own anyway and by closing it you're just pissing off the people that want to post there.

But again, that's part of the membership here.  I would post more debates but I'd probably get even more hate for doing so because my positions would not be center left.  So we need to probably challenge ourselves to be more open minded or respectful in the way we address people with minority views.  That would encourage them to speak more and allow for more debates.


----------



## Bender (Feb 20, 2017)

@Normality 
Don't be stealing my suggestion.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 21, 2017)

@mr_shadow, how much longer are you going to keep acting obtuse?

Have you even warned the guy yet?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 21, 2017)

Flow said:


> @mr_shadow, how much longer are you going to keep acting obtuse?
> 
> Have you even warned the guy yet?



Please, @mr_shadow , please warn this user for sexual harassment.  You saw him oogling Normality's pics.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 21, 2017)

I think as of late there's a zero tolerance no warning ban first policy


----------



## baconbits (Feb 21, 2017)

For some reason people are saying they want that.  Then one of their friends gets banned and they're up in arms.


----------



## Hitt (Feb 21, 2017)

In light of @mr_shadow closing of a thread from...that person...yet again and labeling it a "shit source", me thinks it's time for us to give a more solid definition of what a good and bad source is.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 21, 2017)

i mean theoretically if you don't ban bad sources i can just roll up in here and post satire news all day and you guys would have a hard time telling if im trolling or if im just a misinformed idiot so yes there should definitely be a much stricter sourcing policy, as well as probably a one thread per day daily limit per person


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 21, 2017)

I welcome any suggestions on what such a source policy would be.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 21, 2017)

What was wrong with the old source bans, I wasn't around for them


----------



## EJ (Feb 21, 2017)

The previous one we had.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 21, 2017)

I don't think sources should be banned.  I think OP's can be locked when stories are proven false and I think threads can be locked with OP's are mistated or trollish in nature.  I think the users should police the validity of sources with their own criticism.  I think the mods could do more to help people by watching when people create too many threads, tho.


----------



## EJ (Feb 21, 2017)

Nah, it's less time convenient and more efficient to ban certain sources.


----------



## Hitt (Feb 21, 2017)

I mean some definitely go on the No list.  For all the shit we give the MSM these days, the alternatives are even worse, blatantly pushing extremist agendas with not even a HINT of objectivity.  I mean how can someone -- with a straight face -- claim that CNN is fake, biased news and then turn right around and endorse fucking Breitbart? (as an example)

Same for far left sites like Motherjones.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 21, 2017)

~M~ said:


> What was wrong with the old source bans, I wasn't around for them



Nothing.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 21, 2017)

Old sources are definitely better.
Problem is mega, being not very objectivist, was too relaxed with the ones that benefitted his agenda.


----------



## Bender (Feb 21, 2017)

Dammir Chie thread was closed and I didn't get to post in it before the lock.  

@Hitt

Yo so are you down for being nf cafe mod? Me and @Normality think you do good dude.


----------



## Hitt (Feb 21, 2017)

@Bender if duty calls, I shall answer.  Like George Washington did.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I don't think sources should be banned.  I think OP's can be locked when stories are proven false and I think threads can be locked with OP's are mistated or trollish in nature.  I think the users should police the validity of sources with their own criticism.  I think the mods could do more to help people by watching when people create too many threads, tho.


Sure if you could get them to add another two mods


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Dammir Chie thread was closed and I didn't get to post in it before the lock.
> 
> @Hitt
> 
> Yo so are you down for being nf cafe mod? Me and @Normality think you do good dude.





Hitt said:


> @Bender if duty calls, I shall answer.  Like George Washington did.


Delet this they tend not to mod people with moderator ambitions


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 21, 2017)

Screw controversy, it is time for me to finally lead this section!


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 21, 2017)

Nobody really is completely objectivist which what makes a Source Ban that is fair so hard to do


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 21, 2017)

Rather than saying "we wanna ban these-and-these sources because we don't like them", we should articulate some kind of criteria for what makes an acceptable or unacceptable source.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 21, 2017)

We did on sources but you trashed it.


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

@mr_shadow, this was an area you made a drastic change in without thinking of people taking advantage of it. 

Man, I don't think a lot of people here are keen to the idea of arguing with a thread starter half of the starting first page into a thread because they cited an article from the Mother Jones, Breitbart, etc. You state that "We should instead question the thread maker" or ridicule them on their sources but it simply shouldn't come to that. There should be a list of sites this forum generally uses to spread information. 

It is difficult when different news agencies aren't reporting on something underground but I think that's something you should work towards finding a way to validate...as opposed towards accepting all news sources. 

As we already see, you have people that desperately want to spread their own agenda despite the source not being verifiable, or you have blatant trolls taking advantage of your own policy.

Which brings me back to what I was egging on you earlier, what are you going to do about the consistent trolling within this section regarding some of it's users? There should be a line drawn somewhere.

And another thing:

The biggest thing this section needs is another mod. And preferably not one that would be lackadaisical or let things slide.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

Let I, @Seto Kaiba, lead you all to a brighter future. Because only I, @Seto Kaiba, possess the firm hand and spine that @mr_shadow lacks. I, @Seto Kaiba, will not kiss the staff's ass. I, @Seto Kaiba, has the force of will and strong personality needed here. Because I, @Seto Kaiba am a natural and pragmatic leader. I, @Seto Kaiba will bring forth the change necessary to make the Cafe great again!

Just be honest, you have some morbid curiosity on what I would do to this place, don't ya...?

**


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> As we already see, you have people that desperately want to spread their own agenda despite the source not being verifiable, or you have blatant trolls taking advantage of your own policy.
> 
> Which brings me back to what I was egging on you earlier, what are you going to do about the consistent trolling within this section regarding some of it's users? There should be a line drawn somewhere.



The only clear-cut trolls IMO are Thorin and JJ. Basically everything they say is inflammatory.

Chie and Chelyndra come off like they believe what they say, although Chie is definitely making more threads than needed specifically to get a rise out of people. As long as they're properly sourced I'm not going to block them though, since if the event described really happened in the way claimed by the article then it's worth discussing, even if it bothers our world-view.


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

I never believed Chelydra is a troll. I do believe he genuinely believes the shit he says despite how insane they are.

Chie is a troll, and I find it surprising how you're not able to see this.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> Chie is a troll, and I find it surprising how you're not able to see this.



But is he so much of a distraction that the Café stands or falls with keeping him around?


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

Users like him fade in and out after they have had their filled or they begin to slip up and begin to get more blatant. I'm not trying to wait for the former. He's active enough within this section to where you can't really ignore his sentiment.

I don't mind Conservative or Republican views being blasted in this section, but when it's not sincere (Whether if it is leftist, right, or center) and done specifically to get a rise out of people or to have meaningless rebuttals all the time it gets annoying to read. Saying that however, I do know it's ultimately the user choice to either ignore him or not. We tried this, and it does not work. Either someone idiotically slips up and begins to debate with him or another new user who is clueless begins to exchange conversation.

Like I said, you should had been implementing good judgment in regards with the trolling within this section. Trying to get a rise out of someone? Ok, that by itself shouldn't be grounds to ban someone since just about everyone has done something like that in the heat of an argument.

You're trying to judge Chie based just on the threads he makes, when it's evident as hell that he grabs those articles to troll others with or to get a rise out of people. It's supportive of the rhetoric that he spews on this section every day.

It's getting aggravating discussing this stuff with you @mr_shadow. If you don't trust yourself to make good judgment calls, you should push to get someone moderated that can help you out on these weak-points.

This section IMO has never been a one person job in terms of moderating it. At the least I would say it needs about two active ones currently. For it to be comfortably for the mods in this section I would say three active.

Again, I'm not asking for severe moderation but what we have now is too lackadaisical/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

Lmao what kind of discussion is this where the question has become, essentially, "how much trolling is too much trolling?" 

I think clearly the answer should be "any amount".


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 22, 2017)

~M~ said:


> I think clearly the answer should be "any amount".


Gonna have to ban, well, everyone then


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

@Flow : We changed the source policy in this forum after a thorough discussion among a lot of old users and the new moderation team, in a move to introduce greater openness and more vigorous debate. There was nothing whatsoever "drastic" about it.

You feeling triggered by Chie's threads is not grounds for going back to the old closed policy. Grow a pair of testicles.


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> @Flow : We changed the source policy in this forum after a thorough discussion among a lot of old users and the new moderation team, in a move to introduce greater openness and more vigorous debate. There was nothing whatsoever "drastic" about it.



What thread was this done in?



> You feeling triggered by Chie's threads is not grounds for going back to the old closed policy. Grow a pair of testicles.



Your logic here is astounding. I haven't just argued over Chie doing this, I've also argued over the usage from users like @Bender as well. People consistently complaining over threads that have a shitty source with the intent clear as day, and since I bring it up towards the mods that means I need to grow a pair of testicles?

Did you even pay attention to these two sentences before you posted them? It doesn't even make sense. 

And from what I have seen, most people don't go out of their way to post a source that is unverifiable for the most part from a generally shitty source such as the ones already listed. If I'm incorrect here, prove me wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

I'm curious though. Where do you see the issues of a closed thread policy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> @Flow : We changed the source policy in this forum after a thorough discussion among a lot of old users and the new moderation team, in a move to introduce greater openness and more vigorous debate. There was nothing whatsoever "drastic" about it.
> 
> You feeling triggered by Chie's threads is not grounds for going back to the old closed policy. Grow a pair of testicles.



Way to miss the point, dude. Go back on the last page.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

You couldn't have missed the thread, it was stickied and debated for over a month.



My arguments are in there.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

Opening the flood-gates was the worst thing that could had been done and from where I see it within the thread it was pretty undecided in terms of what people wanted. 

Now that we see the affects of it, I'd argue it was more convenient to have that list. Perhaps cut-down on some of the sources that were banned? I don't know, since I haven't frequented each site and know if it's biased.

Your argument of "All news sources being biased" is stupid as well, considering there are many that go out of their way to spread falsehoods to pander completely to one side overwhelmingly which shouldn't be excused. Breitbart and MotherJones are prominent examples.

You're left in the hands of the sake of other users in which we already see a few dedicated trolls and impulsive users can shake things up extremely fast. It's annoying to deal with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

Dude, all you do is whine all the time about policy.  There's nothing wrong with the current thread policy.  The problem are posters who post sources that aren't credible.  Rather than complaining about that put those users on blast in that thread.  That's what this entire section is about: debating and attacking the ideas and positions of your opponents.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

That is exactly right. Moreover the mods have essentially given permission to rip the shit posters apart. It's a gift, unless you're one of the shit posters.

If you are going to carry on crying your heart out in here, stop pretending to speak for any Cafe posters but yourself.


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Dude, all you do is whine all the time about policy.



Because it's been severely lacking as of late in terms of how this section has been moderated. And what kind of statement is this?

"All you do?" Save me with that bullshit man. If I were to play it your end, I would generalize your contribution towards anything the Cafe can improve on I would just state that "All you do is play dumb and act like there isn't an issue", but I'd rather not even go down that route.




> There's nothing wrong with the current thread policy.



Yes, there is.



> The problem are posters who post sources that aren't credible.



"There's nothing wrong." "The problem is the posters, not the sources themselves."

It's a combination of both as I have already pointed out.



> Rather than complaining about that put those users on blast in that thread.  That's what this entire section is about: debating and attacking the ideas and positions of your opponents.



No, it's more efficient to not play it your lackadaisical way and to be 'chill' about it.

If it doesn't bother you, ok. I'm not like you though, and you would be a fool to expect that everyone should be open to the idea of arguing with someone about Breitbart/Mother Jones screwed news article.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ashi (Feb 22, 2017)

Make Seto Admin


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> That is exactly right. Moreover the mods have essentially given permission to rip the shit posters apart. It's a gift, unless you're one of the shit posters.
> 
> If you are going to carry on crying your heart out in here, stop pretending to speak for any Cafe posters but yourself.



Kind of like how we even got to this point. You're telling me a five page thread is the exact reason why the thread policy was done away with in the first place? At that, the thread was _undecided _if anything.

Everyone in that thread who supports the thread policy (if they are even still around) did a good job of speaking for everyone, right? You would agree?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

At the mods that you brought up within your post on this page, @Amanda isn't even active and 'leaving'(?)

@Toby wasn't even active at the time and not for the most part

All we have left is @mr_shadow.

I'm not just speaking as of now, but you could imagine if things got more hellish here in terms of the impulsiveness and trolling.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Dude, all you do is whine all the time about policy.  There's nothing wrong with the current thread policy.  The problem are posters who post sources that aren't credible.  Rather than complaining about that put those users on blast in that thread.  That's what this entire section is about: debating and attacking the ideas and positions of your opponents.


I don't think the two ideologies are irreconcilable. People can attack and blast ideas even when the sources are limited. But it doesn't encourage a creative environment if most time spent is blasting people for bad sources. 

Ultimately, why not have a vote?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

Why is it that the people who have never made a memorable post in their lives are complaining the most?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Why is it that the people who have never made a memorable post in their lives are complaining the most?


Flow is a very memorable member. Perhaps the issue is in your memory?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

how is this even a debate 
ban notably bad sources


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Why is it that the people who have never made a memorable post in their lives are complaining the most?



So you don't have shit to say. I got you.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

if u can't see how allowing any source to go thru as a cafe thread and having to wait for the story to be debunked or proven a hoax and THEN WAIT for the ONE MOD to come and close the thread is a bad idea then ur a damn fool

"ridicule the OP for bad sources that'll condition them!"

the people who post bad sources are either

1. trolls
2. certified idiots

#1 won't listen
#2 won't understand

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> if u can't see how allowing any source to go thru as a cafe thread and having to wait for the story to be debunked or proven a hoax and THEN WAIT for the ONE MOD to come and close the thread is a bad idea then ur a damn fool
> 
> "ridicule the OP for bad sources that'll condition them!"
> 
> ...


Dude free market lulz


----------



## Gunners (Feb 22, 2017)

I agree with eric. Although Flow wasn't the user that sprang to mind.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 22, 2017)

I'm of the belief that stricter rules will result in things becoming stale and act as a barrier towards an open conversation. 

Same time, I don't believe in letting things go unchecked. There should be a guideline on what's acceptable and action should be taken as the balance of things shift towards unsavoury. 

Ideally though, people would behave like adults. Don't waste time in a worthless conversation and then complain about the person being a troll.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> And what kind of statement is this?



A true one.  Visit this thread or the convo.  You're my boy but all you do is complain about the modding and ultimately it boils down to fact that you don't want to deal with certain posters.



Flow said:


> "All you do?" Save me with that bullshit man. If I were to play it your end, I would generalize your contribution towards anything the Cafe can improve on I would just state that "All you do is play dumb and act like there isn't an issue", but I'd rather not even go down that route.



You'd rather not go down that route but you just did, just passive aggressively.



Flow said:


> "There's nothing wrong." "The problem is the posters, not the sources themselves."
> 
> It's a combination of both as I have already pointed out.



The problem is the posters.  The sources wouldn't be posted in the Cafe if people didn't post them.  The policy allows for the fact that there are credible sources that aren't always so mainstream; it allows the users to police the sourcing through debate, something you'd be better off doing than complaining about conduct repeatedly.



Flow said:


> No, it's more efficient to not play it your lackadaisical way and to be 'chill' about it.
> 
> If it doesn't bother you, ok. I'm not like you though, and you would be a fool to expect that everyone should be open to the idea of arguing with someone about Breitbart/Mother Jones screwed news article.



Then criticize the thread or don't post in it.  The fact that people debate in those threads should show you that these threads are not a detriment to the Cafe.

Here's the problem, many of us know the problem with the Cafe is one of activity.  We don't have enough posters and often not enough new threads or subjects to debate.  What you're doing is shutting down another source of debate.  A few weeks after this dries up activity you'll also join the chorus of posters complaining about the forum dying.  It literally makes no sense.

The solution to the two problems you keep talking about - trolls and bad sources - is user conduct.  If someone is saying stupid stuff rip them to shreds in a debate.  That should be enjoyable to a Cafe vet.  If someone is posting poor sources show why the source is poor and move on.  The only sources that should be banned are things like the Onion.  Other than that even Mother Jones can make a good point every now and then.

As for opinion pieces, blogs, etc - these should be and have always been restricted to the debate corner.  They can be easily moved there if the poster himself doesn't know that these don't belong in the Cafe.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

~M~ said:


> I don't think the two ideologies are irreconcilable. People can attack and blast ideas even when the sources are limited. But it doesn't encourage a creative environment if most time spent is blasting people for bad sources.
> 
> Ultimately, why not have a vote?



Because a vote won't represent the political minority.  Ultimately there are much more left leaning people than right leaning people here.  That means fox news could potentially get blocked and Huffington Post could potentially be let in.  I would instead propose that we allow posters to build their own credibility.  If you know who Chie is then you should know that a Chie thread might not have the same credibility as a mr_shadow thread.

Also sometimes a bad OP is instructive.  Some Russian propaganda might at least let us know what the Russian government thinks.  Mother Jones is insight into the attitudes of the left.  Breitbart is hardly objective but it lets you know where the hardline Trump supporters are coming from.  I don't go to these sources on my own but looking at these sources gives you a window into the OP's thinking and into political worldviews you otherwise wouldn't see.

And other times a bad OP is just bad and we should all join together to condemn it.  Nothing wrong with that either.  That should be part of the fun of posting in the Cafe.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> how is this even a debate
> ban notably bad sources



Because most people wouldn't agree on the same list of bad sources.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> if u can't see how allowing any source to go thru as a cafe thread and having to wait for the story to be debunked or proven a hoax and THEN WAIT for the ONE MOD to come and close the thread is a bad idea then ur a damn fool


How's that really change with a banned source list?

You're still waiting for the ONE MOD to come and close a thread from a "bad" source.  It's just you have people posting one-and-done "banned source" comments rather than one-and-done "shit source" comments.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

While I can see what you're saying I think it's a straw man to think fox would be blocked, no one logical could deny their journalism power. 

I didn't mean a vote for what sources to ban, as clarification, just as who is in favor of excluding bad sources. Which in theory is not political.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Because most people wouldn't agree on the same list of bad sources.



some are fairly obvious 
we should start with that 
if it's only 3-4 sources then fine 



WorkingMoogle said:


> How's that really change with a banned source list?
> 
> You're still waiting for the ONE MOD to come and close a thread from a "bad" source.  It's just you have people posting one-and-done "banned source" comments rather than one-and-done "shit source" comments.



because now one is a violation of the rules and can earn a warning or thread ban or whatever progress of punishment so the cafe isn't littered with shit stories 

u for real


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> A true one.  Visit this thread or the convo.  You're my boy but all you do is complain about the modding and ultimately it boils down to fact that you don't want to deal with certain posters.



bacon, I can't take you seriously here.

Users that should had been given warning consistently through their behavior on this forum and you have shown to pay no mind towards it. Didn't you go on a tangent long post in the Chatterbox after Shinryru got perm banned and low-key blasted the modding in terms of being "pushed around" to take action?

Where you would rather over-look shit, doesn't mean others have to have your mindset.




> You'd rather not go down that route but you just did, just passive aggressively.



I wouldn't generalize it and say that's "All you do", but I would say there have been different accounts of you not realizing what's in front of you.



> The problem is the posters.  The sources wouldn't be posted in the Cafe if people didn't post them.  The policy allows for the fact that there are credible sources that aren't always so mainstream; it allows the users to police the sourcing through debate, something you'd be better off doing than complaining about conduct repeatedly.



Which is hardly ever the case.

What sources are heavily utilized consistently where a source policy would take away from things that aren't reported by the mass media eventually?



> Then criticize the thread or don't post in it.  The fact that people debate in those threads should show you that these threads are not a detriment to the Cafe.



No.

If I get click-baited into clicking on a thread that shouldn't had been made in the first place on account of it's material then it adds no value to the section as a whole.



> Here's the problem, many of us know the problem with the Cafe is one of activity.  We don't have enough posters and often not enough new threads or subjects to debate.  What you're doing is shutting down another source of debate.  A few weeks after this dries up activity you'll also join the chorus of posters complaining about the forum dying.  It literally makes no sense.



You mind showing me where the activity is connected with the source of the thread material? Ah, you can't. You're speaking out of your ass now.

This is one of the sections that has a lot of activity day by day compared to others. It not getting a lot of activity won't play as much of a part of the source materials we allow or us getting rid of *one or two trolls*. So again, save me with that bullshit man.

This section won't fall apart or lose tons of traffic like you're suggesting that it will if we do things the way I've advocated. 



> The solution to the two problems you keep talking about - trolls and bad sources - is user conduct.  If someone is saying stupid stuff rip them to shreds in a debate.  That should be enjoyable to a Cafe vet.  If someone is posting poor sources show why the source is poor and move on.  The only sources that should be banned are things like the Onion.  Other than that even Mother Jones can make a good point every now and then.
> 
> As for opinion pieces, blogs, etc - these should be and have always been restricted to the debate corner.  They can be easily moved there if the poster himself doesn't know that these don't belong in the Cafe.



I'm not going to keep repeating myself bacon.

"Rip users to shreds"

Yeah, let's GIVE trolls more attention. That will be sure to get them out of here! Like others have pointed out, you continue to lose touch.

You shouldn't even advise shit, that's me being blunt. You're so disconnected it's amazing to me that people hold veteran users to a high degree in terms of understanding how to best operate a section they have been apart of for so long.


----------



## Toby (Feb 22, 2017)

With the amount of activity in here you all ought to make the best of it 

Imo you guys get carried away sometimes with the hunt for quality 

Not everyone in here is a master debater yet and they need time to grow or get banned 

Observations over the last 12 years have taught me that this maturing process is what the cafe is for 

I agree the traffic is an issue that won't be solved anytime soon. Being where you are on the forum list exaggerates that problem. 

Tbh I don't know if you can convice the leaders to move you up that ladder. Politics sub sections have to exist to drain politics out of the weaboos sections but beyond that it's not a natural fit with anime themes you know.


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

This section should be moved up.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Tiger (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> if u can't see how allowing any source to go thru as a cafe thread and having to wait for the story to be debunked or proven a hoax and THEN WAIT for the ONE MOD to come and close the thread is a bad idea then ur a damn fool
> 
> "ridicule the OP for bad sources that'll condition them!"
> 
> ...





WAD said:


> some are fairly obvious
> we should start with that
> if it's only 3-4 sources then fine
> 
> ...



WAD doesn't always say correct things.

WAD is saying correct things here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Why is it that the people who have never made a memorable post in their lives are complaining the most?



What does one have to do with the other? A stupid post.



WAD said:


> if u can't see how allowing any source to go thru as a cafe thread and having to wait for the story to be debunked or proven a hoax and THEN WAIT for the ONE MOD to come and close the thread is a bad idea then ur a damn fool
> 
> "ridicule the OP for bad sources that'll condition them!"
> 
> ...



shadow is fucking naive that's why. Chie is not going to stop posting shit sources for example, no matter how many times people explain.

The source list *was not a list of the only acceptable sources, *that is, the list of reliable sources were not the only sources allowed here. Yet something so simple to understand is what people like eric and shadow miss big time. It was a guide, a reference of what sources are reliable versus what are not. We added to the lists of reliable and unreliable as time went on, as we continued the discussions of new outlets or changes in existing ones. We did not arbitrarily decide which were good or not. 

Because of that, we didn't have to debate whether or not something like Breitbart or InfoWars was a reliable source or not each time someone used it, their poor reputation spoke for itself. It's why such sources were listed as unreliable sources, and those threads that used them as primary source discarded or locked if there was not a reliable source corroborating the story. If we didn't know whether a source was unreliable, we gave it benefit of the doubt until further research would indicate unreliability.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> Didn't you go on a tangent long post in the Chatterbox after Shinryru got perm banned and low-key blasted the modding in terms of being "pushed around" to take action?



No, I didn't.  I'm pretty clear on what I think.  If the mods think he deserved to be banned then ban him.  Don't ban him just because some people are clamoring for it.  His ban should be decided objectively, not because of public opinion.



Flow said:


> Where you would rather over-look shit, doesn't mean others have to have your mindset.



To me this is more than just my ability to be chill or overlook the wrongs of others.  I've had just as much a problem with Bender's threads as you've had with Chie's.  I don't think they should be banned, tho.  I think they erode his credibility and ultimately make an easy target on his back.

My only issue is when people rewrite headlines.  That shouldn't be allowed.  But when people post something they truly believe is credible and its written in an attempt to be objective I have no problem and no one else should either.  It doesn't hurt your Cafe experience.  What hurts the Cafe is posters like yourself who constantly complain and try to sanction posters through moderation rather than simply taking them on in a match of intellect and argument.



Flow said:


> I wouldn't generalize it and say that's "All you do", but I would say there have been different accounts of you not realizing what's in front of you.



Again you're doing exactly what you said you wouldn't do.  Its just another way you tend to personalize a discussion instead of handling the arguments I'm raising.



Flow said:


> Which is hardly ever the case.
> 
> What sources are heavily utilized consistently where a source policy would take away from things that aren't reported by the mass media eventually?



First, the fact that it doesn't happen as often as you would like does not undermine my argument.  The point is that some sources report on things the mass media doesn't.  The media has shown itself ridiculously suspect lately.  Alternative sources should be allowed but posters should scrutinize them to prove their validity.  That's part of debating here and should be a part of every debate.  Is the source credible?  Then attack the source.  is the conclusion credible?  Then attack the argument.  



Flow said:


> No.
> 
> If I get click-baited into clicking on a thread that shouldn't had been made in the first place on account of it's material then it adds no value to the section as a whole.



First, you outed yourself here because your whole campaign is all about the fact that you can't stop yourself from clicking on certain threads and reacting and you wish you didn't have to.  Rather than regulate your own actions you're trying to change the rules to do that for you.

Second, its hard to see how this takes away from the section.  It encourages more posting.



Flow said:


> You mind showing me where the activity is connected with the source of the thread material? Ah, you can't. You're speaking out of your ass now.
> 
> This is one of the sections that has a lot of activity day by day compared to others. It not getting a lot of activity won't play as much of a part of the source materials we allow or us getting rid of *one or two trolls*. So again, save me with that bullshit man.
> 
> This section won't fall apart or lose tons of traffic like you're suggesting that it will if we do things the way I've advocated.



You have proven by your actions that you essentially are dismissing everyone who disagrees with you.  The whole point of this section is to debate.  Activity increases when there is an issue we can discuss that is credible.  I can tell you straight up that my activity increases when I know I'm in a debate with someone or when I hear something interesting or see an interesting article and want to post it.

By eliminating "one or two trolls" that ultimately is four or five in reality, diminishes activity.  And your evidence of them "trolling" is that they take stances you think are ludicrous when in reality almost every right leaning position is ludicrous to you.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself bacon.



Flow said:


> "Rip users to shreds"
> 
> Yeah, let's GIVE trolls more attention. That will be sure to get them out of here! Like others have pointed out, you continue to lose touch.
> 
> You shouldn't even advise shit, that's me being blunt. You're so disconnected it's amazing to me that people hold veteran users to a high degree in terms of understanding how to best operate a section they have been apart of for so long.



Notice how you're not attempting to debate me, you're just dismissing me and attacking my credibility.  Your mentality, spread across the Cafe, is what hurts the Cafe, not mine.  Second, whether you give trolls attention or not should be up to each individual user.  I've had people asking why I'm responding to Chie when the cat actually said something substantive.  Its like you guys have just written him off and refuse to address anything he says no matter what it is.  If you want to limit your debate opportunities that's fine; just don't try to limit mine.

Third, its never been my intention to get more people to leave this section.  I've always wanted to increase the users, threads and posts.  Its inevitable that when activity increases so does trolling and conflict.  Its also inevitable that eliminating posters, even ones you don't like, will decrease activity.


----------



## Lucaniel (Feb 22, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> At the moment I think seems like you're the only one upset about the current moderation style.


you need to tighten way up on closing threads with bad sources 
you eventually did nix that ridiculous chie thread about child marriage but it took ages, and i know it wasn't cuz you were away or something, cuz you had already viewed it when i posted there the first time


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> because now one is a violation of the rules and can earn a warning or thread ban or whatever progress of punishment so the cafe isn't littered with shit stories
> 
> u for real



I don't recall anyone ever being banned for "posting from a banned source" in the previous iteration of having banned sources.

At worst if someone was being very egregious about it they'd probably get threadbanned, but I don't think it would be any easier to do that than it would be to threadban someone that keeps making shitty threads.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 22, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> I don't recall anyone ever being banned for "posting from a banned source" in the previous iteration of having banned sources.


According to an User they did
Not only that but it also only happened to certain users who the Certain  you  know who mod didn't like while others , especially those he liked , got off with a pat on the shoulders


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> No, I didn't.  I'm pretty clear on what I think.  If the mods think he deserved to be banned then ban him.  Don't ban him just because some people are clamoring for it.  His ban should be decided objectively, not because of public opinion.



So you never made a post in the CB expressing disgust with the way moderation was handled here?

And your last few sentences are so asinine. You want to sway away from a mob mentality here bacon, and think a consistent amount of people arguing towards another user to be banned should be disregarded because it means "people are clamoring for it." 

Dude should had been banned awhile ago and was perm banned on recent post he had made. So what you're effectively arguing here doesn't stick. Using your logic, he should had been banned regardless.

It wasn't as if Shinryu was being polite and minding his own business then banned out of no where. This is where your argument would stick. 




> To me this is more than just my ability to be chill or overlook the wrongs of others.  I've had just as much a problem with Bender's threads as you've had with Chie's.



I argued against both of them.

If they do it consistently action should be taken against them on account of there being a thread policy. 



> My only issue is when people rewrite headlines.  That shouldn't be allowed.  But when people post something they truly believe is credible and its written in an attempt to be objective I have no problem and no one else should either.  It doesn't hurt your Cafe experience.  What hurts the Cafe is posters like yourself who constantly complain and try to sanction posters through moderation rather than simply taking them on in a match of intellect and argument.



What users am I oppressing bacon?

Tell me the users that I'm supposedly 'oppressing' and would absolutely just 'leave this place' if we were to go back to the way things were not too long ago. 

Again, talking out of your ass. 



> Again you're doing exactly what you said you wouldn't do.  Its just another way you tend to personalize a discussion instead of handling the arguments I'm raising.



How you interpret my post is up to you. Right here, I'm not arguing to address this. It distracts from your idiotic argument. 




> First, the fact that it doesn't happen as often as you would like does not undermine my argument.  The point is that some sources report on things the mass media doesn't.  The media has shown itself ridiculously suspect lately.  Alternative sources should be allowed but posters should scrutinize them to prove their validity.  That's part of debating here and should be a part of every debate.  Is the source credible?  Then attack the source.  is the conclusion credible?  Then attack the argument.



So essentially you're drawing upon a hypothetical scenario which you can't prove.

Then you shouldn't use it as an example in terms of it potentially causing a lost of activity here. 

I can display why we should have a source policy on account of what's going on currently. 



> First, you outed yourself here because your whole campaign is all about the fact that you can't stop yourself from clicking on certain threads and reacting and you wish you didn't have to.  Rather than regulate your own actions you're trying to change the rules to do that for you.



No, I didn't "out" myself. I've been click-baited and others have on account of sources that are misleading in which the thread maker/s cite an unaccredited source. How is that outing myself?

I didn't say I "reacted". You're putting words into my mouth. I did say it gets annoying however.



> Second, its hard to see how this takes away from the section.  It encourages more posting.



It takes away from the section if we allow for consistent threads to be made from places that shouldn't be taken seriously. It's repetitive arguments time and again which devalues the section as a whole. 



> You have proven by your actions that you essentially are dismissing everyone who disagrees with you.



No, I'm calling for two people max to have action taken against them and to prevent future occurrences (trolls) getting away consistently all the time.

Not to provide them attention like you have suggested within this thread. 



> By eliminating "one or two trolls" that ultimately is four or five in reality, diminishes activity.  And your evidence of them "trolling" is that they take stances you think are ludicrous when in reality almost every right leaning position is ludicrous to you.



baconbits, 

So Thorin isn't a troll? Chie isn't a troll? 

I mean, didn't you need it heavily pointed out to you that Megaharrison was a racist troll where you kept downplaying it? This is just another classic example of you acting obtuse. 

You have lost touch. 




> Notice how you're not attempting to debate me, you're just dismissing me and attacking my credibility.  Your mentality, spread across the Cafe, is what hurts the Cafe, not mine.  Second, whether you give trolls attention or not should be up to each individual user.  I've had people asking why I'm responding to Chie when the cat actually said something substantive.  Its like you guys have just written him off and refuse to address anything he says no matter what it is.  If you want to limit your debate opportunities that's fine; just don't try to limit mine.
> 
> Third, its never been my intention to get more people to leave this section.  I've always wanted to increase the users, threads and posts.  Its inevitable that when activity increases so does trolling and conflict.  Its also inevitable that eliminating posters, even ones you don't like, will decrease activity.



Luckily more people don't think like you then on this issue. 

Don't worry bacon, the Liberal Echo Chamber won't gun you and your Conservative buddies down. Just the two trolls.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> This section should be moved up.


Considering it has such high activity I agree, might as well flaunt what we have


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

I mean how do you have grips with me attacking your credibility here @baconbits when you started off this charade by stating "All you do is complain?"

You're a hypocrite. At least half your argument is composed of drawing upon accusations that I'm trying to have everyone banned that doesn't agree with me, when users of ZerotheDestroyer, Chelydra, JJ and plenty of others I have argued with, I have never argued for them to be banned.

Except Zero, for that one time. You aren't being honest here.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What does one have to do with the other? A stupid post.


It's pretty straightforward sunshine.

If you want a say in how the forum is run you'd better have contributed something of substance to the forum at some point. If you are a no-mark or a Johnny-come-lately and you're demanding changes to the place you're taking the fucking piss. I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> It's pretty straightforward sunshine.
> 
> If you want a say in how the forum is run you'd better have contributed something of substance to the forum at some point. If you are a no-mark or a Johnny-come-lately and you're demanding changes to the place you're taking the fucking piss. I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread.



I'm making complaints, and I've contributed far more than you, I've been here longer than you. So what say you to that?

Don't be so full of yourself, I know funny for an arrogant guy like me to say it, but if that's the basis you're leaning on it has failed already.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> It's pretty straightforward sunshine.
> 
> If you want a say in how the forum is run you'd better have contributed something of substance to the forum at some point. If you are a no-mark or a Johnny-come-lately and you're demanding changes to the place you're taking the fucking piss. I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread.


Watch out we got a philosopher king over here


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm making complaints, and I've contributed far more than you, I've been here longer than you. So what say you to that?
> 
> Don't be so full of yourself, I know funny for an arrogant guy like me to say it, but if that's the basis you're leaning on it has failed already.


I'm obviously not talking about you.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> I'm obviously not talking about you.



Good. I'd suggest that not be a point you lean on either way. I'm going to endorse @WAD  and @Flow's general point here.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

Then who ARE you talking about? @erictheking 
Don't be passive aggressive.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Good. I'd suggest that not be a point you lean on either way. I'm going to endorse @WAD  and @Flow's general point here.



The point is you argued your case in the source policy thread and you failed to convince. Take it on the chin. Your endorsement of Flow or WAD or whoever validates nothing. What counts is the arguments and the people who have posted and continue to post substance in the forum.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> Then who ARE you talking about? @erictheking
> Don't be passive aggressive.


If the shoe fits. Naming all the names isn't necessary and it only needed saying once.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> The point is you argued your case in the source policy thread and you failed to convince. Take it on the chin. Your endorsement of Flow or WAD or whoever validates nothing. What counts is the arguments and the people who have posted and continue to post substance in the forum.



What? I made my case the first time it was around and it was implemented. With shadow it was not. Yet we are seeing shadow's failure in leadership and discretion.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 22, 2017)

Maybe I should be serious and say I should be modded here. shadow's weak will is frustrating to watch.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What? I made my case the first time it was around and it was implemented. With shadow it was not. Yet we are seeing shadow's failure in leadership and discretion.


Emperor Hirohito has surrendered unconditionally.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> If the shoe fits. Naming all the names isn't necessary and it only needed saying once.



Maybe I skimmed too much while working but who did you call out?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> So you never made a post in the CB expressing disgust with the way moderation was handled here?



You're going to have to quote what I said because I've talked about moderation in too many places to know what you're referring to.



Flow said:


> And your last few sentences are so asinine. You want to sway away from a mob mentality here bacon, and think a consistent amount of people arguing towards another user to be banned should be disregarded because it means "people are clamoring for it."



That just shows you have no clue what I'm arguing.  My point is that his banning should be determined by his actions alone, not by anyone arguing for or against it.



Flow said:


> Dude should had been banned awhile ago and was perm banned on recent post he had made. So what you're effectively arguing here doesn't stick. Using your logic, he should had been banned regardless.



I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.



Flow said:


> I argued against both of them.
> 
> If they do it consistently action should be taken against them on account of there being a thread policy.



Well you're illustrating the difference between us.  I don't mind arguing with bender.  If you were me you'd just be asking Bender to be banned.  Banning people literally because you disagree where they're coming from is stupid in a section premised on debate.



Flow said:


> What users am I oppressing bacon?



When did I use the term "oppress"?  You're oppressing; you're just trying to use mods when a credible response or non response would suffice.



Flow said:


> Tell me the users that I'm supposedly 'oppressing' and would absolutely just 'leave this place' if we were to go back to the way things were not too long ago.
> 
> Again, talking out of your ass.



You know what qualifies as "talking out of your ass"?  Pretending your opponent said things they never said.



Flow said:


> How you interpret my post is up to you. Right here, I'm not arguing to address this. It distracts from your idiotic argument.



Its stupid of you to pretend to be taking the highground.  "I'm not gonna discuss X" and then you do.  Then you do it again.  Now its my problem for "interpreting" what you clearly said?  Its dishonest but typical of some of the debating tactics you've picked up from Seto.



Flow said:


> So essentially you're drawing upon a hypothetical scenario which you can't prove.



This entire discussion is hypothetical.  We're discussing the future gain of a section; we're discussing how users will react.  All of a sudden its a problem to raise a hypothetical argument?  You're all over the map my friend.

The point is that its conceivable that articles from nontraditonal sources can be legitimate.  It could be that sources we often disparage could be valid, like the daily mail, from time to time.



Flow said:


> Then you shouldn't use it as an example in terms of it potentially causing a lost of activity here.
> 
> I can display why we should have a source policy on account of what's going on currently.



No, your argument smacks of intellectual laziness.  Rather than prove the credibility or lack thereof of a source you want to just have the mods shut down the posters and sources you don't like.  I'm telling you that would be bad for the Cafe because there are posters who like sources most of us don't but think they can defend their sources.  I'm thinking more of @Son of Goku , who often posts from antiwar sites.  Yet he's probably one of the more informed posters on this subforum.



Flow said:


> No, I didn't "out" myself. I've been click-baited and others have on account of sources that are misleading in which the thread maker/s cite an unaccredited source. How is that outing myself?



Your real intentions have come to the surface.  As I argued before you're more into trying to regulate people's behavior with the rules than using your own arguments to show why their posts are stupid.



Flow said:


> I didn't say I "reacted". You're putting words into my mouth. I did say it gets annoying however.



I never said you used the term "reacted"; it still accurately describes what occurred, tho.



Flow said:


> It takes away from the section if we allow for consistent threads to be made from places that shouldn't be taken seriously. It's repetitive arguments time and again which devalues the section as a whole.



I don't buy it.  Some of the partisan sources do a good job of stirring up both sides and forcing them to debate.



Flow said:


> No, I'm calling for two people max to have action taken against them and to prevent future occurrences (trolls) getting away consistently all the time.
> 
> Not to provide them attention like you have suggested within this thread.



You keep missing my point.  I never said to pay them attention.  My point is that you can treat them as you want and move on without expecting the mods to ban them all.  And you want Chie, Kingforever and you're cheerleading the Shinyru ban.  That's more than two right there.



Flow said:


> baconbits,
> 
> So Thorin isn't a troll? Chie isn't a troll?
> 
> ...



I haven't lost anything.  Mega was saying what he actually thought.  What he said might be considered absurd by some but he was serious.  I think your definition of what a troll is is so ill defined that you can literally label anything as trolling.  My point is that as long as you can construe what they're saying as a legitimate argument they should be allowed to continue posting unless they are also breaking other rules, like flaming.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> Then who ARE you talking about? @erictheking
> Don't be passive aggressive.



He's been targeting Flow for a while on this point.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I haven't lost anything. Mega was saying what he actually thought. What he said might be considered absurd by some but he was serious. I think your definition of what a troll is is so ill defined that you can literally label anything as trolling. My point is that as long as you can construe what they're saying as a legitimate argument they should be allowed to continue posting unless they are also breaking other rules, like flaming.


No, they're trolls.  Thorin posts stuff like debunked theories or unhinged videos/macros but whenever asked to clarify or debate he never returns or responds.  Chie posts untrue stories, misleading stories, or stories from fringe sites that have better supported information from less-biased sources.  He also frequently changes the title into clickbait or non-descriptive of the article.

In short, they both do it to evoke a reaction.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

It's a 10 to 1 odds bet that the moderator choice will be someone newish and sympathetic to current moderation policies it's the entire forum wide modus operandi I have seen the pattern play out over and over.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 22, 2017)

Mider T said:


> No, they're trolls.  Thorin posts stuff like debunked theories or unhinged videos/macros but whenever asked to clarify or debate he never returns or responds.  Chie posts untrue stories, misleading stories, or stories from fringe sites that have better supported information from less-biased sources.  He also frequently changes the title into clickbait or non-descriptive of the article.
> 
> In short, they both do it to evoke a reaction.



If we started rounding up people for trying to evoke a reaction, you'd be on the list.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

Gunners said:


> If we started rounding up people for trying to evoke a reaction, you'd be on the list.



i mean there's a difference between people who now and then like to take the piss and people who literally have never posted a genuine thought or a statement not intentionally incendiary in order to elicit reactions


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

thorin, the 'not-yet-deemed-a-troll-by-our-sole-mod-and-even-some-posters' troll, everyone


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 22, 2017)

I would suggest that the worse problem is the creation of complete crap threads which are not news at all.

Did a quick scan of the first page, and there are three of them.

 - this one is grabbed from the Guinness World Records website, from December 2011.

 - here we have a classic @Bender bullshit Trump thread. This is not news. No source is provided with the text, apart from a YouTube video. Ironically a number of people crying about the current source policy have posted in this thread and make no comment whatsoever about the fact that this is sourced improperly. 

 - another Bender thread, about something that is not remotely news. This is from the Washington Post's sports page.

No-one in any of these 3 threads remarks about the fact that no news is reported. 

But in a number of people do, despite the fact that it contains news content, albeit from an obviously right-wing source. The complaints apparently stem from the fact that people strongly disagree with the content politically.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

i can admit that a lot of people have vendettas and axes to grind but i can assure you that i have no political affiliations or allegiances and like to think my ideologies are fluid to the point of being mercurial so i feel like i can still objectively state shit has gotten out of hand

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 22, 2017)

IMO the number of threads-per-day in our post-Naruto and post-election age is low enough that you can just ignore the clickbait threads and even post your own from legit sources.

Rather than silencing the trolls I'd encourage the non-trolls to be more active.

*New threads in past 7 days*
Thursday: 10
Friday: 13
Saturday: 13
Sunday: 11
Monday: 9
Tuesday: 14
Wednesday: 12


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 22, 2017)

ur grasp on internet sociology is bad

we cant be active in threads that have potential for serious discussion if the activity is drowned out by people either posting in or spectating the INSANE TRUMP PRANK [GONE SEXUAL] thread of the day


----------



## Mider T (Feb 22, 2017)

Gunners said:


> If we started rounding up people for trying to evoke a reaction, you'd be on the list.


I troll from time to time, everybody here except bacon, makeoutparadise, and mr_shadow does, but these two overdo it and it's not even great quality.  Good trolls can also edge the line of constantly breaking rules, they get others to do it.  Chie and Thorin...don't.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 22, 2017)

WAD said:


> i can admit that a lot of people have vendettas and axes to grind but i can assure you that i have no political affiliations or allegiances and like to think my ideologies are fluid to the point of being mercurial so i feel like i can still objectively state shit has gotten out of hand


We already know your high opinion of yourself


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 22, 2017)

Impressed that we have an average 12 threads per day. Doesn't feel like that much.


----------



## EJ (Feb 22, 2017)

Mod Bernie Kaiba.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 23, 2017)

Flow said:


> Mod Bernie Kaiba.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 23, 2017)

The problem with making Seto my co-mod would be that the man detests me and has never shown any interest in finding common ground or overcoming our differences. That's not really a good basis to build a healthy working relationship on.

He's probably gonna advocate demodding me, but that's not a good idea since 1. the other mods are unlikely to agree to it give how I've done nothing impeachment-worthy, and 2. you'd be trading an experienced mod for one or two inexperienced ones who'd spend months tripping over their own shoelaces before settling into a workable modus vivendi with the community.

I'd be much better for the new mod to have the benefit of my guidance at least to begin with.

My intention is to keep modding at least to August 2019, when my Ph.D program ends. After that we'll see if the hours at my next job permit me to continue or not. Since I'll be turning 30 that year there's also the risk of reproduction-related commitments...

So the best solution is have the co-mod train with me for the two years until my possible retirement and then take charge alone, or with a new partner.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 23, 2017)

Seto would be an idiot to advocate your removal as moderator. It's against the sites 13 years of practice and simply doesn't happen nor would it be in any person's cooperative best interest. I feel it's odd that's a concern of yours or a belief in its possibility.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 23, 2017)

~M~ said:


> Seto would be an idiot to advocate your removal as moderator. It's against the sites 13 years of practice and simply doesn't happen nor would it be in any person's cooperative best interest. I feel it's odd that's a concern of yours or a belief in its possibility.



It's not a concern, I'm just explaining to Seto and any other detractors I might have why it won't happen.


----------



## EJ (Feb 23, 2017)

erictheking said:


> If the shoe fits. Naming all the names isn't necessary and it only needed saying once.



Telling me to grow testicles yet you throw shade towards me on the same page in which we're arguing and not having the intestinal fortitude to be more direct?


----------



## Mider T (Feb 23, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> The problem with making Seto my co-mod would be that the man detests me and has never shown any interest in finding common ground or overcoming our differences. That's not really a good basis to


You're being overly-dramatic, you and Seto have agreed a number of times.  Though Seto wouldn't be a good mod.  Certain members are awesome members and burn out when they reach modship, keep them normal.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 23, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> The problem with making Seto my co-mod would be that the man detests me and has never shown any interest in finding common ground or overcoming our differences. That's not really a good basis to build a healthy working relationship on.



Well, naturally. I'm confident in my positions, and that my positions are the right ones.



> He's probably gonna advocate demodding me, but that's not a good idea since 1. the other mods are unlikely to agree to it give how I've done nothing impeachment-worthy, and 2. you'd be trading an experienced mod for one or two inexperienced ones who'd spend months tripping over their own shoelaces before settling into a workable modus vivendi with the community.



Yes I would, but firstly I would never be a mod. You have to kiss the staff's ass and I just won't do that.

Second, I don't like much of the staff either and they'd never take that suggestion seriously anyway.



> I'd be much better for the new mod to have the benefit of my guidance at least to begin with.



You've not been mod for that long yourself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 23, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> It's not a concern, I'm just explaining to Seto and any other detractors I might have why it won't happen.


Pick from a lot that has knowledge of the history and practices then.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 23, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> The problem with making Seto my co-mod would be that the man detests me and has never shown any interest in finding common ground or overcoming our differences. That's not really a good basis to build a healthy working relationship on.
> 
> He's probably gonna advocate demodding me, but that's not a good idea since 1. the other mods are unlikely to agree to it give how I've done nothing impeachment-worthy, and 2. you'd be trading an experienced mod for one or two inexperienced ones who'd spend months tripping over their own shoelaces before settling into a workable modus vivendi with the community.
> 
> ...



so ur literally trying to become a Sith Lord...


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 23, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You've not been mod for that long yourself.



Been at it for about a year now. 

Which admittedly is not as long as Mega's 4-year (?) tenure, but I'm getting there. Maybe my goal should be to out-reign him.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 23, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> That's not really a good basis to build a healthy working relationship on.


Well Kitsune and Mega were the same and it ended up with Mega bullying her into leaving with Passive Agressiveness and blocking all of her policies

So you are right


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 23, 2017)

Flow said:


> Telling me to grow testicles yet you throw shade towards me on the same page in which we're arguing and not having the intestinal fortitude to be more direct?


I've already made my point quite directly about your incessant crying in this thread. Move on.


----------



## EJ (Feb 23, 2017)

erictheking said:


> I've already made my point quite directly about your incessant crying in this thread. Move on.



Ah, but you've done a consistent job towards bitching about people 'crying' though. 

Let's see how much you continue.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 23, 2017)

WAD said:


> thorin, the 'not-yet-deemed-a-troll-by-our-sole-mod-and-even-some-posters' troll, everyone



He probably is a troll but if he's posting legitimate news items you can't just ban him based on his reputation alone, even if the news items make implications many users disagree with.

I'll also note that none of those who want to ban sources have responded to @erictheking 's post about the pointless threads being made with spurious sourcing that no one here seems to object to.  That's why I keep arguing that the motivations are more political than they are for the objective good of the Cafe.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 23, 2017)

baconbits said:


> He probably is a troll but if he's posting legitimate news items you can't just ban him based on his reputation alone, even if the news items make implications many users disagree with.
> 
> I'll also note that none of those who want to ban sources have responded to @erictheking 's post about the pointless threads being made with spurious sourcing that no one here seems to object to.  That's why I keep arguing that the motivations are more political than they are for the objective good of the Cafe.



I mean, alright. This is just one of his many attempts to clearly play the racism card in order to make people mad, though.

But you're right, still, considering his past I would have banned him a LOOOOONG time ago. He is Shinryuu tier with how overt he is.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 23, 2017)

I don't disagree with you on that last sentence.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 23, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I'll also note that none of those who want to ban sources have responded to @erictheking 's post about the pointless threads being made with spurious sourcing that no one here seems to object to. That's why I keep arguing that the motivations are more political than they are for the objective good of the Cafe.



Well you'd be dead wrong considering people have called out HuffPo as much as they've called out Breitbart as being unreliable here.


----------



## Bender (Feb 23, 2017)

Geez, barely been active all day and yesterday and when someone does want my attention it to bitch.

@erictheking 

Between you and @Flow you're off the scale in whining. 


@mr_shadow 

Ain't ya gonna make Hitt a mod dude?


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 23, 2017)

Would shadow keep any thread open as long as it had a "news" article? 

Very progressive, I guess


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 23, 2017)

Bender said:


> @mr_shadow
> 
> Ain't ya gonna make Hitt a mod dude?



I don't have the power to arbitrarily do that myself.

There's a hierarchy of Moderators (e.g. me), Super Moderators (e.g. Toby), Administrators (e.g. Reznor) and Super Administrators (Tazmo and Mbxx).

You have to be at least Administrator to promote people to mods.

Promotions are made after hearing recommendations from all the incumbent mods, where the voice of the present mod of the section in question of course weighs very heavily. I basically have a veto where if I say I refuse to work with e.g. Seto, he's off the list of candidates.

So me asking for suggestions is a way of testing the waters for who I might end up recommending, but the final decision is not with me.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 23, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I don't have the power to arbitrarily do that myself.
> 
> There's a hierarchy of Moderators (e.g. me), Super Moderators (e.g. Toby), Administrators (e.g. Reznor) and Super Administrators (Tazmo and Mbxx).
> 
> ...



Yes it is?

You, as a staff member, start the nomination thread. You can only choose one member. And people will or will not agree with you. Assuming your choice is decent enough and you advocate their promotion, the staff consensus will pretty much not go against your sponsorship.


----------



## EJ (Feb 24, 2017)

@mr_shadow, how soon can we expect for changes to be implemented or the process to start in terms if you are going to prop up suggestions to be asked towards the public?


----------



## Mider T (Feb 24, 2017)

I'm pretty good with guessing mods, and I have a good idea of who it's going to be.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2017)

Mider T said:


> I'm pretty good with guessing mods, and I have a good idea of who it's going to be.



@Alwaysmind? He likes to kiss ass. 

@makeoutparadise may be another option, but I don't mean that in a derogatory way for him, he just never challenges shadow.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 24, 2017)

I'm pretty sure Tazmo's gonna step up and help out in the Cafe.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 24, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> I'm pretty sure Tazmo's gonna step up and help out in the Cafe.


Is this sarcasm?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 24, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Is this sarcasm?


Well, I figure now that the election has died down Tazmo has more time on his hands to focus on day to day moderation.  Plus he lurks here all the time so I know he's interested.  Just putting two and two together.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 24, 2017)

moogle it still tilts me that u dont post on ur admin account 
and a lot of ppl might not even realize ur an admin


----------



## baconbits (Feb 24, 2017)

I can't tell if you're joking or not, @WAD , but straight up I always thought of @EvilMoogle and @WorkingMoogle as the same person.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 24, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Well, I figure now that the election has died down Tazmo has more time on his hands to focus on day to day moderation.  Plus he lurks here all the time so I know he's interested.  Just putting two and two together.


Tazmo literally could care less about the entire forum, never mind this section.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 24, 2017)

i mean he is for sure
he's said as much


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 24, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I can't tell if you're joking or not, @WAD , but straight up I always thought of @EvilMoogle and @WorkingMoogle as the same person.


So did I.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 24, 2017)

WAD said:


> i mean he is for sure
> he's said as much



Never realized that.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 24, 2017)

What happened to @Amanda?


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 24, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> @Alwaysmind? He likes to kiss ass.
> 
> @makeoutparadise may be another option, but I don't mean that in a derogatory way for him, he just never challenges shadow.



I am touched by the confidence you have in me my friend. Thank you for your kind words.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 24, 2017)

Alwaysmind said:


> What happened to @Amanda?



She has RL committments. Like a "real job", unlike me who gets paid to read books and shitpost in academic journals.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 24, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> She has RL committments. Like a "real job", unlike me who gets paid to read books and shitpost in academic journals.


Ah i see.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 25, 2017)

I'll be going to bed soonish, but if anyone wants to shoot some questions my ways, I'll probably reply to you when I wake up. I won't respond to most questions about mod candidates, but feel free to shoot the questions anyways if you want.

Note, I've read like 6-7 pages of this thread so I am not familiar with all the debates and arguments in the thread, so assume you are talking to someone unfamiliar.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 25, 2017)

Dude what lol


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 25, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I'll be going to bed soonish, but if anyone wants to shoot some questions my ways, I'll probably reply to you when I wake up. I won't respond to most questions about mod candidates, but feel free to shoot the questions anyways if you want.
> 
> Note, I've read like 6-7 pages of this thread so I am not familiar with all the debates and arguments in the thread, so assume you are talking to someone unfamiliar.



Can you answer if a nomination thread has at least been started? I know how slow things move in HR so if a name hasn't been dropped by now we're pretty much stuck with the status quo for a while.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 25, 2017)

WAD said:


> Can you answer if a nomination thread has at least been started? I know how slow things move in HR so if a name hasn't been dropped by now we're pretty much stuck with the status quo for a while.



Speaking on nominations. Canada has 5 by-election this year, lol. So from my point of view this new mod nomination would be like a 6th one. 2017 is throwing nominations left and right.
This is exciting times we live in lads, exciting times indeed.


----------



## EJ (Feb 25, 2017)

Would LOL hard if Alwaysmind were to be modded.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 25, 2017)

LOL.  I would, too, especially since he's not as active as he used to be.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 25, 2017)

Flow said:


> Would LOL hard if Alwaysmind were to be modded.



All that brown-nosing would pay off.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 25, 2017)




----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 25, 2017)

oh god. alwaysmind as a mod. what a disaster. that'll be like crowning another tommen.


----------



## EJ (Feb 26, 2017)

Good. This section is getting the attention it needs.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 26, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I'll be going to bed soonish, but if anyone wants to shoot some questions my ways, I'll probably reply to you when I wake up. I won't respond to most questions about mod candidates, but feel free to shoot the questions anyways if you want.
> 
> Note, I've read like 6-7 pages of this thread so I am not familiar with all the debates and arguments in the thread, so assume you are talking to someone unfamiliar.


What part about this thread is being talked about?


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 26, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> What part about this thread is being talked about?


Probably the location part


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 26, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> What part about this thread is being talked about?



Mostly everything.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 26, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> Mostly everything.


So which subject is being talked about the most?


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 26, 2017)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> So which subject is being talked about the most?



I've said all I am going to say about it, my purpose for entering wasn't to give status updates, it was to talk to you guys about issues that have cropped up in this thread.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 26, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I've said all I am going to say about it, my purpose for entering wasn't to give status updates, it was to talk to you guys about issues that have cropped up in this thread.



Then give us some feedback.  We've talked about section location, source policy, potential mods, trolling and moderation policy.  What say ye?


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 26, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Then give us some feedback.  We've talked about section location, source policy, potential mods, trolling and moderation policy.  What say ye?



I'd like you to bring up the arguments, I've read only a fourth of the thread, I'd like to see where you guys stand on them.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

the stuff that i said cuz im rite


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I've said all I am going to say about it, my purpose for entering wasn't to give status updates, it was to talk to you guys about issues that have cropped up in this thread.





Xiammes said:


> I'd like you to bring up the arguments, I've read only a fourth of the thread, I'd like to see where you guys stand on them.


Well what are your thoughts on what I said about the Debate Section?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I'd like you to bring up the arguments, I've read only a fourth of the thread, I'd like to see where you guys stand on them.



Dude, they've already been brought up.  What's the point of saying you'll give us your feedback if you're not going to read what was already said?

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 27, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I can't tell if you're joking or not, @WAD , but straight up I always thought of @EvilMoogle and @WorkingMoogle as the same person.



@WorkingMoogle is usually in a much worse mood for some reason.  @EvilMoogle tends to be a lazy slacker playing video games though.



Zyrax said:


> Tazmo literally could care less about the entire forum, never mind this section.



Yes, exactly.  He _could_ care less, but he doesn't.  That's why I fully expect him to start making some major impact in this area.



WAD said:


> i mean he is for sure
> he's said as much



In fairness I've said a lot of things.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Well what are your thoughts on what I said about the Debate Section?



What exactly is wrong with it? I don't see a problem.



baconbits said:


> Dude, they've already been brought up.  What's the point of saying you'll give us your feedback if you're not going to read what was already said?



I didn't exactly have time to read 400+ posts.

Lets go step by step, so you want a source policy. What kind of source policy do you want? I think there is merit in what shadow said by allowing news articles from heavily biased sources if you want to get a idea on what that culture thinks.

However I was thinking about a policy to make sure thread titles match article titles, that way if its click baits, its not the member turning a normal article into click bait.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I didn't exactly have time to read 400+ posts.



Bro...

I'm trying to be polite here but if you're not going to take the time to catch up on what was said you may as well ask the staff to send someone else in here to answer the questions.  You're not starting this off on the right foot.  To be frank this level of response is the kind of thing that makes many of us challenge staff leadership.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> @WorkingMoogle is usually in a much worse mood for some reason.  @EvilMoogle tends to be a lazy slacker playing video games though.



Lol.  Okay but seriously, you're the same, right?  Don't try to be coy with us.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 27, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Lol.  Okay but seriously, you're the same, right?  Don't try to be coy with us.


What is the nature of a man, is it in the name he is called?  The hat he wears upon his head?  Or the home he holds within his heart?  Nay, these are but factors of the man himself, mere colors reflected from the true essence that defines him.

In truth your question must first be boiled down to the ultimate philosophical question, "who are you?"  For is it not true that before one can take stake and answer another they must first understand themselves.  And what a task!  You set the bar too high my friend, to truly know oneself requires a lifetime of experimentation and reflection, even then in the merest of hopes that you would have chance to understand the truth that defines you.

But, more simply, to understand EvilMoogle is a simple thing.  EvilMoogle is an asshole.

Wait, I'm an asshole.

Yeah, I guess that means we are the same.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Yes, exactly.  He _could_ care less, but he doesn't.  That's why I fully expect him to start making some major impact in this area.



dude either u have some crazy good insider info or you are the most idealistic person i know


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD said:


> dude either u have some crazy good insider info or you are the most idealistic person i know



Or, you know, the third option.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

sorry life is a monotonous dichotomy there's no third option


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD said:


> sorry life is a monotonous dichotomy there's no third option


K, I'll share my super-secret insider information with you then.

Mr. Shadow is actually Tazmo's dupe, he's making the Cafe great again by changing the default skin of the Cafe to have a Chinese flag background and replacing all the Trump threads with Chairman Mao historical appreciation threads.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> What is the nature of a man, is it in the name he is called?  The hat he wears upon his head?  Or the home he holds within his heart?  Nay, these are but factors of the man himself, mere colors reflected from the true essence that defines him.
> 
> In truth your question must first be boiled down to the ultimate philosophical question, "who are you?"  For is it not true that before one can take stake and answer another they must first understand themselves.  And what a task!  You set the bar too high my friend, to truly know oneself requires a lifetime of experimentation and reflection, even then in the merest of hopes that you would have chance to understand the truth that defines you.
> 
> ...



You remind me of a Jack Vance novel, lol.

Now, presuppose with me that EvilMoogle is in fact WorkingMoogle.  Mathematically both sides of the equation have the "Moogle", so this term can be eliminated.  Does this mean that Working is Evil or is this simply a matter of your perspective?  Enlighten us on this conundrum.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

working is definitely evil


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Bro...
> 
> I'm trying to be polite here but if you're not going to take the time to catch up on what was said you may as well ask the staff to send someone else in here to answer the questions.  You're not starting this off on the right foot.  To be frank this level of response is the kind of thing that makes many of us challenge staff leadership.



I never said I wasn't, I was just trying to expedite things since people seem to have a problem with things being slow as fuck.

Now, if we are done with this tangent, lets actually tackle something. For a source policy, do you want the old source policy, or would you like to enact some change. I said in the post you quoted that I personally think there should be changes as there are things to gain by discussing heavily biased articles.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

The debate corner proposal is to merge the philosophy forum with it and possibly prune it


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I never said I wasn't, I was just trying to expedite things since people seem to have a problem with things being slow as fuck.
> 
> Now, if we are done with this tangent, lets actually tackle something. For a source policy, do you want the old source policy, or would you like to enact some change. I said in the post you quoted that I personally think there should be changes as there are things to gain by discussing heavily biased articles.



just ban infowars, huffingtonpost, breitbart for now 

we will add to the sources list when a media site becomes increasingly more dubious or if we are reminded by previously unreliable outlets

but i think we can all agree that those 3 are pretty bad


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:
			
		

> *Lets go step by step, so you want a source policy. What kind of source policy do you want? I think there is merit in what shadow said by allowing news articles from heavily biased sources if you want to get a idea on what that culture thinks.*
> 
> _However I was thinking about a policy to make sure thread titles match article titles, that way if its click baits, its not the member turning a normal article into click bait._



*Bolded*: This is a bullshit source policy and has only opened the gates for people to troll and attempt to instigate and create rifts and schisms within the forum community. We don't need to get an idea on what the culture thinks by entrapping them in their ignorance. I want to know what peoples' thoughts are on things rooted firmly in reality.

_Italics_: Absolutely. The thread title should not be a means of giving commentary. Every thread should follow this format:

Thread title: News article title.

Quoted story. Link to said story after quote. THEN there's room for commentary should the OP desire.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

@Xiammes 
The problem  with the Debate section Is that its not really a debate section 
I mean for like Two years the most active thread there was pretty much "Lets laugh at those Fat  tumblr feminists" Cirlcejerk 
The fact that Even Baconbits out of all people doesn't want to make threads due to him feeling it will bring hate to him, Never Mind others who are less popular than him who don't belong to the Central Left Echo Chamber, should show you how hostile and circlejerky it is right now. 
So the solution to it could either be stricter rules like I or Gunners suggested where say OPs are forced to make their Opening posts call out their opponents to make a point or people being forced 
Or Changing its name so that rather than a debate section its actually a "Discussion"/"Talk"/"Meta Section with more loose rules than the current one  where the only requirement is the thread being about politics rather than a "Debate" exclusive thread where you can rant about Topics, Make polls to see what people feel about certain subjects rather it having to be a debate thread

Basicly make it either more Strict or More Loose. 

Also The two Sections under it is dead, Delete or merge it


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

~M~ said:


> The debate corner proposal is to merge the philosophy forum with it and possibly prune it



Whats the argument to keep it apart? I don't see a problem in merging, just add a "philosophical" tag to differentiate the threads.



WAD said:


> just ban infowars, huffingtonpost, breitbart for now
> 
> we will add to the sources list when a media site becomes increasingly more dubious or if we are reminded by previously unreliable outlets
> 
> but i think we can all agree that those 3 are pretty bad



How about forming a committee of people to determine what sources should be banned? Even if it isn't in a official nf sponsored one, you guys can put forward a convincing argument if its been thoroughly discussed.



WAD said:


> _Italics_: Absolutely. The thread title should not be a means of giving commentary. Every thread should follow this format:
> 
> Thread title: News article title.
> 
> Quoted story. Link to said story after quote. THEN there's room for commentary should the OP desire.



Yeah, if the article is clickbait, then let it be click bait. Changing the title of a thread into a click bait one should constitute as trolling.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:
			
		

> How about forming a committee of people to determine what sources should be banned? Even if it isn't in a official nf sponsored one, you guys can put forward a convincing argument if its been thoroughly discussed.



The problem with forming a committee is because the section itself is already in turmoil due to the numerous divides and factions among us.

It would simply be a lot better to get that second mod out here so mr. shadow and them can bounce off each other and between them come to an agreement on which sources to ban, perhaps even utilizing your suggestion and choosing to seek some members' opinions on the matter.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> I never said I wasn't, I was just trying to expedite things since people seem to have a problem with things being slow as fuck.



You're not expediting anything when you're asking us to restate what was already stated.  If you want a real summary you ought to have talked to shadow before and have him summarize this for you.  I've been a participant in these discussions so its not really realistic to expect my summary to be unbiased.



Xiammes said:


> Now, if we are done with this tangent, lets actually tackle something.



That's not a tangent.  You're literally saying "so you know those pages you guys wrote to discuss current policy?  Doesn't matter.  Tell me again."  



Xiammes said:


> For a source policy, do you want the old source policy, or would you like to enact some change. I said in the post you quoted that I personally think there should be changes as there are things to gain by discussing heavily biased articles.



The source policy now allows anyone to post any article provided they can defend it, it isn't an op-ed and it isn't inaccurate.  In the past there was an acceptable source list.  Some want a banned sources list.  I'm in favor of the current policy but I would guess I'm in the minority.  Most want to ban some sources.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> @Xiammes
> The problem  with the Debate section Is that its not really a debate section
> I mean for like Two years the most active thread there was pretty much "Lets laugh at those Fat  tumblr feminists" Cirlcejerk
> The fact that Even Baconbits out of all people doesn't want to make threads due to him feeling it will bring hate to him, Never Mind others who are less popular than him who don't belong to the Central Left Echo Chamber, should show you how hostile and circlejerky it is right now.
> ...



So basically you want more regulations for the debate section right? Since the main cafe is way more loose, having a stricter debate section for more serious arguments should be fine. Do you want a zero tolerance policy or what? Zero tolerance means people won't be able to skirt the lines but we would be draconian as fuck.



WAD said:


> The problem with forming a committee is because the section itself is already in turmoil due to the numerous divides and factions among us.
> 
> It would simply be a lot better to get that second mod out here so mr. shadow and them can bounce off each other and between them come to an agreement on which sources to ban, perhaps even utilizing your suggestion and choosing to seek some members' opinions on the matter.



I think you guys should at least try to form one, if its done by the most level headed among you, you should have at least some success. Form a basic list of universally agree'd shit sources and go from there.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

there's no real consensus on who is the most level headed

if it were my i would try to take two people who generally learn left, two who generally lean right, and three people who are close to centrist (not relatively) as possible


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD said:


> there's no real consensus on who is the most level headed
> 
> if it were my i would try to take two people who generally learn left, two who generally lean right, and three people who are close to centrist (not relatively) as possible



That sounds fine, I can help assist in organizing if we go down this path. However this would be as a member, not as a staff member, so it would not be a official thing.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

imo to me the most 5 level headed members in no certain order are:

@baconbits, @Seto Kaiba, @Gunners, @Hitt, @afgpride 

these 5 have a lot of cafe seniority and for the most part arent super controversial posters (maybe SK but he's such a staple of the cafe it would be foolish not to include him) and honestly the mod candidate should absolutely be 1 of the 5 

that would be a good place to start for a so-called committee, i struggled to reach 7 because a great deal of people simply are too controversial or have a particular agenda with their time here in the cafe


----------



## EJ (Feb 27, 2017)

@Roman should be considered.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD said:


> imo to me the most 5 level headed members in no certain order are:
> 
> @baconbits, @Seto Kaiba, @Gunners, @Hitt, @afgpride
> 
> ...



We can have a nomination process, members that wish to take part can post their alignment and then members can nominate who they would trust for each position.

left wing 1
left wing 2
centrist 1
centrist 2
centrist 3
right wing 1
right wing 2

Members nominate only one person for each position.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> We can have a nomination process, members that wish to take part can post their alignment and then members can nominate who they would trust for each position.
> 
> left wing 1
> left wing 2
> ...



im actually struggling to consider many right-wingers who aren't trolls or assholes who shouldnt be included in the process

but all the same im struggling to consider who is also centrist and perceive too many left wing candidates

perhaps that is an indication that i might be more right-wing than centrist, and i imagine many people can empathize with the notion that they too are centrist when they in fact skew one way or another; that could be an issue


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD said:


> im actually struggling to consider many right-wingers who aren't trolls or assholes who shouldnt be included in the process
> 
> but all the same im struggling to consider who is also centrist and perceive too many left wing candidates
> 
> perhaps that is an indication that i might be more right-wing than centrist, and i imagine many people can empathize with the notion that they too are centrist when they in fact skew one way or another; that could be an issue



I can see a issue with centrists, however since this is a nomination thing, if there is a perceived problem with someone, then they likely won't get voted. Lets say someone like Chie tried to say he wants to be nominated for centrist, no one is likely to nominate him for that role.


----------



## EJ (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD said:


> im actually struggling to consider many right-wingers who aren't trolls or assholes who shouldnt be included in the process
> 
> but all the same im struggling to consider who is also centrist and perceive too many left wing candidates
> 
> perhaps that is an indication that i might be more right-wing than centrist, and i imagine many people can empathize with the notion that they too are centrist when they in fact skew one way or another; that could be an issue



@baconbits....and that one guy with the That 70s Show avatar...and @Cyphon?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Flow said:


> @Roman should be considered.



Not active enough in the Cafe.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

WAD's group of five is the best, but honestly committees tend to be ineffective.  I'm willing to work with those four, tho.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

Flow said:


> @baconbits....and that one guy with the That 70s Show avatar...and @Cyphon?



Has he really posted as of late? I've not felt his presence, and current activity is a big qualifier.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Both @Roman and @Cyphon are cool but I haven't seen them participate in a Cafe debate in a bit.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> What exactly is wrong with it? I don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





baconbits said:


> Bro...
> 
> I'm trying to be polite here but if you're not going to take the time to catch up on what was said you may as well ask the staff to send someone else in here to answer the questions.  You're not starting this off on the right foot.  To be frank this level of response is the kind of thing that makes many of us challenge staff leadership.



I am co-signing this because this needs to be re-iterated.

With all due respect @Xiammes: if you were active in the Cafe under another name fair enough, but if - as far as I am aware - you aren't a regular poster in the section, and you admitted you haven't read any of the arguments put forward in this and in previous threads with regards to forum policy, why are you getting involved? Not everyone has the time to repeat every argument they have already made to bring you up to speed in 5 minutes.

There are already mods like @mr_shadow, @WorkingMoogle, @Amanda and @Toby who know the section well and who have followed a reasonable amount of this discussion. Let them lead on this.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> So basically you want more regulations for the debate section right? Since the main cafe is way more loose, having a stricter debate section for more serious arguments should be fine. Do you want a zero tolerance policy or what? Zero tolerance means people won't be able to skirt the lines but we would be draconian as fuck.


Well yeah, Either more regulated or it becoming a big tent political discussiom section. The status quo isn't good. 

And I don't think it should be "Zero Tolerance", After all this is an anime site, It would impossible for it to be 100% serious. However It should less tolerance for things that used to be tolerated with no punishment


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

They don't have time either apparently. There's also parallax


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

~M~ said:


> They don't have time either apparently. There's also parallax


Except the mods I mentioned don't need time because they already know the section.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> We can have a nomination process, members that wish to take part can post their alignment and then members can nominate who they would trust for each position.
> 
> left wing 1
> left wing 2
> ...


No forced diversity


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Except the mods I mentioned don't need time because they already know the section.


I'm not trying to be an apologist it's just the answer you're going to receive


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

~M~ said:


> I'm not trying to be an apologist it's just the answer you're going to receive


For what question?


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

erictheking said:


> s: if you were active in the Cafe under another name fair enough, but if - as far as I am aware - you aren't a regular poster in the section, and you admitted you haven't read any of the arguments put forward in this and in previous threads with regards to forum policy, why are you getting involved? Not everyone has the time to repeat every argument they have already made to bring you up to speed in 5 minutes.


This question I.e. Why he's delegated to correspond not someone else


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

erictheking said:


> I am co-signing this because this needs to be re-iterated.
> 
> With all due respect @Xiammes: if you were active in the Cafe under another name fair enough, but if - as far as I am aware - you aren't a regular poster in the section, and you admitted you haven't read any of the arguments put forward in this and in previous threads with regards to forum policy, why are you getting involved? Not everyone has the time to repeat every argument they have already made to bring you up to speed in 5 minutes.
> 
> There are already mods like @mr_shadow, @WorkingMoogle, @Amanda and @Toby who know the section well and who have followed a reasonable amount of this discussion. Let them lead on this.



I wouldn't call myself regular, but I do frequent the cafe and familiar with the culture and posters, I would not stuck my nose in to begin with.



Zyrax said:


> Well yeah, Either more regulated or it becoming a big tent political discussiom section. The status quo isn't good.
> 
> And I don't think it should be "Zero Tolerance", After all this is an anime site, It would impossible for it to be 100% serious. However It should less tolerance for things that used to be tolerated with no punishment



Its hard to skirt that line, personally I am of the opinion that if its going to be more regulated, we should bring the hammer down. No personal attacks, no off topic posts, no baiting, ect. 

This would help draw the line between the regular cafe and the debate section.



~M~ said:


> No forced diversity



If you want to make sure that each side is getting fair presentation, then we have to force a hard limit on partisanship


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

~M~ said:


> This question I.e. Why he's delegated to correspond not someone else


Thanks.

If that is the case we should have no changes at all frankly. There's actually not very much wrong per se with the forum as it is. There are obviously a lot of very bored people who want to 'fix' something unbroken just to have something to do.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)




----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> If you want to make sure that each side is getting fair presentation, then we have to force a hard limit on partisanship


Dechipering quality, real news is a non partisan issue. 

I don't have anything against the theory but I think the 5 members proposed are a good "council" for determining these sources (although Baconbits supposedly supports free reign sources), and it's mostly liberal. No way about getting around that when the demographic of quality posters just happens to look like that. 

Delegating other conservative members will just be increased hardship dealing with trolls. Unless this "council" will be doing more than determining source policy.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

~M~ said:


> Dechipering quality, real news is a non partisan issue.
> 
> I don't have anything against the theory but I think the 5 members proposed are a good "council" for determining these sources (although Baconbits supposedly supports free reign sources), and it's mostly liberal. No way about getting around that when the demographic of quality posters just happens to look like that.
> 
> Delegating other conservative members will just be increased hardship dealing with trolls. Unless this "council" will be doing more than determining source policy.



If you want the most legitimacy and strongest argument possible for a proposed source ban, you want to make sure that all sides have had fair and equal representation, otherwise its flawed by nature.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 27, 2017)

I guess I can't factually disprove that line of thinking but I disagree intrinsically.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

Also Dividing People  to just three Groups (Left, Right Centrist) is actually pretty idealistic.  You can't divide many people with different views and interests into big tent groups like that without some people ending up being screwed over because they disagree with the guy who is supposed to represent them. A Isolationalist Right wing and a Intervertionalist Right Wing  would disagree with each other the same way Socialist Leftists and "Fiscally conserative but Socially Liberal" leftist would. 
Never mind when one takes in mind that this forum is Internationalist even if americans make up a large portion of it, a Leftust in say France would have different views than say a Leftists in China, Heck Leftists in France are divided. Not to mention that with the internationalistic nature of the forum there are  also International topics where people are effected by it by where they are from rather than Left-Right divide. For Example a Right winger in the UK and a Right winger  in Serbia would disagree on Kosovo.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Also Dividing People  to just three Groups (Left, Right Centrist) is actually pretty idealistic.  You can't divide many people with different views and interests into big tent groups like that without some people ending up being screwed over because they disagree with the guy who is supposed to represent them. A Isolationalist Right wing and a Intervertionalist Right Wing  would disagree with each other the same way Socialist Leftists and "Fiscally conserative but Socially Liberal" leftist would.
> Never mind when one takes in mind that this forum is Internationalist even if americans make up a large portion of it, a Leftust in say France would have different views than say a Leftists in China, Heck Leftists in France are divided. Not to mention that with the internationalistic nature of the forum there are  also International topics where people are effected by it by where they are from rather than Left-Right divide. For Example a Right winger in the UK and a Right winger  in Serbia would disagree on Kosovo.



Your thinking way to deep, I am not proposing they run the section, just band together to figure out a good source policy. Any problems on where they align will be resolved when it comes to nominations. The nominations are more of a vote of confidence that you trust that they will be fair and objective.


----------



## EJ (Feb 27, 2017)

@baconbits, @Roman is pretty active. You're too busy defending Donald Trump these days to see anything.


----------



## Roman (Feb 27, 2017)

Lol

I post in threads that interest me and lurk as well. @baconbits I might not look very active to you because 

a. most news stories that are posted are of no interest (not just to me, they just generally aren't*)
b. the two of us haven't run into each other in a debate in a while and the reason for that is because I actively avoid debating with you considering how our last debate went

*A lot of threads aren't interesting because they're either trivial as hell or are posted purely for the sake of promoting someone's rhetoric and therefore aren't even worth posting in. This is because there are a few people around here who're allowed to post threads who under normal circumstances would merit a threadban at the very least.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

As someone who argued for liberalising the source policy in the first place, I (and others) suggested at the time that the only sources that should be banned are those that, in essence, propagate fabrications. Sources that do not report all the facts required to understand a particular issue. This ought to include sources that frequently, intentionally and unjustifiably present something that is probable as though it is a certain fact.

Now, this is actually already in the existing source policy, in principle:

*3. Sources must be verifiable.*
The facts and claims of the article should be possible to find in other sources.​This is why I argue there is essentially nothing wrong with the existing source policy, *if* it is enforced in the spirit of the principle mentioned above.

The initial banned sources list that Megaharrison, and apparently also his pals like Seto made up, was clearly just a list of news sources that published content that challenged their political convictions, along with a couple of conspiracy theory outlets and comedy sites put in there to make the thing look half credible.

If we are forced to go back to another version of that because people are getting triggered by news they would rather not hear, that will be an absolute fucking joke and would ruin the section.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Flow said:


> @baconbits, @Roman is pretty active. You're too busy defending Donald Trump these days to see anything.



I just saw one of his posts now so I felt bad saying he wasn't active.  I honestly haven't seen Cyphon in a minute, tho.



Roman said:


> *A lot of threads aren't interesting because they're either trivial as hell or are posted purely for the sake of promoting someone's rhetoric and therefore aren't even worth posting in. This is because there are a few people around here who're allowed to post threads who under normal circumstances would merit a threadban at the very least.



I don't disagree with you.  For some reason I didn't see you and then just now I was looking at some other threads and boom - there you were.  So my bad on that.  And yeah, many threads haven't been interesting.  We need more people posting interesting OP's.  I'll probably start posting some op-eds in the debate section to get that place started again.


----------



## EJ (Feb 27, 2017)

Well I don't know many right wing active users currently. I'm sure there are but either they don't post in the cafe that often or at all. Two that we have right now are straight up trolls, so I won't even mention their names. My point was @Cyphon was always level headed from what I saw.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 27, 2017)

i think i lean conservatively when it comes to economics for sure, afgpride is the same

he's more socially liberal than i am tho


----------



## Roman (Feb 27, 2017)

erictheking said:


> If we are forced to go back to another version of that because people are getting triggered by news they would rather not hear, that will be an absolute fucking joke and would ruin the section.



What needs to be done is to make sure that known tabloids aren't used when posting threads. Shit like The Sun and Daily Fail straight up shouldn't be cited *unless it can be cross-referenced with other news sources.* Creating a list doesn't do anyone good because that just creates more of a hassle than there needs to be. It's better to check sources on an ad-hoc basis which is very easy to do on a news piece that's being reported on. If it's coming from a questionable source, then make sure it's being reported elsewhere. And Op-eds belong in the debate section obviously.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

Roman said:


> Creating a list doesn't do anyone good because that just creates more of a hassle than there needs to be. It's better to check sources on an ad-hoc basis which is very easy to do on a news piece that's being reported on. If it's coming from a questionable source, then make sure it's being reported elsewhere.



This is basically also my opinion.

Although I think there is an argument for including op-eds in the Cafe.. but it would require banning trolls.

Not suggesting we do it.


----------



## Roman (Feb 27, 2017)

I wouldn't consider opinion pieces to be worthy of cafè threads but certainly worthy to start a discussion in the debate section (assuming one hasn't already been started on the same topic).


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

I understand that point of view, but those forums seem kinda dead to me.

At this point my ideal version of the Café would absorb the Debate and Philosophy sub-forums into one big undivided forum with all of those threads posted side by side.

The Konoha University forum can be moved somewhere else, I don't really see why it's here in the first place.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> Its hard to skirt that line, personally I am of the opinion that if its going to be more regulated, we should bring the hammer down. No personal attacks, no off topic posts, no baiting, ect.
> 
> This would help draw the line between the regular cafe and the debate section.


Well if thats what the staff and Mr Shadow see as the solution for the state of the Debate Section then go for it
I just think there should be at least  something done there, It was only a year ago that we had an User straight  up tell the OP of a thread that he "Has no arguement for him and Only has two fists for him". That type of shit should get one banned from there. 


Xiammes said:


> Your thinking way to deep, I am not proposing they run the section, just band together to figure out a good source policy. Any problems on where they align will be resolved when it comes to nominations. The nominations are more of a vote of confidence that you trust that they will be fair and objective.


Even then that is an important point
For example certain users such as JSJ, SoG, Rain  could be screwed over by  a policy made by people who are "Nominated", Especially when  most people in here aren't in any way objective.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Well if thats what the staff and Mr Shadow see as the solution for the state of the Debate Section then go for it
> I just think there should be at least  something done there, It was only a year ago that we had an User straight  up tell the OP of a thread that he "Has no arguement for him and Only has two fists for him". That type of shit should get one banned from there.



What has @mr_shadow said about cleaning up the debate section.



> Even then that is an important point
> For example certain users such as JSJ, SoG, Rain  could be screwed over by  a policy made by people who are "Nominated", Especially when  most people in here aren't in any way objective.



Remember this is not a official thing, what ever gets proposed can be debated by members and moderators here before it ever gets implemented.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 27, 2017)

@erictheking I'll make it clear, so try to keep up ok?

I'm politically left. Megaharrison is not.

I hate Megaharrison, I have for years.

The sources I recommended to be discarded were sources that not only I found to be biased to the right, but openly biased to the left as well. Since you obviously hate not talking out of your ass, one of the big things I used was when I found a source *too* agreeable. That is, if I felt a source was playing too much to my own political biases, that was a cause for concern and I have to see if it was a coincidence or were the bias was that heavy. HuffPo for example, was one such source, obviously it's gone further to the left since. Media Matters for America was another I recommended not relying on, despite my political biases, because I knew for a fact it played heavily to mine.

So, at least admit you're just talking out of your ass here.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

This will go nowhere, and it is a thread about the Café's policies, not a thread for you to endlessly assert your own integrity in the face of every perceived slight.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

Xiammes said:


> What has @mr_shadow said about cleaning up the debate section.


He still hasn't said anything


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 27, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Well Kitsune and Mega were the same and it ended up with Mega bullying her into leaving with Passive Agressiveness and blocking all of her policies



I'm still here, I just don't say much. Cafe obviously does best with a mostly hands-off approach but when things go way too far or when shadow is out of town I step in.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 27, 2017)

I lost my shit at Mega and Seto being pals.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> i.e.: "I'm talking out of my ass, thereby discrediting me going forward but I'm just too stubborn to admit it"
> 
> Your assertions had much to do in relation with the Cafe's policy on sourcing. So don't try to dodge it.


My arguments were relevant to the thread. The ones you have ignored, in order to cherrypick one fragment of a sentence that is unprovable in the affirmative or the negative, and is of no interest to anyone but yourself. 



Mider T said:


> I lost my shit at Mega and Seto being pals.


I hope you changed your pants.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

@Xiammes 

What people seem to want is:

1. Limit sources to only mainstream outlets like Reuters, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc.

2. Sanction racism, but not Islamophobia.

3. A second mod who is more active than I am.

For first point I think it's anachronistic in the digital age to only allow websites associated with print and television outlets; for the second point I think it's inconsistent and Americocentric to be harder on one kind of hate speech than the other; and for the third one I welcome a second mod but think the members overestimate how much life would change.

Under the current moderation policy the mod does very little, so it's just be twice the passivity.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 27, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> @Xiammes
> 
> What people seem to want is:
> 
> ...



How passive-aggressive.

Of course you had to mention Islamophobia, what a shocker.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> How passive-aggressive.
> 
> Of course you had to mention Islamophobia, what a shocker.



Seto, I'm willing to negotiate with you on the source policy if you'll cut the bitchy tone.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba @erictheking 

Your argument stops here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 27, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Seto, I'm willing to negotiate with you on the source policy if you'll cut the bitchy tone.



Don't be passive-aggressive like that then.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> @Xiammes
> 
> What people seem to want is:
> 
> ...



Correction: What *some* people seem to want.

Some people want none of the above.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Don't be passive-aggressive like that then.



I was summarizing what I think are the main counter-proposals to the current moderation policy.

If I agreed with them they'd obviously already be the "current" policy and not proposals.

So naturally it's gonna be me describing ideas that are not my own.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 27, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I was summarizing what I think are the main counter-proposals to the current moderation policy.



I strongly question your honesty on that...

Since this seems to be a big thing a lot of you commenting on it seemed to miss about the first source policy, is that the sources listed as credible were not the only sources one could use. The sources that were concluded to be unreliable however, those were sources that were prohibited. The simple truth is that a site like InfoWars doesn't have the credibility of the New York Times. Such unreliable sourcing could be used to start a threat in the debate corner though.

If there was an encountered source that was unlisted or unknown, benefit of the doubt was given to it until further research could be done on it to determine its credibility. I'm not sure if you even remember, but before that point there was a huge problem with people wanting to post Breitbart or Mother Jones, or whatever partisan website conveniently catered to the OP's political views, with no regard for accuracy. Naturally this became a huge issue because you'd either have a base that was critically misled or misinformed on the particular matter, or fortunately in most cases people spotted the attempt to mislead all the while the OP often relentlessly used that and other partisan sites in continued bids to mislead.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 27, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> 2. Sanction racism, but not Islamophobia.





> for the second point I think it's inconsistent and Americocentric to be harder on one kind of hate speech than the other


So if I say 
"Fuck Islam"
and
"Fuck black people"

...In your mind these two statements should be punished equally? 

 I'm sorry but this line of thinking is regressive lunacy.  'Hate speech' is in itself a dubious term that is extremely easy to abuse.  There's nothing stopping someone from declaring "Communismophobia" a thing and establishing vocal hostility toward communism hate speech.  There's nothing stopping an Evangelical from decrying anti-Christianity as Christianophobia and declaring vocal hostility toward that ideology hate speech.  To make a protected class out of an _idea_ is utterly ludicrous and is a level of language policing that completely discredits the platform of communication in which it applies.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 27, 2017)

Disclaimer: I actually agree with shadow on a number of things in this discussion, I just object to this particular point particularly strongly.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 27, 2017)

By "Islamophobia", I would hope @mr_shadow was referring to a phrase like "fuck Muslims" rather than "fuck Islam". 

The former is pure bigotry and should have no place on here.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

@afgpride

Saying "fuck Islam" is 100% fine.

The question is if "fuck Muslims" is. Or "Muslims all want to rape 9-year olds".

The rationale for distinction is that race is unchangeable while religion is a choice. "If you don't like molesting kids you can stop being a Muslim." So people can be held responsible for their religion more than for their race.

But IMO the term "Muslim" often means simply "person descendant from a historically Muslim ethnic group" irrespective of actual degree of devotion. And in my experience, religion and cultural identity are so intertwined in the Middle East that people raised there emotionally have a hard time openly distancing themselves from Islam even when their lifestyle clearly suggests they haven't ever opened the Quran as adults.

So if I catch someone saying that "Afg obviously wants to fuck kids since his name says he's a Taliban", I'd wanna equate that to saying "bacon obviously wants to rape white women since he's black".

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 27, 2017)

erictheking said:


> By "Islamophobia", I would hope @mr_shadow was referring to a phrase like "fuck Muslims" rather than "fuck Islam".
> 
> The former is pure bigotry and should have no place on here.





mr_shadow said:


> @afgpride
> 
> Saying "fuck Islam" is 100% fine.
> 
> ...


Alright, glad this was clarified.  I still find the validation of the term "Islamophobia" to be silly when trying to quantify ethnicity-specific bigotry but I don't have as big of an objection with this approach.

Also I personally don't have an inherent problem with "fuck Muslims", as someone whose family is predominantly Muslim, just as I don't have a problem with "fuck Christians" or "fuck Buddhists".  The generalization can just as easily be a condemnation of an ideology (and those who empower it) as it can a hatred for an ethnicity.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 27, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> @afgpride
> 
> Saying "fuck Islam" is 100% fine.
> 
> ...



I don't really want to join this argument, but this sounds extremely arbitrary.

People can be as easily offended by religious insults than racial insults. Sometimes even more.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I don't really want to join this argument, but this sounds extremely arbitrary.
> 
> People can be as easily offended by religious insults than racial insults. Sometimes even more.



It's not about protecting people from insults as such, but about protecting them from unfair insults.

Race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities and nationality are things that people generally cannot control, and therefore it's unfair to insult someone based on such factors.

Ideology, religion, and other lifestyle choices are things that you can opt out of, so it's fair to hold someone accountable for them.

For instance: Mael insulting me for being Swedish is not a legit attack, but insulting me for living in the People's Republic of China is a legit attack.

It would be very difficult for me to opt-out of being Swedish, as naturalization procedures in other countries generally take about 5 years. And even if I did give my citizenship I'd still be ethnically Swedish in terms of features and accent, unless I painstakingly undergo plastic surgery and speech therapy. I think that's more of an effort than we can expect someone to undertake just to escape accusations of being a FemiNazi and Islamophile.

But for the PRC, I have my Swedish passport in a drawer next to my bed, and a one-way plane ticket costs just 1/6 of my monthly salary. So I could very easily "opt out" of China if they ever crossed the line where I thought repression was becoming unbearable, which means that every day I stay I'm effectively "opting in" and passively endorsing whatever the CCP is doing; which legitimately opens me up to criticism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 27, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Correction: What *some* people seem to want.
> 
> Some people want none of the above.


This

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 27, 2017)

Anyone who wants to question @mr_shadow 's debating ability should take note of how he explained himself in this thread to his critics.  The guy is a top notch debater and I'm saying this as a guy who disagrees with him on almost everything politically.  @Gunners is still the best in my opinion.

To the point at hand: We could probably compromise by just more strictly enforcing the current policy.  Instead of making a banned sources list just make people cite two sources.  They can post the OP from one source but would have to post the link from another to back up the fact that the story is legitimate.

I personally don't even like this idea but its far better than making a banned list or making a preferred list of sources.  I personally don't see the point of a committee unless you want to piss off more people.  What would happen is that this committee would have some internal disagreement at first but then we'd start getting ideas going.  We'd come with all these proposals that would improve the Cafe... then we'd fully expect the staff to do what we suggested which probably wouldn't happen.  We're all Cafe vets so we'd want to argue our cases to death.  This would just increase animosity and little would change.

If you're going to endorse a committee, @Xiammes , I think you're going to have to get staff to agree to adopt some of the proposals and at least discuss the proposals in a public place so we can hold you guys accountable to what we came up with and what was accepted and rejected.  If you can give us some sort of guarantee that you'll at least accept our sourcing compromise, whatever it is we come up with, then I have no problem going forward.  I just have no intention of doing a lot of work only to see it debated for a month and then one of the least meaningful suggestions gets put forward while the left are rejected with no given rationale.  Even I'd be up in arms if that happened, and I think I'm one of the chill ones here.

Admittedly @Zyrax has been very chill within this thread as well.  Props to him on trying to get things done.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 27, 2017)

Of the multiple issues currently being discussed, I think the co-mod issue can be resolved the fastest, so I'll try to put some speed into that one.

For the source policy I'll try enforcing the current one more strictly before we reach a consensus on changing it.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 27, 2017)

baconbits said:


> If you're going to endorse a committee, @Xiammes , I think you're going to have to get staff to agree to adopt some of the proposals and at least discuss the proposals in a public place so we can hold you guys accountable to what we came up with and what was accepted and rejected.  If you can give us some sort of guarantee that you'll at least accept our sourcing compromise, whatever it is we come up with, then I have no problem going forward.
> 
> Admittedly @Zyrax has been very chill within this thread as well.  Props to him on trying to get things done.



I can't guarantee that, I would endorse this as a member of the forum, not as a member of the staff. The only person who can even come close to giving that guarantee would be @mr_shadow since he is the moderator of the section. I can only say is that I believe Shadow is a rational man, if you guys put forward something good, he isn't just going to shoot you down.




> I just have no intention of doing a lot of work only to see it debated for a month and then one of the least meaningful suggestions gets put forward while the left are rejected with no given rationale.  Even I'd be up in arms if that happened, and I think I'm one of the chill ones here.



Occupational hazard when you try to do things like this.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 28, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Anyone who wants to question @mr_shadow 's debating ability should take note of how he explained himself in this thread to his critics.  The guy is a top notch debater and I'm saying this as a guy who disagrees with him on almost everything politically.  @Gunners is still the best in my opinion.


[Brownie points intensify]

Bacon hustling hard for that mod position.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## baconbits (Feb 28, 2017)

afgpride said:


> [Brownie points intensify]
> 
> Bacon hustling hard for that mod position.



Well I went after Xiammes harder than anyone else in this thread so it all balances out.  I've always liked mr_shadow.  I don't like the fact that he banned Mael, tho.  I just call them as I see them.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 28, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Well I went after Xiammes harder than anyone else in this thread so it all balances out.  I've always liked mr_shadow.  I don't like the fact that he banned Mael, tho.  I just call them as I see them.



"If elected moderatior, I would unban Mael FIRST DAY IN OFFICE.

First day - he's out.

There are plenty of people banned who shouldn't be; and plenty of people not banned who should be, if you know what I mean.  - just sayin'

We're gonna drain the swamp."

(The unbanning of Mael then ends up a year-long court case when it turns out section mods cant unban people arbitrarily)


----------



## Hitt (Feb 28, 2017)

I think that needs to be emphasized again too.  Section mods cannot ban.  They recommend bans that super mods or administers look at and THEN ban.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 28, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> "If elected moderatior, I would unban Mael FIRST DAY IN OFFICE.
> 
> First day - he's out.
> 
> ...



First day modding, its gonna be great.  Mega, he was terrible, terrible.  I have a plan, but why would I tell you what the plan is?  Then Seto would know and then we'd be in a whole lot of trouble - big league.  Let me tell you, and I really want you all to know this because you're all very nice people, I have one motto: Cafe first.

I love the chatterbox, I really do, but those guys are losers.  When they touch each other that's about the only chance they'd have to grab a pussy, let me tell you.  Me, I don't have any problems in that area.  None whatsoever.  I can bring the conservatives, liberals, everybody but zero, I can bring them together like nobody else can.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 28, 2017)

i'll refine my mod picks. I would like Gunners or Hitt.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 28, 2017)

I want to say another Trump comment but Norma would miss the joke and go ballistic.  It would have been good tho.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 28, 2017)

Hitt said:


> I think that needs to be emphasized again too.  Section mods cannot ban.  They recommend bans that super mods or administers look at and THEN ban.



*rolls eyes*

cmon dude

staff solidarity is OP

maybe 1-2% of rec bans are denied by the higher ups


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 28, 2017)

WAD said:


> *rolls eyes*
> 
> cmon dude
> 
> ...



Yeah it's a circlejerk.


----------



## Hitt (Feb 28, 2017)

WAD said:


> *rolls eyes*
> 
> cmon dude
> 
> ...


I didn't say the recommended bans are frequently rejected.  Just that by themselves they can't do it.  But yeah given how the staff works here if you're "recommended" for banning you probably will be.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 28, 2017)

perms in this forum are a joke anyway
He will likely be unbanned after a year


----------



## Mider T (Feb 28, 2017)

I remember when Shima was banned and members pleaded for his release.  Mods said that he told them he didn't want to come back and some members were trying to talk through the mods and ask him why.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 28, 2017)

baconbits said:


> First day modding, its gonna be great.  Mega, he was terrible, terrible.  I have a plan, but why would I tell you what the plan is?  Then Seto would know and then we'd be in a whole lot of trouble - big league.  Let me tell you, and I really want you all to know this because you're all very nice people, I have one motto: Cafe first.
> 
> I love the chatterbox, I really do, but those guys are losers.  When they touch each other that's about the only chance they'd have to grab a pussy, let me tell you.  Me, I don't have any problems in that area.  None whatsoever.  I can bring the conservatives, liberals, everybody but zero, I can bring them together like nobody else can.


Watch who you're talking about that's my safe space onii-fam 

And I've had sex with over 2 women


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 1, 2017)

I signed in and saw I was tagged in a couple of posts. What is this about?


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2017)

Cyphon said:


> I signed in and saw I was tagged in a couple of posts. What is this about?



You not knowing what's going on because you only visit us every blue moon.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 1, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You not knowing what's going on because you only visit us every blue moon.



Very true indeed.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 1, 2017)

Cyphon said:


> I signed in and saw I was tagged in a couple of posts. What is this about?


People want you to help because are like one of the very few here who are Level Headed, not to mention that you are one of the few Conseratives here who people don't hate(by few I mean just you and Bacon)

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 1, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> People want you to help because are like one of the very few here who are Level Headed, not to mention that you are one of the few Conseratives here who people don't hate(by few I mean just you and Bacon)



I see. Wouldn't mind but I am just not very active.


----------



## Bender (Mar 4, 2017)

Normality said:


> i'll refine my mod picks. I would like Gunners or Hitt.



Seconded. They're very objective people.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 4, 2017)

Chie said:


> I'm going to let you in on a secret. There are two kinds of members:
> 
> 1. Those who don't want people banned unless they post some really fucked up shit
> 
> 2. Those who want everyone who disagrees with them banned



Truer words have never been spoken on this forum. 



Chie said:


> To a certain degree I'd like to see some extreme censorship for a week or so just to make people realize how stupid of an idea it is.



We already had that with Mega where He literally banned just about every source of online news except CNN. It was the worst.

The policy should remain where people can state what they want as long as they are legitimately trying to back it up, examples such as, 9/11 was fishy, ISIS is funded by the US, We abandoned people in Bengazhi, and Sandy Hook was a hoax for gun control. Shit like that was what kept the Cafe interesting. Just because I believe something that you don't agree with doesn't mean Me or my sources should be banned.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 7, 2017)

STOP DENYING THE FATE OF THIS SECTION. IT IS MY TIME

I am the king of this section and everyone knows it!

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 7, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> STOP DENYING THE FATE OF THIS SECTION. IT IS MY TIME
> 
> I am the king of this section and everyone knows it!



Section would be dead if you became a mod.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 7, 2017)

Recent stats has shown that this is one of the most active sections in this forum and makes up about 10% of its activity, all despite being moved down


----------



## Gunners (Mar 7, 2017)

For comedic value, Kiba's slut needs to put in his pitch to be mod with Vash popping back to tell everyone to stay on point.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 7, 2017)

Vash was a great mod.  I always felt like Blue tried to be like him.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 7, 2017)

Evil is stirring in Mod-dor.

Expect some kind of outcome soon.


----------



## EJ (Mar 7, 2017)

Hmhmhmhm

RISE MY GLORIOUS LIBERAL ECHO CHAMBER

WE TAKE BACK WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 7, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Evil is stirring in Mod-dor.
> 
> Expect some kind of outcome soon.


"Soon"


----------



## baconbits (Mar 7, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Evil is stirring in Mod-dor.
> 
> Expect some kind of outcome soon.



By evil are you saying @WorkingMoogle finally logged in as @EvilMoogle and is finally doing some work?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 7, 2017)

baconbits said:


> By evil are you saying @WorkingMoogle finally logged in as @EvilMoogle and is finally doing some work?


@EvilMoogle never works, guy is the laziest asshole I've ever met!


----------



## baconbits (Mar 7, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> @EvilMoogle never works, guy is the laziest asshole I've ever met!



Evil should rep you for this.


----------



## ~M~ (Mar 7, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> "Soon"


Aren't you as admin the last person who should stir up uncertainty? Lol


----------



## ~M~ (Mar 7, 2017)

Preemptive congrats to gunners btw

Or retroactive preemptive congrats to baconbits


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 7, 2017)

~M~ said:


> Aren't you as admin the last person who should stir up uncertainty? Lol


Oh, I'm not spreading uncertainty.  I was just pointing out that "soon" in mod terms should probably be used with the geological definition 

Though I would be greatly amused by running bets on the next mod.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## baconbits (Mar 7, 2017)

If I really wanted to imitate Trump I should say this thing is fixed and then get the mods to pick me anyways, lol.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 7, 2017)

im starting to feel the dreading sensation that it's not gonna be a new mod; a fresh face, but they're just gonna transfer an already existing staff member here -.-


----------



## ~M~ (Mar 7, 2017)

WAD said:


> im starting to feel the dreading sensation that it's not gonna be a new mod; a fresh face, but they're just gonna transfer an already existing staff member here -.-


If this happens it's xiammes 

Basically the token staff bitch


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 7, 2017)

Hey, _I_ said Tazmo was gonna start helping out a few pages ago but nobody wanted to listen then!

(And no, there really is discussion going on right now for a new cafe mod, this doesn't mean it's impossible that it won't happen for one reason or another but I don't see any real reasons why it wouldn't).


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 7, 2017)

Jesus I swear to God if some other mod gets put in place and this section goes to trash again....


----------



## baconbits (Mar 7, 2017)

Odds:

Existing Mod 1 to 3
Other 1 to 3
afgpride 1 to 9
Hitt 1 to 12
erictheking 1 to 16
Gunners 1 to 18
Alwaysmind 1 to 21
Zyrax 1 to 25
baconbits 1 to 28
makeoutparadise 1 to 29
Flow 1 to 31
Seto Kaiba 1 to 35


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 9, 2017)

We need to demod Amanda since that waste of time is hardly active. Shadow is fine as of now.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 9, 2017)

Shes a "Retired Mod" Now appearantly


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 9, 2017)

NaS said:


> We need to demod Amanda since that waste of time is hardly active. Shadow is fine as of now.


Just FYI Amanda being listed as a mod is not holding up the process of selecting a new mod at all.

@mr_shadow  just needs to master the fine art of walking into a thread, declaring it settled, and putting a countdown timer on it


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 9, 2017)

Amanda did a good job while she was here. She just has a life outside NF, unlike me.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 9, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Just FYI Amanda being listed as a mod is not holding up the process of selecting a new mod at all.
> 
> @mr_shadow  just needs to master the fine art of walking into a thread, declaring it settled, and putting a countdown timer on it



Getting to it...

At least compared to Mbxx and the Xenoforo rollout I'm making Usain Bolt speed.


----------



## EJ (Mar 9, 2017)

Here we go! 

Mwahahahahahhahaa!


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 9, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Amanda did a good job while she was here.


She did have a problem where she let her emotions get the best of her
It happened two times as far as I can remember, She even admitted that she fucked up with one of them


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 9, 2017)

I'm aiming to have the new mod in place by next week.

RL stuff got me tied up until Saturday, so snowball starts rolling then.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Mar 11, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Odds:
> 
> Existing Mod 1 to 3
> Other 1 to 3
> ...



How does Zyrax have better odds than some people in this list?


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 11, 2017)

Ok, I've officially placed my nomination on the altar of the higher powers in Modhalla.

Now we wait.

[It could be days, so don't sit up all night]


----------



## EJ (Mar 11, 2017)

Can you tell us the people that were considered?


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 11, 2017)

Flow said:


> Can you tell us the people that were considered?



We've talked about most of everyone who has been brought up in this thread.

I'd rather not reveal who I nominated until the mods have finished voting, because I don't want to embarrass that person in case they don't win.

Also, while I pledge to work with whoever gets picked, it would be awkward if it was publicly known that I didn't actually vote for my co-mod, so for the harmony of our working relationship I'd rather it be kept among the mods only.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 11, 2017)

I have a bad feeling about this


----------



## EJ (Mar 11, 2017)

Mwhahahahaha!


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 11, 2017)

Sorry, I'll have to decline. Thanks for considering me though.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 11, 2017)

WAD said:


> Sorry, I'll have to decline. Thanks for considering me though.



Aren't you a fallen mod?

Like Satan, or Seraph in The Matrix?


----------



## dream (Mar 11, 2017)

WAD said:


> Sorry, I'll have to decline. Thanks for considering me though.



Noooooooo.  You were supposed to be the savior of NF.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 11, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> How does Zyrax have better odds than some people in this list?



Poor judge of character.


----------



## ~M~ (Mar 12, 2017)

Wad is just a moogle dupe probably


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 13, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Aren't you a fallen mod?
> 
> Like Satan, or Seraph in The Matrix?



naw


----------



## baconbits (Mar 14, 2017)

No matter what happens ultimately it will be the posters that determine the future of this section.  We all have to do our part to post decent content and actually try to engage arguments rather than insult the posters.  If we all did that the Cafe would be better regardless of how it was modded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 14, 2017)

That may be so, but it is a lot easier to foster a competitive debate community when the information, articles, and news is not outrageously biased or falsely reported.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 14, 2017)

Whoever gets modded will Basicly have to work with Shadow so I don't understand why many hers think it will create a huge change

It seems more of butthurt about Shadow than anything


----------



## baconbits (Mar 14, 2017)

WAD said:


> That may be so, but it is a lot easier to foster a competitive debate community when the information, articles, and news is not outrageously biased or falsely reported.



How do you intend to accomplish that?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 14, 2017)

By having a much stricter source vetting policy. I don't care what anyone says, there should absolutely be a blacklist of disallowed sources because they are propaganda mouthpieces at best, lying libelers at worst. 

Yeah, some have already objected to that proposal, blabbering some inane bullshit like "But muh anti-censorship!" and I find it absolutely foolish. It's not oppressive to desire to hold media outlets to higher standards of integrity. And if they choose not to be reputable and reliable sources of information, then I find no fault and certainly possess no grievances with making sure their idiocy never has to be read by me or other sensible individuals.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 14, 2017)

baconbits said:


> No matter what happens ultimately it will be the posters that determine the future of this section.  We all have to do our part to post decent content and actually try to engage arguments rather than insult the posters.  If we all did that the Cafe would be better regardless of how it was modded.



Bad modding could do a lot to make this place worse though. It clearly needs an almost laissez-faire approach, which Shadow is pretty close to right now thankfully.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 14, 2017)

baconbits said:


> How do you intend to accomplish that?


By banning sources that he doesn't like ofcourse


----------



## ~M~ (Mar 14, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> By banning sources that he doesn't like ofcourse


Most people don't like*


----------



## baconbits (Mar 14, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> By having a much stricter source vetting policy. I don't care what anyone says, there should absolutely be a blacklist of disallowed sources because they are propaganda mouthpieces at best, lying libelers at worst.
> 
> Yeah, some have already objected to that proposal, blabbering some inane bullshit like "But muh anti-censorship!" and I find it absolutely foolish. It's not oppressive to desire to hold media outlets to higher standards of integrity. And if they choose not to be reputable and reliable sources of information, then I find no fault and certainly possess no grievances with making sure their idiocy never has to be read by me or other sensible individuals.



I want to argue with you but... how do you get so many name changes?  This seems like your eightieth this month.

Seriously tho, I grant your point that some sources are ludicrous.  My opinion is that this should just factor into our arguments and to the seriousness we grant the thread or poster in question.  I've cited statistics and had my arguments rejected simply because the stats came from a link that was biased... despite the fact that you could find the stats in other neutral places.

I'm against trying to limit sources.  There are some practical ones like yourself that just want to limit the troll sites.  Others want to go much further.  To me mocking the source and pointing out its unsuitability is far better for the Cafe than banning it outright.



erictheking said:


> Bad modding could do a lot to make this place worse though. It clearly needs an almost laissez-faire approach, which Shadow is pretty close to right now thankfully.



It can make it worse.  I don't deny that.  But ultimately the main factor determining this section's quality is the quality of the things we the regulars post.  I just find that many are quick to push the problems of the forums onto the mods, and they do have their major issues, which is easy because it pushes the responsibility from themselves.

I'm not saying that to absolve the mods.  I messaged two administrators about a very simply problem over two weeks ago and have yet to get a response.  I've posted in the Staff Conference room before and not gotten responses.  One big thing the staff can improve is simply logging in.  One of the staff came into this thread with no intention of even trying to read our concerns.  To me that's just lazy.  So yeah, staff has some legit problems.  But no matter what the staff does as long as we're all going to keep posting we should do our part to make this place better, too.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 14, 2017)

baconbits said:


> How do you intend to accomplish that?



Me.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 14, 2017)

Congrats Rain!


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 14, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I want to argue with you but... how do you get so many name changes?  This seems like your eightieth this month.
> 
> Seriously tho, I grant your point that some sources are ludicrous.  My opinion is that this should just factor into our arguments and to the seriousness we grant the thread or poster in question.  I've cited statistics and had my arguments rejected simply because the stats came from a link that was biased... despite the fact that you could find the stats in other neutral places.
> 
> ...



But haven't we danced to this song for a while now? I've already made my counterpoint weeks back: ridiculing and scorning OPs who bad threads won't actually condition them to not be more prudent in their article selection, because the ones who do again are either:

1) Trolls, so they will use any excuse to keep posting ridiculous stuff for incendiary purposes 
2) Idiots, so they won't comprehend our attempts at scolding them straight

Aside from that, I'm completely for a laissez-faire methodology in modship. Yes, the lion's share of quality control comes from the end-user; us. However, the well is poisoned when we condone and allow others a portal to repost clickbait and straight up tabloid-tier tidings. 

Of course, another mod would allow for swifter responses to debunked threads by a collective, some bogus articles already open way too long.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 14, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> But haven't we danced to this song for a while now? I've already made my counterpoint weeks back: ridiculing and scorning OPs who bad threads won't actually condition them to not be more prudent in their article selection, because the ones who do again are either:
> 
> 1) Trolls, so they will use any excuse to keep posting ridiculous stuff for incendiary purposes
> 2) Idiots, so they won't comprehend our attempts at scolding them straight



I think you have my intentions wrong.  I don't expect people to stop being who they are.  Bender is going to post his threads from the left and others from the right.  My point is that we get to set our own level of participation in a thread, we have our own ability to take their points seriously or not and we can choose to engage them or not.  I personally have no problem with a thread from Mother Jones or Breitbart; I don't want to hear complaining from the OP if no one takes him seriously, if people decide to critique the sourcing and that hijacks the debate or if the title calls all of his opponents into the thread.

To me that's what the Cafe should be about.  So long as people don't flame or post porn they ought not be banned and so long as the OP is an article and not an opinion piece it should be able to be posted.  Some of the most insightful articles I've ever read came from playboy.  Some of the worst writing I've seen has come from AP.  There are such things as exceptions to the norm.



Elder WAD said:


> Aside from that, I'm completely for a laissez-faire methodology in modship. Yes, the lion's share of quality control comes from the end-user; us. However, the well is poisoned when we condone and allow others a portal to repost clickbait and straight up tabloid-tier tidings.
> 
> Of course, another mod would allow for swifter responses to debunked threads by a collective, some bogus articles already open way too long.



I think we agree on this, tho I'm probably more soft on the trolling than you would be.  An article posted by a so called "troll" was called a troll thread even when it was a legiitimate article.  Some of the people on your side of the discussion aren't as fair minded as you are; they are aiming for a guilt by association type of debating, where anything posted by certain posters should be ignored or scorned or anything adopting a point of view they don't like is to be ridiculed.  To me that goes against the spirit of open and frank discussion and smacks of a "safe space" type of mentality.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 14, 2017)

I think we can all agree that thread titles should mirror article titles, this can be the first step to curb trolling. If you post bait, at least the article actually be bait.


----------



## Rain (Mar 15, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Congrats Rain!



Thanks fam, knew i could count on your support.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 15, 2017)

Sorry I meant Hitt.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 15, 2017)

Its been a while
Has there been at least some progress on the voting?


----------



## Rain (Mar 15, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Sorry I meant Hitt.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 15, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Its been a while
> Has there been at least some progress on the voting?


If you scrotum up or backpage you will see.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 15, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Congrats Rain!



If they chose him...it would just really establish this staff is retarded. The guy just recently came back from one of the biggest meltdowns I'd seen on this forum.


----------



## Rain (Mar 15, 2017)

I'm not proud of some of my past behavior, but you can be at peace as i'm not interested in modship in the slightest due to the fact that i have neither time nor skills nor will to be a good mod and mr_shadow knows this. There are so many people who can do a better job.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 15, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Its been a while
> Has there been at least some progress on the voting?



Yeah, things are moving quick in Modtopia.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 16, 2017)

Rain said:


> I'm not proud of some of my past behavior, but you can be at peace as i'm not interested in modship in the slightest due to the fact that i have neither time nor skills nor will to be a good mod and mr_shadow knows this. There are so many people who can do a better job.


If it makes you feel better Amanda admited that she fucked up and that vak was as guilty as you were and that she should have warned him too


----------



## Rain (Mar 16, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> If it makes you feel better Amanda admited that she fucked up and that vak was as guilty as you were and that she should have warned him too



No man, it was totally my mistake. Even though my argument was overall correct (although i've developed quite a disdain for antifa since then) i foolishly allowed myself to get provoked.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 18, 2017)

There was a minor delay, but now the modding procedure is moving again. Expect a result early next week.


----------



## EJ (Mar 18, 2017)

I certainly hope it isn't just giving us a new mod.

This place needs minor adjustments in regards with the climate as many of us have pointed out.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 20, 2017)




----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 20, 2017)

So, what's up here guys?  Geeze, isn't this done yet?  Come on @mr_shadow what's the hold up?


----------



## dream (Mar 20, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> So, what's up here guys?  Geeze, isn't this done yet?  Come on @mr_shadow what's the hold up?



Staff decided to table any modship discussions in favor of discussing the new Mass Effect.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 20, 2017)

Dream said:


> Staff decided to table any modship discussions in favor of discussing the new Mass Effect.


Probably explains why the next mod choice will be shitty.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Mar 20, 2017)

Dream said:


> Staff decided to table any modship discussions in favor of discussing the new Mass Effect.


Pfft, they should be playing Tyranny instead, far more theme appropriate (and probably a better game).


----------



## dream (Mar 20, 2017)

RIP you filthy liberals.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 20, 2017)

o it was @baconbits afterall

grats fam


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 20, 2017)

Yeah, we decided to mod @baconbits in the end.

We'll see if he comes in for an acceptance speech. (Which will have the biggest crowd ever).


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 20, 2017)

Good choice.

It was vital that the new mod wasn't a bitch, in this era where bitches are crawling out of every corner. One thing you can say for sure about @baconbits is that he's no bitch.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 20, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Good choice.
> 
> It was vital that the new mod wasn't a bitch, in this era where bitches are crawling out of every corner. One thing you can say for sure about @baconbits is that he's no bitch.



Thank you, man.  I don't really have much to say in the way of speeches, mainly because I ruined that by already parodying Trump a couple pages back.  That said I appreciate the support some of you had and I'm going to work with everybody who posts in the Cafe to help it improve.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 20, 2017)

Welcome aboard, Bacon. 

You've earned it.


----------



## Kitsune (Mar 20, 2017)

Welcome, bacon! Please report to staff HQ for your hazing and ritual paddling (and please don't leak info about our Clockwork Orange-style liberal indoctrination program).


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

Awww shit, no wonder I'm able to see Baconbits on my user list. Seriously you guys modded @baconbits?


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 20, 2017)

Bender said:


> Awww shit, no wonder I'm able to see Baconbits on my user list. Seriously you guys modded @baconbits?



Long overdue really. He's been acting like a mod for years.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2017)

Congrats @baconbits 

Don't think I ever specifically mentioned you but I think you are a good choice.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Long overdue really. He's been acting like a mod for years.



I don't like how he's been enabling Chie's wildness as of late. Chie's made at least several threads with dumb sources.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 20, 2017)

So have you...


----------



## Mider T (Mar 20, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Yeah, we decided to mod @baconbits in the end.
> 
> We'll see if he comes in for an acceptance speech. (Which will have the biggest crowd ever).


What was the delay?  Sounds like there was a close tie.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 20, 2017)

Bender said:


> I don't like how he's been enabling Chie's wildness as of late. Chie's made at least several threads with dumb sources.



Ah, Bender.  Everyone has a right to make threads.  So long as they don't break the rules.  Looking at your thread creation lately... you don't have much room to talk.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 20, 2017)

Mider T said:


> What was the delay?  Sounds like there was a close tie.



Nah, pretty much unanimous in the end.

The delay was somebody asking for more discussion time, but after we'd added 24 more hours nobody had said anything, so apparently there was less opposition than imagined.

Can't really be much more specific than that without violating confidentiality. You'll have to get yourself modded when I retire and you'll be able to go through the archives yourself.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> So have you...



I only mock him before his threads are closed. I've tried to be logical with both Chie and @baconbits . I've been receptive to things Bacon has said who is far more sophisticated than the former. His lack of credible refutation to arguments placed by me, Seto and other people is unnerving. 

Bacon how am I or anyone else here going to take you seriously as a mod if you're not going to be more flexible in debates?


----------



## Mider T (Mar 20, 2017)

Or air could just wait for more modleaks, last time was pretty fun.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

lol lol.

@baconbits

I do like you man. But on political discussions, you're not open-minded person. There are a lot of Conservatives who are more reflective, I'm not sure you're one of those. However, if you can promise that you can change that I'll be more accepting.

EDIT:

My threads aren't in violation of cafe thread policy


> *1. Sources must be text articles*.
> No Youtube or other media.
> 
> *2. Sources must be reporting.*
> ...



Unless they broke those rules then you can say I'm violating rules.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 20, 2017)

Bender said:


> Bacon how am I or anyone else here going to take you seriously as a mod if you're not going to be more flexible in debates?



I don't know what you mean by "flexible".  It seems to me like you just want someone to agree with you.  If that's what you mean by "flexibility" you won't find it with me.  However if you want someone who can look at the issue from your point of view, sure, I can try that and I can definitely work to improve in that area.  Just don't expect me to reach the same conclusions you do.



Bender said:


> My threads aren't in violation of cafe thread policy
> 
> 
> Unless they broke those rules then you can say I'm violating rules.



I never said you were breaking the rules, my friend.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

baconbits said:


> However if you want someone who can look at the issue from your point of view, sure, I can try that and I can definitely work to improve in that area.  Just don't expect me to reach the same conclusions you do.



Yes, that's all that I'm asking. It's particularly worrisome when it's more than just Seto (who you butt heads with) that's calling you out for lack of impartiality.





> I never said you were breaking the rules, my friend.



I'm saying that Chie's obnoxious unsubstantiated threads with no corroborating sources are bad for nf cafe. 

EDIT:

Even you should see that he should be thread limited when he does that shit.


----------



## ~M~ (Mar 20, 2017)

Flow said:


> I certainly hope it isn't just giving us a new mod.
> 
> This place needs minor adjustments in regards with the climate as many of us have pointed out.


^

So what other changes can we expect?


----------



## baconbits (Mar 20, 2017)

Bender said:


> Yes, that's all that I'm asking. It's particularly worrisome when it's more than just Seto (who you butt heads with) that's calling you out for lack of impartiality.



I'll never be impartial but I'll always aim to be fair.



Bender said:


> I'm saying that Chie's obnoxious unsubstantiated threads with no corroborating sources are bad for nf cafe.



You'll have to link me to an offending thread so I can look at what you're referring to.  He's made a lot of threads.  Some legit and some not.



~M~ said:


> ^
> 
> So what other changes can we expect?



@mr_shadow will have to answer to that.  I can say that he's been very willing to listen to the vets in here and I second that, so expect to see more community engagement and us giving you guys' imput more importance.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

~M~ said:


> ^
> 
> So what other changes can we expect?



I say we make more temporary thread bans for people who violate rules I quoted above.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 20, 2017)

Problem is it's not an offense to be irritating, and that's not why I closed some of Chie's threads.

I closed them because they were misleading and/or obvious clickbait.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 20, 2017)

In terms of changes from hereon, I would encourage more rigorous enforcement of the current source policy. 

Thread-bans for individuals who breach it is both a fair punishment and clears out the shit.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 20, 2017)

Bender said:


> I say we make more temporary thread bans for people who violate rules I quoted above.


I think we should make permanent thread bans for people who violate them repeatedly. 

Some retrospective enforcement wouldn't be out of order, in my opinion. I have examples.


----------



## dream (Mar 20, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Some retrospective enforcement wouldn't be out of order, in my opinion.



We don't do this barring a few rare situations.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

erictheking said:


> I think we should make permanent thread bans for people who violate them repeatedly.
> 
> Some retrospective enforcement wouldn't be out of order, in my opinion. I have examples.



The mods said they aren't going to do that.

We didn't even do that to BI. 

And he was a nutcase who believed Haku was a girl despite being said otherwise.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 20, 2017)

Dream said:


> We don't do this barring a few rare situations.


Don't see why not. It's worked well in football. If the ref misses it at the time, a panel will catch the offender at a later date and slap a fat ban on him


----------



## dream (Mar 20, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Don't see why not. It's worked well in football. If the ref misses it at the time, a panel will catch the offender at a later date and slap a fat ban on him



Anything past a few days, or a week or two depending on the severity of the offense, is not worth the downsides of banning members for stuff they did in the past.  The goal isn't to just punish users by banning them...the intent is to get them to stop performing a specific type of behavior in the future.  For all we know, a user may not ever repeat the offense(s) he/she committed in the past and as such it is better to take a wait and see approach.  If the user commits the offense again in the future we can easily ban the user at that time.


----------



## Bender (Mar 20, 2017)

@Dream

Just a thought but do you want to convert your Trump headquarters to Trump-Russia where articles about investigation? This matter is very much bigger than the watergate scandal and may last weeks or some months. Don't care if you do or don't. Just a thought.


----------



## dream (Mar 20, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Dream
> 
> Just a thought but do you want to convert your Trump headquarters to Trump-Russia where articles about investigation? This matter is very much bigger than the watergate scandal and may last weeks or some months. Don't care if you do or don't. Just a thought.



If shadow and bacon feel that it might be worthwhile to shove all Trump-Russia-Investigations articles into a separate section I wouldn't mind doing that.  Personally, I don't like doing that unless a specific subject is choking out all other discussion.  I don't believe that we are quite there yet in terms of how many Trump and/or Russia ties threads there are on the main page.


----------



## Amol (Mar 21, 2017)

So @baconbits became a mod ?
Can't say I am exactly happy about it. That is curse of cafe I guess . Rarely this place gets neutral *and* well liked mod 
Well still congratulations I guess.
Try not to be utterly biased to right and republican now. It won't look good, the mod of political subsection being an apologist of one political party or religion for that matter.
I guess I can forget the dream about this place ever becoming troll-free now.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2017)

Amol said:


> So @baconbits became a mod ?
> Can't say I am exactly happy about it. That is curse of cafe I guess . Rarely this place gets neutral *and* well liked mod
> Well still congratulations I guess.
> Try not to be utterly biased to right and republican now. It won't look good, the mod of political subsection being an apologist of one political party or religion for that matter.
> I guess I can forget the dream about this place ever becoming troll-free now.



Yeah, @baconbits is one of my closest friends but I think it was idiotic to mod him specifically out of where he stood politically. There were different users that could had fit that position but perhaps they didn't want to become mods. I'm not trusting of him to make good decisions in regards this section because he has shown to not catch on to trolls, and has defended the current sourcing policy. 

It just so happens that a lot of "Conservative or Right-leaning users" have troll tendencies to them, so it put the bar extremely low in trying to 'find a balance'.

I'm still going to give him a chance. I don't expect any kind of change to happen though.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 21, 2017)

Since I'm a Social Democrat and my wife a member of the Communist Party of China, we thought it would be good to have a Republican as my co-mod.

Because anyone with even a little knowledge of politics is going to be biased one way or another.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 21, 2017)

I disagree with that assessment.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 21, 2017)

I don't think there's any way we can make all of you happy.  What we can do is promise to be fair.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 21, 2017)

I think the Ability to not let your biases influence your modding is more important than the Mod's political views itself

Compare Shadow to Jello or Baconbits to Mega and one can't deny that the current mods respect their "opponents" far more than any mod before them


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 21, 2017)

I don't like the idea of modding someone that really wanted to be one and made a show of doing what they can to land the position.  I think bacon's temperament is fantastic which helps, but shadow's fantastic temperament didn't prevent him from being insufferable at the beginning of his tenure (he's fine now).  Hopefully there won't be slip ups in power trips going forward and shadow's intended yin and yang effect goes smoothly.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 21, 2017)

Also inb4 seto's reaction


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Mar 21, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Since I'm a Social Democrat and my wife a member of the Communist Party of China, we thought it would be good to have a Republican as my co-mod.
> 
> Because anyone with even a little knowledge of politics is going to be biased one way or another.



lol this diversity bullshit is so dumb. "I'm a democrat so I have to mod a republican otherwise we wont fulfill our diversity quotas"


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 21, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> So have you...



I'd have cracked down on both and then some. I'm not too concerned about niceness, but also shadow and I would have public disputes. 



mr_shadow said:


> Since I'm a Social Democrat and my wife a member of the Communist Party of China, we thought it would be good to have a Republican as my co-mod.
> 
> Because anyone with even a little knowledge of politics is going to be biased one way or another.



Man, this really is becoming such a Swedish way to look at things these days...

bacon being mod doesn't matter. I'll still expose his ignorant ass in debates.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> I don't like how he's been enabling Chie's wildness as of late. Chie's made at least several threads with dumb sources.



You have to hold yourself accountable as well, @Bender.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 21, 2017)

APOLOGIZE


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Thank you, man.  I don't really have much to say in the way of speeches, mainly because I ruined that by already parodying Trump a couple pages back.  That said I appreciate the support some of you had and I'm going to work with everybody who posts in the Cafe to help it improve.



Congrats Bacon! From all the people who I disagree with politcally you may be the one I respect the most and I'm pretty confident that you're the right man for the job.


----------



## Bender (Mar 21, 2017)

Flow said:


> You have to hold yourself accountable as well, @Bender.



Unless I'm warned about not using legitimate sources I'm not the one to be worried about. Only thing you may as well hold be accountable for is being an asshole moderate liberal.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Unless I'm warned about not using legitimate sources I'm not the one to be worried about. Only thing you may as well hold be accountable for is being an asshole moderate liberal.



You've quoted shit before from Buzzfeed, and Huffingtonpost multiple times and started threads off them.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I don't like the idea of modding someone that really wanted to be one and made a show of doing what they can to land the position.  I think bacon's temperament is fantastic which helps, but shadow's fantastic temperament didn't prevent him from being insufferable at the beginning of his tenure (he's fine now).  Hopefully there won't be slip ups in power trips going forward and shadow's intended yin and yang effect goes smoothly.



I don't think there will be any slip ups.  First, I have a lot of respect for @mr_shadow and none of that is fake or trying to kiss up to anybody.  I don't need to kiss up to anyone anyway since they put us on the same level.  Since I'm just starting I'll defer to him until I'm up to speed and when I'm up to speed you know my philosophy on the Cafe: I prefer people to keep a civil tone but I'm pretty patient.

Second, the other mods are helping out when they can.  Third, the Cafe's success still depends on the posters.  Mods do play a part and I'll take responsibility for my part, but as posters we still have to make sure we post good threads, have good discussions, etc.

Thirdly, I'm able to look at the benefit of the poster to the Cafe even if I disagree with their content or personality.  Lastly, I'll need some of your help to assist with some ideas I have.



Son of Goku said:


> Congrats Bacon! From all the people who I disagree with politcally you may be the one I respect the most and I'm pretty confident that you're the right man for the job.



Thanks, man.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Bender (Mar 21, 2017)

Flow said:


> You've quoted shit before from Buzzfeed, and Huffingtonpost multiple times and started threads off them.



Those articles were
corroborated by similar ones from other sources.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I don't think there will be any slip ups.  First, I have a lot of respect for @mr_shadow and none of that is fake or trying to kiss up to anybody.  I don't need to kiss up to anyone anyway since they put us on the same level.  Since I'm just starting I'll defer to him until I'm up to speed and when I'm up to speed you know my philosophy on the Cafe: I prefer people to keep a civil tone but I'm pretty patient.
> 
> Second, the other mods are helping out when they can.  Third, the Cafe's success still depends on the posters.  Mods do play a part and I'll take responsibility for my part, but as posters we still have to make sure we post good threads, have good discussions, etc.
> 
> Thirdly, I'm able to look at the benefit of the poster to the Cafe even if I disagree with their content or personality.  Lastly, I'll need some of your help to assist with some ideas I have.


Personally, the only thing I genuinely care about is nannying. Strict enforcement against flaming, flame baiting or being offensive is beyond annoying to me, which is why (thanks to Distracted's toxic leadership) I thought Shadow and Amanda were about 150x worse than Mega at the beginning of their runs. Shadow was giving warnings/deleting posts as if it was the Riksdag and Amanda was turning the Cafe into a kindergarten safe space with respect to language. If you're as 'tolerant' toward meanie-bo-beanie language as you are to opposing opinions then I have nothing to complain about.




And now that a mod has been chosen, full disclosure: I never wanted to be a mod, but I would've accepted if offered due to a bet I lost to WAD. I then would have gone on to be just as inflammatory toward people, except without banning or silencing them with my mod powers (I think this is what my shook ones feared, but it would never have happened bc it's against my principles). I wouldn't have been very active in moving threads, and I probably would've ditched every mod """"meeting"""". I thought Hitt was the best choice objectively speaking, but I also previously thought shadow and Amanda were the best choices before they got modded (seriously lmao) and that didn't turn out very well so I took myself with a grain of salt.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Personally, the only thing I genuinely care about is nannying. Strict enforcement against flaming, flame baiting or being offensive is beyond annoying to me, which (thanks to Distracted's toxic leadership) I thought Shadow and Amanda were about 150x worse than Mega at the beginning of their runs. Shadow was giving warnings/deleting posts as if it was the Riksdag and Amanda was turning the Cafe into a kindergarten safe space with respect to language. If you're as 'tolerant' toward meanie-bo-beanie language as you are to opposing opinions then I have nothing to complain about.
> 
> And now that a mod has been chosen, full disclosure: I never wanted to be a mod, but I would've accepted if offered due to a bet I lost to WAD. I then would have gone on to be just as inflammatory toward people, except without banning or silencing them with my mod powers (I think this is what my shook ones feared, but it would never have happened bc it's against my principles). I wouldn't have been very active in moving threads, and I probably would've ditched every mod """"meeting"""". I thought Hitt was the best choice objectively speaking, but I also previously thought shadow and Amanda were the best choices before they got modded (seriously lmao) and that didn't turn out very well so I took myself with a grain of salt.



Bro, I personally don't have any problem with those opinions and frankly I agree with most of them.  I'm not too much in favor of taking a heavy hand to debates, though there should be lines that we shouldn't cross.  But I think those lines are obvious, like saying you'll rape someone, wishing death on someone, just going off the handle or using nothing but pejoratives.

My thing is just this: let's talk things through.  We'll disagree but that's the Cafe way.  Instead of clamming up I want all the posters to say what's on their mind.  We won't always agree but we will listen and be respectful.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Bro, I personally don't have any problem with those opinions and frankly I agree with most of them.  I'm not too much in favor of taking a heavy hand to debates, though there should be lines that we shouldn't cross.  But I think those lines are obvious, like saying you'll rape someone, wishing death on someone, just going off the handle or using nothing but pejoratives.
> 
> My thing is just this: let's talk things through.  We'll disagree but that's the Cafe way.  Instead of clamming up I want all the posters to say what's on their mind.  We won't always agree but we will listen and be respectful.


Yeah that's fair enough, it's just that "being respectful" has been enforced way too strictly at certain times in the Cafe.  Jello was notorious for being a power-tripping SJW despite people in her echo chamber adoring her, so I've always been in the pro-Mega camp (contrary to most) thanks to the perspective that provided.  He let people communicate rather feely. Using profanity, calling people stupid, hurling insults, these have always sort of been up to the discretion of mods in each section of the forum, and I prefer mods to recommend the ignore function to the offended/bullied rather than dishing out warnings and banning people or locking threads over it.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> But I think those lines are obvious, like saying you'll rape someone, wishing death on someone, just going off the handle or using nothing but pejoratives.


I think the way Shadow currently handles it is the best

As it is currently the cafe allows Aggressive tones and a certain level of Flaming more than almost all sections except for the Blender but at the same time stuff(personal attacks such as cussing your opponents mother and ethnic slurs)  that go too far regardless of who posts it is punished

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 21, 2017)

Yeah, current shadow (not to be confused with initial shadow) is best shadow


----------



## baconbits (Mar 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Yeah that's fair enough, it's just that "being respectful" has been enforced way too strictly at certain times in the Cafe.  Jello was notorious for being a power-tripping SJW despite people in her echo chamber adoring her, so I've always been in the pro-Mega camp (contrary to most) thanks to the perspective that provided.  He let people communicate rather feely. Using profanity, calling people stupid, hurling insults, these have always sort of been up to the discretion of mods in each section of the forum, and I prefer mods to recommend the ignore function to the offended/bullied rather than dishing out warnings and banning people or locking threads over it.





Zyrax said:


> I think the way Shadow currently handles it is the best
> 
> As it is currently the cafe allows Aggressive tones and a certain level of Flaming more than almost all sections except for the Blender but at the same time stuff(personal attacks such as cussing your opponents mother and ethnic slurs)  that go too far regardless of who posts it is punished



I agree with you.  I don't think of this section as a place where the mods are going to put the pieces of anyone's fragile psyche back together.  But if someone does need help putting their psyche together I do have an advice thread, lol.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 21, 2017)

Good.  Once you're finished the hazing/rookie phase, keep shadow's Swedish biases in check.  Sometimes it comes out due to reflex.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Personally, the only thing I genuinely care about is nannying. Strict enforcement against flaming, flame baiting or being offensive is beyond annoying to me, which is why (thanks to Distracted's toxic leadership) I thought Shadow and Amanda were about 150x worse than Mega at the beginning of their runs. Shadow was giving warnings/deleting posts as if it was the Riksdag and Amanda was turning the Cafe into a kindergarten safe space with respect to language. If you're as 'tolerant' toward meanie-bo-beanie language as you are to opposing opinions then I have nothing to complain about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Curses. This was my one shot.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 21, 2017)

Lol.  You should have bet something more certain, man.  I mean my bet with Dream was lame but at least he was able to follow through with it.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 22, 2017)

Why Dream still makes bets is a mystery in itself, dude is Tsunade personified.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

In light of Nune's misleading remarks on "incidental" surveillance I'm going to change the title of "Congressional hearing Official discussion thread" to Trump/Russia Treason Official Discussion.
Whenever there's new findings I'll update the thread by putting date of new findings in thread title.

Ex. Trump/Russia Treason Official Discussion *UPDATE*(3/24) 

Additionally, if I'm not available then someone can contact a mod and tell them to put up the date that findings have been found.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> In light of Nune's misleading remarks on "incidental" surveillance I'm going to change the title of "Congressional hearing Official discussion thread" to Trump/Russia Treason Official Discussion.
> Whenever there's new findings I'll update the thread by putting date of new findings in thread title.
> 
> Ex. Trump/Russia Treason Official Discussion *UPDATE*(3/24)
> ...



Just post articles, man.  You're not in charge of Trump related news.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

@baconbits

I'm only posting Trump related investigation info. They're two different things entirely. Whenever he does or says something utterly retarded and there's something about the investigation.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 24, 2017)

I wish there was a way for the Sections topics to diversify a little


----------



## Rain (Mar 24, 2017)

Honestly i will say it, this section has become garbage. I personally have zero incentive to post because 99% of threads don't encourage high-level discussion. You have these bad posters such as Chie, Bender etc.. who like to make garbage threads and simply pollute the forum atmosphere with their rabid philistinism.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## baconbits (Mar 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @baconbits
> 
> I'm only posting Trump related investigation info. They're two different things entirely. Whenever he does or says something utterly retarded and there's something about the investigation.



Dude, if you keep this up your thread will get locked.  If there are legitimate news articles post those.  Some of the threads you have posted have been of low quality lately.  This continuing thread's title is basically trolling.  I'll edit that title and if necessary I'll lock the thread.  Don't make this a battle.



Rain said:


> Honestly i will say it, this section has become garbage. I personally have zero incentive to post because 99% of threads don't encourage high-level discussion. You have these bad posters such as Chie, Bender etc.. who like to make garbage threads and simply pollute the forum atmosphere with their rabid philistinism.



I don't disagree.  But make yourself part of the solution by posting interesting things you find.  I honestly can't stop low quality posters from posting until they flame or break some forum rule.  Just being a low quality poster or thinker alone doesn't justify mod actions.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

@baconbits 

Sigh,fine alright.
Also what are you talking about low quality? They're legitimate.


----------



## EJ (Mar 24, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Dude, if you keep this up your thread will get locked.  If there are legitimate news articles post those.  Some of the threads you have posted have been of low quality lately.  This continuing thread's title is basically trolling.  I'll edit that title and if necessary I'll lock the thread.  Don't make this a battle.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.  But make yourself part of the solution by posting interesting things you find.  I honestly can't stop low quality posters from posting until they flame or break some forum rule.  Just being a low quality poster or thinker alone doesn't justify mod actions.


 This is what I wanted to see. Finally.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @baconbits
> 
> Sigh,fine alright.
> Also what are you talking about low quality? They're legitimate.



Legitimate does not mean high quality.  I can make so many jokes but since I'm talking about official policy I'll try to refrain.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

@Flow 

Right because the mod who likes Chie is cracking down on me for posting "low quality" threads.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Legitimate does not mean high quality.  I can make so many jokes but since I'm talking about official policy I'll try to refrain.



Your use of the word "high quality" is subjective. 

The threads I post as of late aren't using blogging sites like Chie and the one by J&J.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## EJ (Mar 24, 2017)

He should go after Chie as well if he goes on his spree again.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

@Flow 
He let Chie shit thread go on for too long before closing it.

@baconbits

I was only trying to offer a solution since there are too many Trump/Russia related threads and you guys removed the Trump sub-section.


----------



## EJ (Mar 24, 2017)

What recent threads?


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

I was speaking about ones about how Nunes said transition team was under surveillance, and other threads from Death Arcana, and Mr_shadow.  

Quit acting like I'm the only one who has posted those threads.


----------



## EJ (Mar 24, 2017)

Link to the recent threads since baconbits has.become a mod.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

Look at the second page. One was made on Sunday. You're a big boy look for yourself.


----------



## EJ (Mar 24, 2017)

I'm on my phone I will check later. Anyways, it's been a long time for someone to hammer down on some of the thread you were making. I expect the same kind of treatment towards others regardless of their.political standing.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

@Flow

My threads don't spread misinformation like chie.

@baconbits
If you're going to thread lock my privileges you have to ask the other mods.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Flow
> He let Chie shit thread go on for too long before closing it.



Dude, you just need to chill.  I actually like you as a person and even as a poster.  I don't know why sometimes, because you also exasperate me, but this is not some vendetta against you.  Like you said I closed Chie's thread.  The reason I did so was because @Larcher pointed out it was a year old and give proof that it was.  Great point by him and I accepted that.



Bender said:


> @baconbits
> 
> I was only trying to offer a solution since there are too many Trump/Russia related threads and you guys removed the Trump sub-section.



I acknowledge there are a lot of Trump threads but there were two problems: first, your title was biased.  Second, most of the articles you want to post are deserving of their own threads.  Did I just imply you can make your own threads?  Yes.  Just make sure they are legit stories.  Aim high, not low.

I say that because this:



Bender said:


> @baconbits
> If you're going to thread lock my privileges you have to ask the other mods.



Isn't based on anything I've actually done.  I didn't lock your privileges.  If I was going to it wouldn't come as a surprise: you'd be notified and I would have talked to staff before making that move.

Tl;dr - chill, man.  If you think a thread deserves to be closed just let me know.  Don't assume bias until you actually see it.


----------



## Bender (Mar 24, 2017)

@baconbits


Same you're also cool dude

Eh, I was on the clock at work so I couldn't come up with a better name. All I wanted to do was help reduce the number of Trump threads for the staff. I was not intending to be biased. Just double checking: no complaints on the number of Trump investigation threads?

Reactions: Dislike 2


----------



## baconbits (Mar 24, 2017)

None yet, man.  But people will complain no matter what you do.  Just be yourself.  If you have an issue tell us about it.  Never assume communication isn't possible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mider T (Mar 25, 2017)

Bender said:


> @baconbits
> 
> 
> Same you're also cool dude
> ...


I was at work
I was drunk
I was just trying to-
What I meant was-

Do you have an excuse for everything?


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 26, 2017)

Bender said:


> @baconbits
> 
> 
> Same you're also cool dude
> ...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bender (Mar 27, 2017)

Sigh...since so many people are flippant about Trump threads in nf cage I made I'll sit back for a week and watch the rest of you.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 27, 2017)

Barnical head


----------



## Mider T (Mar 27, 2017)

What say you, @Weiss Schnee ?


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 3, 2017)

Mider T said:


> I was at work
> I was drunk
> I was just trying to-
> What I meant was-
> ...


He does.


----------



## Bender (Apr 3, 2017)

Mider T said:


> I was at work
> I was drunk
> I was just trying to-
> What I meant was-
> ...



So it's wrong for me to justify mistakes that I still take responsibility for? That is all kinds of shitty logic. Worry about yourself instead worrying about others.

EDIT: Even if my thread privileges were revoked it would not do an iota to curb the number of Trump threads that come into the the nf cafe. 

MP
Sherlock
Remchu
Catalyst75
Etc. would post them when I wouldn't. If majority of Americans didn't elect a retarded fuck these many threads wouldn't be posted.


----------



## C-Moon (Apr 3, 2017)

The threads wouldn't be a problem if you knew what self-control was.


----------



## Bender (Apr 3, 2017)

C-Moon said:


> The threads wouldn't be a problem if you knew what self-control was.



That sounds very subjective considering there's been times I haven't posted a Trump thread for an entire day and someone else has in my stead.  Try again.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 3, 2017)

Bender said:


> That sounds very subjective considering there's been times I haven't posted a Trump thread for an entire day and someone else has in my stead.  Try again.



Um, no.  You should take his advice more seriously.


----------



## Bender (Apr 3, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Um, no.  You should take his advice more seriously.



Here's what you said two weeks ago:



> None yet, man. *But people will complain no matter what you do.* Just be yourself. If you have an issue tell us about it.



I am not the only one who posts the Trump threads here. lol @ thinking that I do.

Does @mr_shadow agree with your stance?


----------



## baconbits (Apr 3, 2017)

Bender said:


> Does @mr_shadow agree with your stance?



Here's what you said two weeks ago:



Bender said:


> Sigh...since so many people are flippant about Trump threads in nf cage I made I'll sit back for a week and watch the rest of you.



I don't know @mr_shadow 's stance on this.  I know you don't usually break the rules, you just tend to annoy some of the other posters.  I think you're at your best when you're chill.  I'm not telling you to post no threads whatsoever, just chill and try to post the ones you think are absolutely necessary.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 3, 2017)

lol u fucking nerds

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bender (Apr 3, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I don't know @mr_shadow 's stance on this.  I know you don't usually break the rules, you just tend to annoy some of the other posters.  I think you're at your best when you're chill.  I'm not telling you to post no threads whatsoever, just chill and try to post the ones you think are absolutely necessary.



I've always been a pain to those people who are complaining atm. I can't change that those people are bitching  whenever and wherever I post they always bitch.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 3, 2017)

Bender said:


> I've always been a pain to those people who are complaining atm. I can't change that those people are bitching  whenever and wherever I post they always bitch.



When people are whining I agree with you: learn to ignore them.  I have my own haters I don't pay attention to.  But sometimes the criticisms are valid and that's why you have to approach the critics with an open mind.  Are all your threads BS?  No.  But are they all good threads?  I don't think there are many people, even people on the political left, that would see them all as quality threads.  Just think about that and don't take it personally.  It could be you disagree with me.  That's fine.  But introspection usually leads to self improvement, even if the reason for the introspection isn't 100% accurate.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 3, 2017)

Bender said:


> So it's wrong for me to justify mistakes that I still take responsibility for? That is all kinds of shitty logic. Worry about yourself instead worrying about others.


You aren't taking responsibility for them though, That was the whole point of my post.  Owning up means don't make excuses for yourself.  I can afford to worry about others because I'm awesome and I have my shit together.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 4, 2017)

Lul


----------



## C-Moon (Apr 4, 2017)

Bender said:


> I've always been a pain to those people who are complaining atm.* I can't change that those people are bitching whenever and wherever I post they always bitch.*



That's easy to change. It's called "not making threads"

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bender (Apr 10, 2017)

@C-Moon 

You've failed to explain how that's going to change anything in the nf cafe.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 10, 2017)

dude really...


----------



## Bender (Apr 10, 2017)

@Elder WAD 
Since the FBI are closing in I'll stop posting threads for a week until the news article of how it's all going to go to trial comes out..Till then settle from people other than me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Magic (Apr 11, 2017)

Bender said:


> So it's wrong for me to justify mistakes that I still take responsibility for? That is all kinds of shitty logic. Worry about yourself instead worrying about others.
> 
> EDIT: Even if my thread privileges were revoked it would not do an iota to curb the number of Trump threads that come into the the nf cafe.
> 
> ...


He is in the headlines 24/7. You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to post every update. The administration will eventually self implode the way it is going. So just take it easy.


----------



## Bender (Apr 11, 2017)

RemChu said:


> He is in the headlines 24/7. You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to post every update. The administration will eventually self implode the way it is going. So just take it easy.



Yeah, I decided do that yesterday.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 11, 2017)

Bender said:


> Yeah, I decided do that yesterday.


You should take that time to go get an education. You make a lot of thread with 90% of them you can barely comprehend. You can also take a debate class to learn how to prepare your arguments better rather than arguing off of words you put in other people's post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

Banned @Chie 1 week for trolling.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 13, 2017)

What happened


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

Just got fed up with his constant inflammatory remarks.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 13, 2017)

:0


----------



## John Wick (Apr 13, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Just got fed up with his constant inflammatory remarks.


bender and amol wear you down then?


----------



## Bender (Apr 13, 2017)

VAK said:


> bender and amol wear you down then?



No just you because you have a bad temper.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 13, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Banned @Chie 1 week for trolling.



Soft-ass mods, allowing people to troll, only banning Thorin, Chie and Muah.  That baconbits must be protecting the rightwing trolls!


----------



## Bender (Apr 13, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Soft-ass mods, allowing people to troll, only banning Thorin, Chie and Muah.  That baconbits must be protecting the rightwing trolls!


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

_Ecce homo..._

CHIEUS NARUTOFANI REX TROLLUM

I figured it was appropriate to crucify someone in celebration of Easter. Though would have been funnier if I did it in the right day.

Lest we forget, there were three crosses at Golgata that day, so there's still room to put two more heretics next to Chie before the holiday is over.


----------



## EJ (Apr 13, 2017)

You should had taken Chie and Thorin out earlier. It's a shame, they should not had gotten this far.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

Flow said:


> You should had taken Chie and Thorin out earlier. It's a shame, they should not had gotten this far.



You're welcome.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 13, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Banned @Chie 1 week for trolling.



Goddamn.


----------



## Mael (Apr 14, 2017)

Wow, you banned Muah too?  Nice work. :3


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 14, 2017)

So we Are banning people for "inflammatory" comments now
Yet most who got banned so far are "unpopular" users while others who post such things arent dealt with


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 14, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> So we Are banning people for "inflammatory" comments now
> Yet most who got banned so far are "unpopular" users while others who post such things arent dealt with


If only bitches were banned on sight.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Mael (Apr 14, 2017)

erictheking said:


> If only bitches were banned on sight.


T'is a subjective term.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 14, 2017)

Mael said:


> T'is a subjective term.


The bitches know who they are.


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2017)

erictheking said:


> The bitches know who they are.



Bitches such as the ones who throw shade without naming names. Go the extra mile and quit logging on. Bitch.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 14, 2017)

Flow said:


> Bitches such as the ones who throw shade without naming names. Go the extra mile and quit logging on. Bitch.



Thought it was obvious I was talking about Zyrax first and foremost there since he was the one bitching, but I'm glad you now self-identify as the bitch you are and catch those feelings, proving my point.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 14, 2017)

erictheking said:


> If only bitches were banned on sight.





erictheking said:


> Thought it was obvious I was talking about Zyrax first and foremost there since he was the one bitching, but I'm glad you now self-identify as the bitch you are and catch those feelings, proving my point.


Calm down Chav boy

I was only pointing out how hypocritical to start banning people for inflammatory posts while an user who straight up calls his own posts as such(OW) is left out from this crack down


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Thought it was obvious I was talking about Zyrax first and foremost there since he was the one bitching, but I'm glad you now self-identify as the bitch you are and catch those feelings, proving my point.



Where did I self-identify as a bitch?

Nah, I'm calling you for what you are. You can throw @Zyrax (the easy target) underneath the bus, but you were speaking of more than one. I wouldn't expect you to have the intestinal fortitude to name those either.


----------



## Gunners (Apr 14, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> So we Are banning people for "inflammatory" comments now
> Yet most who got banned so far are "unpopular" users while others who post such things arent dealt with





Zyrax said:


> Calm down Chav boy
> 
> I was only pointing out how hypocritical to start banning people for inflammatory posts while an user who straight up calls his own posts as such(OW) is left out from this crack down





You need to stop relying on ambiguity. I am not going to see the hypocrisy until you demonstrate that the conduct of the concerned users are similar enough to warrant the same reaction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2017)

Chie posts NOTHING but consciously provokative one-liners with no argument, so I think the ban grounds are pretty clear.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 14, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Chie posts NOTHING but consciously provokative one-liners with no argument, so I think the ban grounds are pretty clear.


he's baiting to elicit reactions right?


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 14, 2017)

Gunners said:


> You need to stop relying on ambiguity. I am not going to see the hypocrisy until you demonstrate that the conduct of the concerned users are similar enough to warrant the same reaction.





mr_shadow said:


> Chie posts NOTHING but consciously provokative one-liners with no argument, so I think the ban grounds are pretty clear.


Users such as say Overwatch had a history like Chie of posting  one liner inflammatory things regardless if they believe in them or not which Amanda even acknowledged by deleting a lot of his posts yet he isn't a part of this crackdown despite that some of his posts are actually worse than what Thorin or Chie said


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Users such as say Overwatch had a history like Chie of posting  one liner inflammatory things regardless if they believe in them or not which Amanda even acknowledged by deleting a lot of his posts yet he isn't a part of this crackdown despite that some of his posts are actually worse than what Thorin or Chie said



I haven't seen him in a while, but feel free to report if you do.

I'm not so devoted to this job that I go actively _looking_ for trolls to ban. I'll just hit them when I happen to stumble across them.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 14, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Users such as say Overwatch had a history like Chie of posting  one liner inflammatory things regardless if they believe in them or not which Amanda even acknowledged by deleting a lot of his posts yet he isn't a part of this crackdown despite that some of his posts are actually worse than what Thorin or Chie said



Zyrax, you need to figure out how you want to criticize us.  In the convo thread you criticized the fact that we work to bring some members back.  Now you're saying we've banned too many.

The truth of the matter is that everyone who is banned has a reasonable expectation that continuing their behavior will lead to disciplinary action.  This isn't a case of Shadow just losing his cool and wham, the ban hammer is unleashed.


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2017)

He's not consistent. @Zyrax loves his high horse


----------



## John Wick (Apr 15, 2017)

@baconbits 
@mr_shadow 

can we bring back the dumb rating to the cafe?


----------



## Gunners (Apr 15, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Users such as say Overwatch had a history like Chie of posting  one liner inflammatory things regardless if they believe in them or not which Amanda even acknowledged by deleting a lot of his posts yet he isn't a part of this crackdown despite that some of his posts are actually worse than what Thorin or Chie said



@Overwatch If you can be bothered to reply, how would you describe your posting history in the cafe?

Zyrax, I haven't seen the user post much in the cafe; a brief look at his history shows varied posts (Convo thread, different sections). It does not look as though he is a user who posts with the purpose of derailing and stoking the flames in certain type of threads. 

Chie is on my ignore list, yet his antics caught my attention. 

It is looking as though you made a dishonest comparison.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Users such as say Overwatch had a history like Chie of posting  one liner inflammatory things regardless if they believe in them or not which Amanda even acknowledged by deleting a lot of his posts yet he isn't a part of this crackdown despite that some of his posts are actually worse than what Thorin or Chie said



You're just bitching, throwing out anyone to see what sticks to stick up for Chie. Overwatch isn't a very active poster, sometimes he posts one-liners but they are pertinent to the topic at hand. Sometimes he actually does engage if he has familiarity. He does not come here with a stated intent to troll. He doesn't troll at all really. Man, You're desperately flailing about here.


----------



## Mael (Apr 15, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Users such as say Overwatch had a history like Chie of posting  one liner inflammatory things regardless if they believe in them or not which Amanda even acknowledged by deleting a lot of his posts yet he isn't a part of this crackdown despite that some of his posts are actually worse than what Thorin or Chie said


Let go, Zyrax.  Just fucking let it go.


----------



## EJ (Apr 15, 2017)

Would bet he accounts this page inaccurately five years from now holding a grudge over everyone that has called him out on his shit here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Apr 15, 2017)

THorin is such an obvious troll I don't know how he lasted that long.

Some trolls are hard to detect but Thorin is like "hey guyz im trolling is this how its done"

Rukia is also another one I have a hard time believing hes for reals.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 15, 2017)

VAK said:


> @baconbits
> @mr_shadow
> 
> can we bring back the dumb rating to the cafe?



I think it would just turn into a lowkey way to attack someone.  We already have that with rep.  Its the Cafe.  If you think something is dumb quote it and explain why.  A rating is a cop out in my mind.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EJ (Apr 15, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> THorin is such an obvious troll I don't know how he lasted that long.
> 
> Some trolls are hard to detect but Thorin is like "hey guyz im trolling is this how its done"
> 
> Rukia is also another one I have a hard time believing hes for reals.


 I mean they(the.mods) are doing shit now, but they still should had never got that far.  Thorin and Chie should of had action taken against them a long time ago, but because mr_shadow finally had enough he decided to take action..the disgressiom here was/is terrible but.progress is being made.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 15, 2017)

Flow said:


> I mean they(the.mods) are doing shit now, but they still should had never got that far.  Thorin and Chie should of had action taken against them a long time ago, but because mr_shadow finally had enough he decided to take action..the disgressiom here was/is terrible but.progress is being made.



Be patient, everyone.  The best way to help us is to report posts that are trolling or flaming.  We sometimes miss things.  But when you report a post it creates a special notification for us that we can use to track these issues better.


----------



## Overwatch (Apr 16, 2017)

Gunners said:


> @Overwatch If you can be bothered to reply, how would you describe your posting history in the cafe?
> 
> Zyrax, I haven't seen the user post much in the cafe; a brief look at his history shows varied posts (Convo thread, different sections). It does not look as though he is a user who posts with the purpose of derailing and stoking the flames in certain type of threads.
> 
> ...



Increasingly exasperated and half-assed both due to my diminishing free time and the deteriorating state of the modern world, but outright trolling has and never will be my objective here.

The simple truth is that there are far more eloquent posters here (for example-Seto) who share my views and who beat me to the punch 9/10 times, so there aren't many groundbreaking facts left for me to share. But it's hardly cause for putting me in the same basket with Chie and Zyrax.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## WT (Apr 16, 2017)

I enjoy the trolls...

I still think Mexican God should be unbanned


----------



## WT (Apr 16, 2017)

And btw...I still think the biggest troll is Mr Shadow. Yes, I'm still butthurt over the convo thread. That was uncalled for


----------



## Mider T (Apr 16, 2017)

Rukia just posts an overexaggerated zeal of what he actually believes.



WT said:


> And btw...I still think the biggest troll is Mr Shadow. Yes, I'm still butthurt over the convo thread. That was uncalled for


Didn't you say you weren't butthurt?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 16, 2017)

WT said:


> And btw...I still think the biggest troll is Mr Shadow. Yes, I'm still butthurt over the convo thread. That was uncalled for



This isn't a Saudi or Iranian website, so the occasional Islam-based joke is something you're gonna have to live with if you're going to post here.

You need to differentiate between humor and genuine malice, though.

If nothing else, rest assure that it's probably not a sin to SEE blasphemy posted by someone else. You're only responsible for your own actions and not anyone else's.


----------



## Bender (Apr 16, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I think it would just turn into a lowkey way to attack someone.  We already have that with rep.  Its the Cafe.  If you think something is dumb quote it and explain why.  A rating is a cop out in my mind.



I can think of a couple reasons why VAK wants the dumv rating. It's pretty inane.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 16, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> You need to differentiate between humor and genuine malice, though.



I know I'll probably regret this post, but here goes nothing...

Having a pig laying on top of the Kaaba doesn't really give off any type of humorous-vibe if you ask me (sure, it may have been "funny" to some people) , but I do understand that you didn't do such a thing to intentionally offend people like WT. If it were something that's not too bothering (things like "She's showing too much ankle!", Suicide Memes w/ an "Allahu Akbar" scream, or the "72 Virgins" jokes), then those shouldn't be extremely problematic for someone like WT. To many non-Muslims, The Kaaba may be just a simple cubic building, but it holds a significant value to people like WT regardless how anyone here views Religion (or specifically, Islam).
And I do get it: Freedom of Speech in the Cafe is a right for literally every single users in this website, and I wouldn't mind willing to defend it even if some stuffs people posts that I may consider it offensive or "blasphemous".

To put it blunt: It was a poorly-made joke, but I'm not going to ask you to take it down, and neither should WT.

But, in a way, I felt that I'm indirectly to blame for that as well. When I was just making a simple joke about how Baconbits turned out to be a mod (and I don't remember much about what exactly was the topic about, but it was a reply to someone and I joked about how Baconbits is Haram, which eventually persuaded to make the Cafe thread). So in a way: I'm sorry for contributing to the problem, @WT

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

What exactly was the offense?  Am I missing some comic that was made or something?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 17, 2017)

pigs are to Muslims what bones are to the Chinese

they have some autistic phobia of the entities itself


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 17, 2017)

WT said:


> And btw...I still think the biggest troll is Mr Shadow. Yes, I'm still butthurt over the convo thread. That was uncalled for



Hilarious you think your religion should be above mockery.

Frankly it deserves mockery and so do you for the shit you tried to pull today.


----------



## WT (Apr 17, 2017)

I wasn't asking for it to be taken down

If someone as militant as Afgpride posted something like that, I would just ignore it.... 

Coming from Shadow hurt. I've seen him posting on these forums for close to ten years and during that period I gained alot of respect for him. 

I was not asking for any action to be taken on this merely me being a little more emotional.

To put it blatently, someone like Afgpride could go on and on and it wouldn't have the least bit of impact on me, one line from Shadow did.


----------



## WT (Apr 17, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Hilarious you think your religion should be above mockery.
> 
> Frankly it deserves mockery and so do you for the shit you tried to pull today.



You have the benefit that I use my phone and cut corners when posting. That makes me lazy. Plus I'm travelling internationally at the moment. I also have a family and a very straining job so yes, I would have written you a chapter and verse but frankly....its getting to the point where I consider whether you deserve the respect to be dignified with a response


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Apr 17, 2017)

WT said:


> I wasn't asking for it to be taken down
> 
> If someone as militant as Afgpride posted something like that, I would just ignore it....
> 
> ...



Lighten up, WT.  Shadow has defended Islam to the teeth insofar as a secular atheist can defend it.  He has more respect for the religion than you do for any non-Islamic faith.  If you view a light hearted joke as an attack then that speaks more to your sensitivity and sacred cow than his malice.  Bacon would never cry this much over an image degrading Jesus Christ.  Chin up, champ.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 17, 2017)

WT said:


> You have the benefit that I use my phone and cut corners when posting. That makes me lazy. Plus I'm travelling internationally at the moment. I also have a family and a very straining job so yes, I would have written you a chapter and verse but frankly....its getting to the point where I consider whether you deserve the respect to be dignified with a response



Well, better than blowing me up.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 17, 2017)

baconbits said:


> What exactly was the offense?  Am I missing some comic that was made or something?



The Pig laying on top of the Kaaba picture in the Cafe Convo?
Just like Judaism, Islam considers Pigs as an unclean animal.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

Onyx Darkmatter said:


> The Pig laying on top of the Kaaba picture in the Cafe Convo?
> Just like Judaism, Islam considers Pigs as an unclean animal.



I forgot about that, honestly.  I don't think it was meant to disrespect Islam as it was meant to illustrate the thread title.  No offense was intended.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 17, 2017)

I am going to pretend that the convo above didn't happen.


mr_shadow said:


> I haven't seen him in a while, but feel free to report if you do.
> 
> I'm not so devoted to this job that I go actively _looking_ for trolls to ban. I'll just hit them when I happen to stumble across them.


He was more of an example of an user who's behavior is questionable like the two. 


baconbits said:


> Zyrax, you need to figure out how you want to criticize us. In the convo thread you criticized the fact that we work to bring some members back. Now you're saying we've banned too many.


My main concern was that Mael would keep his behavior that he had pre ban, it looks like he at the very least trying to moderate his aggressiveness so him being unbanned might not have been a mistake as long as he keeps this up and focuses on making useful posts where even if you disagree with him you can see where he is from. 



Gunners said:


> Zyrax, I haven't seen the user post much in the cafe; a brief look at his history shows varied posts (Convo thread, different sections). It does not look as though he is a user who posts with the purpose of derailing and stoking the flames in certain type of threads.


He did make some questionable comments last year which usually  got deleted by Amanda , at one point I was bothered at how Amanda banned The Faceless Man for using the N word only to not even give OW a warning for calling Roma People "Rat Bastards" .



Gunners said:


> It is looking as though you made a dishonest comparison.


It is when I think about mainly because he is inactive unlike Chie
A better example would be Bender who at times shows straight up aggressiveness forward anyone who isn't staunchly Anti-Trump


----------



## EJ (Apr 17, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> I am going to pretend that the convo above didn't happen.



You really shouldn't though. Try to learn.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 17, 2017)

Flow said:


> You really shouldn't though. Try to learn.


I was referring to WT chimping out and others being edgy


----------



## EJ (Apr 17, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> I was referring to WT chimping out and others being edgy



Ah, my bad then.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> He was more of an example of an user who's behavior is questionable like the two.



He hasn't done anything lately. But as was said before if you see something, say something.



Zyrax said:


> My main concern was that Mael would keep his behavior that he had pre ban, it looks like he at the very least trying to moderate his aggressiveness so him being unbanned might not have been a mistake as long as he keeps this up and focuses on making useful posts where even if you disagree with him you can see where he is from.



That's everyone's concern.  But Mael knows that if he doesn't maintain a more professional disposition he won't return.  So far he's done very well and its even improved his debating, which was already good.  I wouldn't want to cross Mael now.  He's been on point lately.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 17, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Chie posts NOTHING but consciously provokative one-liners with no argument, so I think the ban grounds are pretty clear.


And Bender doesn't? Half the fucking time he doesn't even know what he is reading. Provocative.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

NaS said:


> And Bender doesn't? Half the fucking time he doesn't even know what he is reading. Provocative.



He tones it down when warned, tho.  Our goal isn't to just ban anybody but rather to help everyone post here if they want to, no matter what their issues.  So if they work with us we'll work with them.  People usually only get banned when they ignore warnings.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 17, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> I am going to pretend that the convo above didn't happen.
> 
> He was more of an example of an user who's behavior is questionable like the two.
> 
> ...



I just remember you being a pretty trash poster, so you going on about this is just kinda funny and odd to me. I am not surprised you'd take up for Chie that considered. The fact that you even tried to drag Overwatch into this just shows how desperate your case is.



NaS said:


> And Bender doesn't? Half the fucking time he doesn't even know what he is reading. Provocative.



Yeah, but at the same time the guy is genuinely slow. He has some kind of learning disability.


----------



## EJ (Apr 17, 2017)

It's the intention behind it all.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

Flow said:


> It's the intention behind it all.



I'm missing what you're referring to.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 17, 2017)

so we're more upset with me calling oedepia poor than their outright racist rant and disrespect of the victims of the nightclub attack. 

ok cafe makes perfect fucking sense give them a free pass to be racist because they're a trans person. 

absolutely fucking disgraceful and disgusting you guys should be ashamed.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 17, 2017)

@baconbits 
@mr_shadow 

care to refute my point.

because bacon you're more upset at me calling oedepia poor than you are about me being called a curry muncher.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 17, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I forgot about that, honestly.  I don't think it was meant to disrespect Islam as it was meant to illustrate the thread title.  No offense was intended.


Truth to be told, I was a bit bothered by it at first, but eventually, I shook it off instead of actually complaining about it (or do they call it "whining" nowadays?). Plus, I'd prefer to avoid such potential conflicts and getting called "regressive" n' shit like that. 

...nonetheless, I won't take offense of it.


----------



## Bender (Apr 17, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yeah, but at the same time the guy is genuinely slow. He has some kind of *learning disability*.



I do. I've been told that multiple times by my mother. If it wasn't for my autism I wouldn't go in and out of social ineptness and concept grasping.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 17, 2017)

VAK said:


> @baconbits
> @mr_shadow
> 
> care to refute my point.
> ...



To my point of view, I can see this correlating to what happened back in the Sweden Truck Attack thread where people were shit-talking about Sweden and shadow got upset over it and warned people.
And from what I can see, Oedepia saying "Londonstan is a shithole" is similar to calling Sweden a "shithole" as well (based on what people were saying; at least, if I recall), so if anyone can actually understands your feeling, it should be shadow.

What I'm trying to say is that I can see the point in taking action in the thread, especially done by shadow.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 17, 2017)

its ok bender
we love you

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Bender (Apr 17, 2017)

Just an FYI, I'm not only one on forums with Autism. If you want an example of someone else who goes through it, talk to them. I'm unable to speak about it without internally feeling anger and self-loathing.



Elder WAD said:


> its ok bender
> we love you


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 17, 2017)

VAK said:


> so we're more upset with me calling oedepia poor than their outright racist rant and disrespect of the victims of the nightclub attack.



You went on about your money again? Jesus dude.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

VAK said:


> so we're more upset with me calling oedepia poor than their outright racist rant and disrespect of the victims of the nightclub attack.
> 
> ok cafe makes perfect fucking sense give them a free pass to be racist because they're a trans person.
> 
> absolutely fucking disgraceful and disgusting you guys should be ashamed.



Do me a favor and chill.

You've flamed repeatedly and you have the nerve to get on my case for warning you that you're getting too heated?  Don't even dare, man.  As for her comments, I think she went too far.  I never sanctioned anyone in that thread, tho.  I commented that you started the insults and she insulted you back.

So chill.  Its a shame that you would even approach me like this with our history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## John Wick (Apr 17, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You went on about your money again? Jesus dude.





VAK said:


> poor people like you aren't allowed in places like chelsea or kensington.





VAK said:


> yes you are.
> 
> If your friend had a decent newer car then they wouldn't bother trying to break into it.



I never once mentioned anything about me merely called them poor genius.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 17, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Do me a favor and chill.
> 
> You've flamed repeatedly and you have the nerve to get on my case for warning you that you're getting too heated?  Don't even dare, man.  As for her comments, I think she went too far.  I never sanctioned anyone in that thread, tho.  I commented that you started the insults and she insulted you back.
> 
> So chill.  Its a shame that you would even approach me like this with our history.


dude did you say anything to both of us or ride my arse for saying nothing untoward. 

I never started with the racial slurs  did I?


----------



## baconbits (Apr 17, 2017)

VAK said:


> dude did you say anything to both of us or ride my arse for saying nothing untoward.
> 
> I never started with the racial slurs  did I?



Go back and reread the thread.  See who's posts got deleted and who's didn't.  Chill man.  You'd think I have a vendetta against you or something.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 17, 2017)

VAK said:


> I never once mentioned anything about me merely called them poor genius.



You are making a contrast, i.e., in stating "poor people like you aren't allowed in" you are making an implicit reference to your economic status when compared to the individual you are targeting, genius. So you did. Holy shit. You really did it again.

How insecure can you be?


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 17, 2017)

VAK said:


> I never started with the racial slurs did I?


You did a lot of times


----------



## Bender (Apr 17, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> You did a lot of times



I like @VAK  but didn't know he did shit like that.


----------



## EJ (Apr 18, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I'm missing what you're referring to.



As much as I dislike both and have had headaches with @Bender, it's the intention behind both Bender and Chie that's different.

They both express idiotic/ignorant view-points but you have one who may very well believe some of the sentiment he expresses, he logs on consistently to intentionally spread biased and false information to rile people up (Chie), and the other although is ultimately biased and displays ignorance, is not doing it with the same intention Chie does (Bender).

Also, Chie has expressed outright bigoted remarks about Muslims on separate occassions. So there's that, I don't see Bender doing this.


----------



## Gunners (Apr 18, 2017)

I don't understand if this is cultural barrier or @Oedipa ability to get away with saying foul shit when unprovoked or given a slight prod.

In the UK calling someone a Currymuncher is akin to calling someone a chink. @VAK going on about wealth is tiresome and his thin skin is ironic, but @Oedipa did cross the line. Wouldn't expect someone to throw around racially derogatory terms in response to being called poor.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Apr 18, 2017)

There's literally nothing wrong with curry 

These black-pepper-lemon-chicken eaters are out of control


----------



## baconbits (Apr 18, 2017)

Gunners said:


> I don't understand if this is cultural barrier or @Oedipa ability to get away with saying foul shit when unprovoked or given a slight prod.
> 
> In the UK calling someone a Currymuncher is akin to calling someone a chink. @VAK going on about wealth is tiresome and his thin skin is ironic, but @Oedipa did cross the line. Wouldn't expect someone to throw around racially derogatory terms in response to being called poor.



You make a good point.  She was warned tho and if she continues with racial comments like that she'll get banned.  I never took that as a serious slur but that was simply due to my ignorance.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 18, 2017)

Bender said:


> I like @VAK  but didn't know he did shit like that.


Yes he did during his spat with WT and acted like a victim when NaS and I told him off


----------



## WT (Apr 18, 2017)

afgpride said:


> There's literally nothing wrong with curry
> 
> These black-pepper-lemon-chicken eaters are out of control



Its a well known fact that White British People are the biggest curry munchers in the UK

Poor asians have a bad rep...


----------



## Mael (Apr 18, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You make a good point.  She was warned tho and if she continues with racial comments like that she'll get banned.  I never took that as a serious slur but that was simply due to my ignorance.


Well back in the day Jello would defend him at every turn during his MbS days.  I think most folks overlook his shenanigans because of the whole "muh transgender dramu" thing.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Apr 18, 2017)

Phew, sure is a lot of butthurt coming from the usual suspects itt.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 18, 2017)

Oedipa said:


> Phew, sure is a lot of butthurt coming from the usual suspects itt.



It's a bit ironic for you to say considering all the whining you do when people turn your bait on yourself.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 18, 2017)

Gunners said:


> I don't understand if this is cultural barrier or @Oedipa ability to get away with saying foul shit when unprovoked or given a slight prod.
> 
> In the UK calling someone a Currymuncher is akin to calling someone a chink. @VAK going on about wealth is tiresome and his thin skin is ironic, but @Oedipa did cross the line. Wouldn't expect someone to throw around racially derogatory terms in response to being called poor.



Yes, Oedipa/MbS has form for racism on here, but you already know that.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Apr 18, 2017)

No need to worry,
I just won't say curry


----------



## baconbits (Apr 18, 2017)

Mael said:


> Well back in the day Jello would defend him at every turn during his MbS days.  I think most folks overlook his shenanigans because of the whole "muh transgender dramu" thing.



Being more even handed is something that we as a staff definitely need to aspire to achieve. 

So @VAK , my apologies for not taking that slur as seriously as I could have.  I still want you to chill so you don't get yourself banned.  @Oedipa , I realize he started the drama but don't throw slurs out there.  Its unnecessary.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 18, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Being more even handed is something that we as a staff definitely need to aspire to achieve.


If it makes it any better you and Shadow are far better than either of Jello or Mega when it comes to this


----------



## John Wick (Apr 18, 2017)

afgpride said:


> There's literally nothing wrong with curry
> 
> These black-pepper-lemon-chicken eaters are out of control


Try saying that after a scotch bonnet laced curry


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 18, 2017)




----------



## baconbits (Apr 18, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> If it makes it any better you and Shadow are far better than either of Jello or Mega when it comes to this



Thank you for saying so but I still want us to be better.  But if you see something, say something.  I don't like getting called out but its better to be called out for bad behavior than to keep doing it because of ignorance.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Apr 18, 2017)

VAK said:


> And I won't mention ...



Feel better now?


----------



## John Wick (Apr 18, 2017)

Tbf I knew it was going to be deleted


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 18, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Thank you for saying so but I still want us to be better.  But if you see something, say something.  I don't like getting called out but its better to be called out for bad behavior than to keep doing it because of ignorance.


I do 
I just hesitate to do so not because of you two but because the staff have a history of reacting unfavorably when questioned. Look at the current chatterbox


----------



## WT (Apr 18, 2017)

Megaharrison was a terrible mod

Baconbits is great imo

Even though I disagree with the guy in alot of things, he's incredibly civil and polite. Its something to aspire towards...Shadow is the same

Makes you respect your debate opponents rather than dislike them. Others cant say the same about, who are crude, malicious and arrogant but I think I fall in that category as well ...

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Apr 18, 2017)

WT said:


> Others cant say the same about, who are crude, malicious and arrogant

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bender (Apr 18, 2017)

erictheking said:


> Yes, Oedipa/MbS has form for racism on here, but you already know that.



Lol @Oedipa is MBS? Something seemed familiar about em.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 18, 2017)

WT said:


> Others cant say the same about, who are crude, malicious and arrogant but I think I fall in that category as well ...


People should be like me
Intelligent, Nihilistic and with a Wicked Sense of Humor

Reactions: Creative 1 | Optimistic 3


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Apr 18, 2017)

Settle down Ahmed


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 18, 2017)

>aspiring to nihilism

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## baconbits (Apr 18, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> I do
> I just hesitate to do so not because of you two but because the staff have a history of reacting unfavorably when questioned. Look at the current chatterbox



I honestly don't know all that went into that.  From what I saw from both the staff and members side it was a comedy of errors.  Some staff do bristle when questioned but... they're people.  People don't like to be challenged bluntly, called stupid, etc.  Staff are no different.  But the difference is after they bristle they have to eventually take what you say with a grain of salt.  No one wants to be hated or seen as a bad staff member, even people you might think don't care.


----------



## Amol (Apr 19, 2017)

@mr_shadow and @baconbits
I am late to the party but thought I should say this. You guys are actually doing wonderful job as mods.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 19, 2017)

Amol said:


> @mr_shadow and @baconbits
> I am late to the party but thought I should say this. You guys are actually doing wonderful job as mods.



Thanks man.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 19, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Thanks man.


is it to late to kiss the ring?


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 19, 2017)

VAK said:


> is it to late to kiss the ring?



Divine mercy is always available for the truly repentant.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 19, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> Divine mercy is always available for the truly repentant.


lets be real tho I'm far better than I used to be, I don't even tell people they should be aborted with a coat hanger any more or swear as much as I used too, and you still ride me like a cheap whore.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## baconbits (Apr 19, 2017)

VAK said:


> lets be real tho I'm far better than I used to be, I don't even tell people they should be aborted with a coat hanger any more or swear as much as I used too, and you still ride me like a cheap whore.



More like an expensive whore, with initial exuberance and a sense that we can't afford to keep doing this.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 19, 2017)

baconbits said:


> More like an expensive whore, with initial exuberance and a sense that we can't afford to keep doing this.


I won't tell if you don't...


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 20, 2017)

Has this place become "Saishin and SoG's section" lately?


----------



## Mider T (Apr 20, 2017)

Not really, Saishin used to have a Bender-like problem with making too many threads.  Unlike Bender though, he's learned and gotten much better.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 20, 2017)

His threads had more of a varied focus, tho.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Apr 21, 2017)

I say we start a coup against Bacon, and Shadow

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Mael (Apr 21, 2017)

Ai said:


> I say we start a coup against Bacon, and Shadow


Nope.avi.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 21, 2017)

Bitch, this ain't Turkey.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 21, 2017)

Welp, RIP J★J♥


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 21, 2017)

he went hard


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 21, 2017)

*ONYX IS A NERD*

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## EJ (Apr 21, 2017)

Off with their heads!

Rise Liberal Echo Chamber! Destroy those of the Right!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## EJ (Apr 21, 2017)

Shinryu
Chie
JJ


------>@Thorin


----------



## baconbits (Apr 21, 2017)

Ai said:


> I say we start a coup against Bacon, and Shadow



Ai, I thought you was loyal.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 21, 2017)

Flow said:


> Shinryu
> Chie
> JJ
> 
> ...



Thorin was already banned once.  Frickin' rightwing bacon probably let him come back too quickly, tho.

Seriously tho, Shadow and I check each other's biases.  It doesn't matter what perspective you have, as long as you aren't an ass and don't troll too much you won't have problems with us.


----------



## EJ (Apr 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Thorin was already banned once.  Frickin' rightwing bacon probably let him come back too quickly, tho.
> 
> Seriously tho, Shadow and I check each other's biases.  It doesn't matter what perspective you have, as long as you aren't an ass and don't troll too much you won't have problems with us.



*Execute Order 66*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 21, 2017)

Thorin was already banned for two weeks


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

Onyx Darkmatter said:


> Welp, RIP J★J♥



lol I just saw that this morning. What happened?


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 21, 2017)

*This place's about to flow-oh-oh-oh!
flow-oh-oh-oh
*


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

@baconbits I promise to never be mean to anyone again if you perm zyrax and bender. 

you know it's worth it that's a good deal.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> @baconbits I promise to never be mean to anyone again if you perm zyrax and bender.
> 
> you know it's worth it that's a good deal.



What good is that deal when you'll get baited in two minutes to break that promise?


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> What good is that deal when you'll get baited in two minutes to break that promise?


nah

I have good self control. 

plus I'll be fucking off for 6 months in October

after that I'll be travelling the world....


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> nah
> 
> *I have good self control. *
> 
> ...


Look at what's bolded and tell us how many times you've been banned for flaming.

Also right now any thread I'm in you make a scene.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> lol I just saw that this morning. What happened?



In the "Shooting in Paris" thread, he was saying a lot of shit and I think this is where he crossed the line:


> Yeah thats why Degenerate leftis should never get power. Deaths like this are fault of idiots like you. Also I would like to shit on the graves of victims of islamic terrorism in Europe because they deserve it.


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

The glaring lack of empathy in that post disturbs me tremendously.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Look at what's bolded and tell us how many times you've been banned for flaming.
> 
> Also right now any thread I'm in you make a scene.


15 times


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> 15 times





It's pretty ironic that you would say me and Zyrax should be permed. 

Just because my hiccups of asininity triggers you; that's hardly a good reason for us to be banned.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> nah
> 
> I have good self control.
> 
> ...



Hmm... talk to @jayjay³² .  I'll negotiate a deal through him as your agent.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Hmm... talk to @jayjay³² .  I'll negotiate a deal through him as your agent.


why would an indian need a black man to represent him in business dealings 


dawg if we're talking about stereotype you're gonna need him more than me.....


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> It's pretty ironic that you would say me and Zyrax should be permed.
> 
> Just because my hiccups of asininity triggers you; that's hardly a good reason for us to be banned.


He like many here lack self awareness


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> He like many here lack self awareness



Before he was banned again for flaming he was pretty grounded. Very unsettled by the amped up hostility.

Hell, I don't think I even triggered @Seto Kaiba @Elder WAD @Mael when I was being embarrassingly stupid and wouldn't acknowledge it.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

I think you should continue to tag them in all of your posts just to check to see if you trigger them if you do this I swear on my mothers life I will never say a mean thing to you again.


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> I think you should continue to tag them in all of your posts just to check to see if you trigger them if you do this I swear on my mothers life I will never say a mean thing to you again.



I could care less whether you say anything mean to me. Your temper tantrums and feel the need to have @baconbits or shadow prevent you from going off is more irksome.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> I could care less whether you say anything mean to me. Your temper tantrums and feel the need to have @baconbits or shadow prevent you from going off is more irksome.


then why do you whine about them soo much 

c'mon bender 

tag wad, seto and mael in all of your posts from now on and I'll never post an aggressive post in the world you'd be the hero the cafe needs.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> I could care less whether you say anything mean to me. Your temper tantrums and feel the need to have @baconbits or shadow prevent


He acts like he is entitled to behave like a 10 years old COD players

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> He acts like he is entitled to behave like a 10 years old COD players


don't make me call afg and make you piss your pants again.


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> then why do you whine about them soo much
> 
> c'mon bender
> 
> tag wad, seto and mael in all of your posts from now on and I'll never post an aggressive post in the world you'd be the hero the cafe needs.



 Dude, I'm a below average nf cafe poster and debater. The ridicule towards me is valid. What's concerning is your hostile attitude. Also it's more than just me calling you out on it.


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> don't make me call afg you piss your pants again.



See, this is why I called you narcissistic. You're unable to be receptive to what we're trying to help you understand. I'm likewise trying to catch myself before I say anything that's asinine and embarrass myself but you're not at all listening to what we're trying to say to you.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> See, this is why I called you narcissistic. You're unable to be receptive to what we're trying to help you understand. I'm likewise trying to catch myself before I say anything that's asinine and embarrass myself but you're not at all listening to what we're trying to say to you.


bender if you think I talk like a 10 year old cod player you're a fool a 10 year old cod player doesn't have a lexicon like this.


----------



## Bender (Apr 21, 2017)

@VAK

Zyrax is the one who said that. I'm calling you narcissistic because you're unable to acknowledge the flaws in your behavior.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> @VAK
> 
> Zyrax is the one who said that. I'm calling you narcissistic because you're unable to acknowledge the flaws in your behavior.


which flaws are they

that I'm opinionated

that I'm abusive and aggressive 

that I have a disdain for stupid people

that I like to use my success as a stick to beat people I don't like when in actual fact I don't really but my disdain for some people outweighs my usual humility.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 21, 2017)

I dislike all three of you to varying degrees.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## John Wick (Apr 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I dislike all three of you to varying degrees.


to what degree am I disliked


I mean if you were on fire I wouldn't piss on you. but if you weren't on fire I'd do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> to what degree am I disliked
> 
> 
> I mean if you were on fire I wouldn't piss on you. but if you weren't on fire I'd do it in a heartbeat.



Less than Bender but a little more than Zyrax.

You're trying to get me to crack a racist joke...well nice try buddy it ain't happening!


----------



## baconbits (Apr 21, 2017)

Let's save this thread for actual moderation issues.  If you must gripe at each other with no relation to the topic do it in the convo thread.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 21, 2017)

move this section back up


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Apr 21, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> move this section back up


Agreed

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 22, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> move this section back up


Nah 
The current status quo is the best compromise the section can have between people who want it to be easy going on flaming and those who  want it to stricter


----------



## Bender (Apr 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Let's save this thread for actual moderation issues.  If you must gripe at each other with no relation to the topic do it in the convo thread.



Not necessarily griping; just making it apparent that VAK's tantrums are grading on a lot of people's nerves. 

@ thread on Sessions nearly all of his posts are personal attacks rather than on-topic.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 22, 2017)

That thread was an embarrassment from all sides


----------



## baconbits (Apr 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Not necessarily griping; just making it apparent that VAK's tantrums are grading on a lot of people's nerves.
> 
> @ thread on Sessions nearly all of his posts are personal attacks rather than on-topic.



You're part of the problem and you're griping right now.  Anything you say about VAK in this thread is most likely to be off topic.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 22, 2017)

On topic
The Debate Section is dead, Bacon tried to revive it and failed
The problem I see is that most thread either end up being a less than one Page agreement jerk off or a shitstorm that ends either closed (The White people in India thread) or with some banned

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## baconbits (Apr 22, 2017)

I haven't finished trying there.  I've just been very busy the last few weeks.  Expect more threads from me.  I'm going to come up with a Cafe Revitalization plan that will help both the Debate and Philosophical sections.


----------



## Bender (Apr 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You're part of the problem and you're griping right now.  Anything you say about VAK in this thread is most likely to be off topic.



A thousand pardons sir. 

I was just responding to his suggestion I should be "banned". 

It's not your responsibility if someone loses their temper amirite?


----------



## baconbits (Apr 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> A thousand pardons sir.
> 
> I was just responding to his suggestion I should be "banned".
> 
> It's not your responsibility if someone loses their temper amirite?



Not sure what you're referring to there, but no its not my responsibility if they lose their temper but... if I continually allow people to do things that will understandably anger people I'm certainly complicit in whatever happens.


----------



## Bender (Apr 22, 2017)

baconbits said:


> ... if I continually allow people to do things that will understandably anger people I'm certainly complicit in whatever happens.



 Post with "stupidity" of mine being cited as "triggering" and leading to chew me out is hardly something that's your fault. 

Especially, if it's going to be a case of launching personal attacks and failure to stay on-topic.

I don't find my posts top quality FYI. However, if I'm agreed with by people on the points I'm making then charges of my "stupidity" being "triggering" are moot.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 22, 2017)

God dang it I come here to talk about real serious news not conspiracy theories taken from info wars 
And 9/11 truther web sites


----------



## baconbits (Apr 23, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> God dang it I come here to talk about real serious news not conspiracy theories taken from info wars
> And 9/11 truther web sites



Which threads are you referring to?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Apr 23, 2017)

Mael said:


> Well back in the day Jello would defend him at every turn during his MbS days.  I think most folks overlook his shenanigans because of the whole "muh transgender dramu" thing.


You have a funny way of remembering that time.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 23, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Which threads are you referring to?


Son goku and his false flag crap
AnD chie's thread railling on about eruope being a place of rape and murder


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 23, 2017)

Man people are so triggered by MbS it's actually pathetic


----------



## baconbits (Apr 23, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> Son goku and his false flag crap
> AnD chie's thread railling on about eruope being a place of rape and murder



I'm going through all the new threads posted in since last night right now.  If I see something that doesn't belong I'll lock it.  But SoG normally posts good threads.  I might disagree with their implications but its rarely something that deserves to be locked.  I'll check it out, tho.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 23, 2017)

baconbits said:


> I'm going through all the new threads posted in since last night right now.  If I see something that doesn't belong I'll lock it.  But SoG normally posts good threads.  I might disagree with their implications but its rarely something that deserves to be locked.  I'll check it out, tho.


Its fine bacon, its just some pf those news souces are sooo obscure


----------



## baconbits (Apr 23, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> Its fine bacon, its just some pf those news souces are sooo obscure



If its not legit I'll do something about it, my friend.  Its no trouble checking it out to make sure.  

I don't see any threads from Chie.  If I remember correctly he's banned now.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 23, 2017)

baconbits said:


> If its not legit I'll do something about it, my friend.  Its no trouble checking it out to make sure.
> 
> I don't see any threads from Chie.  If I remember correctly he's banned now.


Permed??


----------



## baconbits (Apr 23, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> Permed??



No, just banned.


----------



## Bender (Apr 23, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> Permed??



I doubt that would happen.


----------



## baconbits (Apr 24, 2017)

Bender said:


> I doubt that would happen.



We don't want to perm anybody.  Perms are only for those who deserve to get banned and refuse to see how they could improve their behavior.


----------



## Bender (Apr 26, 2017)

@baconbits

That's what the title in that thread on WH not turning over documents on Flynn. That's biased as hell.


----------



## EJ (Apr 30, 2017)

@baconbits @mr_shadow

Thank you for the changes that have been implemented. The section is more pleasing as opposed to how things were a few months back. Yes, there is trolling every now and then but has went down significantly.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 30, 2017)

@baconbits @mr_shadow

Thank you for the changes that have been implemented. The section is more pleasing as opposed to how things were a few months back. Yes, there is trolling every now and then but has went down significantly.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 30, 2017)

Serious post :

The cafe is currently far better than what it used to be quality wise but the lack of Activity hurts it badly 

I don't think there can be anything done to fix that, this place is already one of the most active sections in the forum, the fact that despite that it feels dead shows the state of the Forum, we can't blame either Shadow or Bacon for that


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 30, 2017)

Zyrax said:


> Serious post :
> 
> The cafe is currently far better than what it used to be quality wise but the lack of Activity hurts it badly
> 
> I don't think there can be anything done to fix that, this place is already one of the most active sections in the forum, the fact that despite that it feels dead shows the state of the Forum, we can't blame either Shadow or Bacon for that



Yeah, and forumwide activity decline basically comes down to:

1. Naruto is over, and people are so far not that excited for Boruto.

2. The people who got into Naruto (and/or anime generally) in the mid-00's are a decade older now and often have jobs or even families that occupy more of their interest than posting on forums.


----------



## Zyrax (Apr 30, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> 2. The people who got into Naruto (and/or anime generally) in the mid-00's are a decade older now and often have jobs or even families that occupy more of their interest than posting on forums


What a bunch of losers


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 30, 2017)

Shit, now Zyrax is banned?


----------



## Mider T (Apr 30, 2017)

Why was he banned?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 30, 2017)

circa tempus


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 30, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Why was he banned?



"Racism" apparently, but can't view the posts since they're deleted and not in my section.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Apr 30, 2017)

imo the way i see it:

General racism - not punishable 

flaming - subjective; it's a judgement call for the mod based on the scenario

trolling/baiting: lol w/e unless it's the only thing the user does 

racist flaming/baiting: punish on sight


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 30, 2017)

Elder WAD said:


> imo the way i see it:
> 
> General racism - not punishable
> 
> ...



Also depends on the local section policy. This wasn't in the Cafe.


----------



## EJ (May 1, 2017)

The CB is a care bear section now.

To post you have to give 5 e-hugs. If you challenge another poster in any matter, you become a bad noodle and you're given a warning before they ban you. @God can vouch for me.


----------



## God (May 1, 2017)

Flow said:


> The CB is a care bear section now.
> 
> To post you have to give 5 e-hugs. If you challenge another poster in any matter, you become a bad noodle and you're given a warning before they ban you. @God can vouch for me.



Its true. Baconbits conspired to get espi permed when he found out his bitch was talking to him behind his back. Scandalous shit, tbh.


----------



## EJ (May 1, 2017)

I stayed strong and left it in God's hands. It's all I really could do.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## baconbits (May 1, 2017)

God said:


> Its true. Baconbits conspired to get espi permed when he found out his bitch was talking to him behind his back. Scandalous shit, tbh.



You calling Mael a bitch?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## EJ (May 1, 2017)

LOL


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You calling Mael a bitch?


----------



## God (May 1, 2017)

baconbits said:


> You calling Mael a bitch?



Hey man if I say "your bitch" and your mind automatically jumps to mael, that says more about the kind of relationship you guys must have than any implications I may be making


----------



## baconbits (May 1, 2017)

God said:


> Hey man if I say "your bitch" and your mind automatically jumps to mael, that says more about the kind of relationship you guys must have than any implications I may be making



Don't judge.  Only God can judge me!  Wait...


----------



## God (May 1, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Don't judge.  Only God can judge me!  Wait...



I find you guilty of having a sense of humor. Now get the fuck out of my sight you filth


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 9, 2017)

My plan will soon come to life, to full fruition.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2017)

Somebody say fruit?


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Jun 11, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Somebody say fruit?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 11, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Somebody say fruit?


I knew your a little bit. Fruity


----------



## Rain (Jun 13, 2017)

Trump presidency has single-handedly destroyed the section.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 14, 2017)

Rain said:


> Trump presidency has single-handedly destroyed the section.



Well, it dominates the threads, but it also dominates the domestic and international news cycles so until people get tired of it there's not much we can do.  All we can do is hope folks like yourself, who aren't interested in all the nonsense, will post threads on other topics.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 14, 2017)

Quit making excuses Bacon and use your moderator powers to do something about the Trump presidency!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Rain (Jun 14, 2017)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Quit making excuses Bacon and use your moderator powers to do something about the Trump presidency!





But hey, i should've made it clear that i'm not expecting bacon or any other mod to do something about it, they can't and shouldn't prohibit topics. I'm just lamenting in vain.


----------



## Toby (Jun 21, 2017)

Rain said:


> Trump presidency has single-handedly destroyed the section.



Let's talk about something else, in one of our hot spanking new debates. Here are some motions to consider
- The GAFAN: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix are monopolies that harm the global economy more than they benefit it
- The case for just war in Iraq and Libya were right, and therefore the international community should intervene in Syria

How about one of those? I'm sure we have plenty of people on both sides of these debates in here


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 12, 2017)

So... Where and when did this rule about thread titles having to be identical to news titles come from?

Was it discussed?

Do people agree with it?

Because I believe it is excessively restrictive. It's one thing to curb titles that make things up, but some people may want to use the title to highlight the part of the article they want to discuss.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jul 12, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> So... Where and when did this rule about thread titles having to be identical to news titles come from?
> 
> Was it discussed?
> 
> ...



Not every comma and dash needs to be in the same place as in the original. You're allowed to crop overly long titles, or add minor explanations; e.g. if I post a SCMP article that only says "Carrie Lam", I'm allowed to add "HK leader Carrie Lam" because non-locals might not know who she is.

But you're not allowed to change the title to the point where it distorts what the article is about. Nor should it contain your own opinions or jokes, however funny. Nor should it be sensationalist.

"Carrie Lam just acted like a total bitch to LEGCO" is not an acceptable title. An alternative that conveys the same information would be "Hong Kong leader infuriates legislature".

Because history unfortunately shows that some of the more active posters don't understand what a good title is supposed to sound like, the norm is now to use the original title unless you have very special reasons not to - like demystifying the Hong Kong abbreviation "LEGCO" (LEGislative COuncil) to just "legislature".

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Mider T (Jul 13, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> So... Where and when did this rule about thread titles having to be identical to news titles come from?
> 
> Was it discussed?
> 
> ...


It's always been that way.  It's annoying to have wannabe reporters try to spin an article.  Leave the title to the pros.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 13, 2017)

I posted a thread where I changed the title but kept it as something that was explicity said in the article.

The mod edited it because it wasn't the same title as in the article.

So no, it's not like it has always been. I have always wrote my own titles, and never had problems before. Because I have always made a point to not make shit up in them.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 13, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I posted a thread where I changed the title but kept it as something that was explicity said in the article.
> 
> The mod edited it because it wasn't the same title as in the article.
> 
> So no, it's not like it has always been. I have always wrote my own titles, and never had problems before. Because I have always made a point to not make shit up in them.



We're a little stricter on this because some people have been making some piss poor thread titles lately.  Its not something that's aimed at targeting you specifically, however my position is that if your thread is serious you shouldn't have a problem sticking to the article's title and discussing your opinions in the thread itself.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 13, 2017)

Usually I just want to highlight the part that I intend to discuss.

Also news titles are not necessarily precise, they are often witty or sensationalist. Sometimes I want to eliminate those.


----------



## Zyrax (Jul 13, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Usually I just want to highlight the part that I intend to discuss.
> 
> Also news titles are not necessarily precise, they are often witty or sensationalist. Sometimes I want to eliminate those.


Not like sensationalist titles should be accepted either


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jul 16, 2017)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> So... Where and when did this rule about thread titles having to be identical to news titles come from?
> 
> Was it discussed?
> 
> ...





Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Usually I just want to highlight the part that I intend to discuss.
> 
> Also news titles are not necessarily precise, they are often witty or sensationalist. Sometimes I want to eliminate those.



if you want to highlight a point of discussion then you should do the standard quoted article + link and ur thoughts after the link lol


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 17, 2017)

I personally like it when OP's have the article quote brackets and then the link outside those brackets and with the poster's 2 cents afterward.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jul 17, 2017)

Samus Aran said:


> I personally like it when OP's have the article quote brackets and then the link outside those brackets and with the poster's 2 cents afterward.



I liked quote boxes when we were on vBulletin, but Xenophoro gives quotes in tiny italicized font, which I find uncomfortable to read. So now I just use regular text.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 17, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I liked quote boxes when we were on vBulletin, but Xenophoro gives quotes in tiny italicized font, which I find uncomfortable to read. So now I just use regular text.


I keep forgetting that we switched.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 17, 2017)

mr_shadow said:


> I liked quote boxes when we were on vBulletin, but Xenophoro gives quotes in tiny italicized font, which I find uncomfortable to read. So now I just use regular text.


Is it that small? In cellphone it is not that different size.

I use quote to make thread just to make it more neat (compact) not wall of text. Because they hid the rest of the text


----------



## EJ (Nov 16, 2017)

Move the forum back up.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 16, 2017)

EJ said:


> Move the forum back up.



Working on that.  We'll see some changes once we see how the forum reorganization goes.


----------



## EJ (Nov 16, 2017)

Ok thanks. And if there are mods that are in defiance let me know their names so I can send a raiding party to their profile page.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 16, 2017)

EJ said:


> Ok thanks. And if there are mods that are in defiance let me know their names so I can send a raiding party to their profile page.



Yes, I'll be certain to let you know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nello (Dec 4, 2017)

baconbits said:


> Working on that


- Every NF staff ever

You can't fool me this time because I stopped believing you

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 4, 2017)

Nello said:


> - Every NF staff ever
> 
> You can't fool me this time because I stopped believing you



Which is why Prussian/Von Bismarck style modding is good. Power and ruthless efficient modding is believing.


----------



## Chie (Jan 31, 2018)

Nello said:


> - Every NF staff ever
> 
> You can't fool me this time because I stopped believing you


Well you keep coming back, so clearly you're not too upset with how the mods handle the situation.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Nello (Jan 31, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Depending on how you framed the discussion I could see even allowing that. I think you fail to understand this: we check threads for their legitimacy; a topic can be "baity". And if it is we'll watch that thread closely. We very loosely police thread creation, besides titles and sections they are posted in. We loosely police baiting unless it's pervasive. And we police flaming. It's no longer allowed.
> 
> Ultimately some shade is going to be thrown. I've allowed some mockery here and there but I don't allow direct insults.


Remind me, how did he frame that discussion?


You say you don't allow flaming, but clearly you can tell someone they're being a child or a loser as long as you do it in a roundabout way.


baconbits said:


> We're not going to see eye to eye on this. I respect your opinion but I think you're confusing the line between people you don't like and the kind of trolling we have any intention of policing.


That's cute but stay on topic. Chie is baiting me even now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## baconbits (Jan 31, 2018)

Nello said:


> Remind me, how did he frame that discussion?



He didn't say much of anything.  He tried to troll the thread title and we stopped him from doing so.



Nello said:


> You say you don't allow flaming, but clearly you can tell someone they're being a child or a loser as long as you do it in a roundabout way.



To be blunt, I'm only looking for direct insults.  If someone calls your argument dumb or "people like you" dumb I will consider that toeing the line.  Toe the line long enough and I'll offer a warning.



Nello said:


> That's cute but stay on topic. Chie is baiting me even now.



Dude, you need to grow up.  If that's the kind of thing you want policed in the Cafe no one would be able to say anything.


----------



## Chie (Jan 31, 2018)

Nello said:


> Chie is baiting me even now.


Are you serious? It was a joke, a lighthearted one at that.

Seriously, if you have such a problem with everything I say just save yourself the trouble and block me.


----------



## Nello (Jan 31, 2018)

baconbits said:


> He didn't say much of anything.  He tried to troll the thread title and we stopped him from doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. He didn't make any attempt to frame it a productive manner, so your argument is moot.

Yes well that's a problem on your part innit if he's consistently and successfully baiting people. Nevermind calling people immature losers, just without using those words.

You need to stop the character assassination. You keep telling me i'm confused and immature and fail to address my concerns. He's playing you like a fiddle by skirting the guidelines on technicalities and knowing you won't use your judgement to uphold the spirit of said guidelines.


----------



## Nello (Jan 31, 2018)

Also I don't want Chie banned just for saying "Well you keep coming back, so clearly you're not too upset with how the mods handle the situation."

You know that because i've been telling you the reasons I want him banned. Stop the strawmanning.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 31, 2018)

Nello said:


> Exactly. He didn't make any attempt to frame it a productive manner, so your argument is moot.



I don't see how that has anything to do with my argument.  The point is that he didn't frame it either way, so your offense to the thread is merely your sensitivity with the topic being raised, not his behavior.



Nello said:


> Yes well that's a problem on your part innit if he's consistently and successfully baiting people. Nevermind calling people immature losers, just without using those words.



No matter what rules you make some people will find a way to tiptoe close to the line.  My point is simply this: we'll punish him the same way we would punish anyone else if they crossed the line.  And I won't punish him if he doesn't cross the line, just like anyone else.  What you don't want to be honest enough to say is that you want a different set of treatment for Chie, and I'm not going to comply with that.



Nello said:


> You need to stop the character assassination.



It's comments like this that convince me more and more you're being overly sensitive.  Me saying this:

*Dude, you need to grow up. If that's the kind of thing you want policed in the Cafe no one would be able to say anything.*

Is not character assassination.  It's not even close.  At worst it's a mild critique.



Nello said:


> You keep telling me i'm confused and immature and fail to address my concerns. He's playing you like a fiddle by skirting the guidelines on technicalities and knowing you won't use your judgement to uphold the spirit of said guidelines.



I've addressed your concerns, I'm just not agreeing with your conclusion.  You essentially want me to police baiting of this level:

*Well you keep coming back, so clearly you're not too upset with how the mods handle the situation.*

While other people are making penis jokes, saying Ichiliebe is a product of i*c*st and other such comments.  It's very clear you're motivated by your personal feelings, not an objective concern for the rules of the Cafe.

It's my bias to ban no one.  There are people in the Cafe I don't personally like.  I don't handle their discipline issues.  I won't ban people who hold views millions of people have just because you consider those views to be trolling.  I won't ban someone who toes the line of flaming; if I did half the people who hate me would have been banned a long time ago.  Instead I'll ban people if, after I give them an explicit warning, they keep breaking a clear set of guidelines I've set out.  And those are the only people I'll act against.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 31, 2018)

Nello said:


> Also I don't want Chie banned just for saying "Well you keep coming back, so clearly you're not too upset with how the mods handle the situation."
> 
> You know that because i've been telling you the reasons I want him banned. Stop the strawmanning.



I'm not strawmanning.  It's clear you want Chie banned for trolling and being a general nuisance in your opinion.  That's not something I'm going to ban anyone for.  But your example of baiting was so weak it exposed the fact that this is more personal than credible.


----------



## Nello (Jan 31, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I don't see how that has anything to do with my argument. The point is that he didn't frame it either way, so your offense to the thread is merely your sensitivity with the topic being raised, not his behavior.


Let me remind you of what you said: "Depending on how you framed the discussion I could see even allowing that."

Your argument is moot.


baconbits said:


> No matter what rules you make some people will find a way to tiptoe close to the line. My point is simply this: we'll punish him the same way we would punish anyone else if they crossed the line. And I won't punish him if he doesn't cross the line, just like anyone else. What you don't want to be honest enough to say is that you want a different set of treatment for Chie, and I'm not going to comply with that.


What i'm trying to argue is that he has crossed the line. What you are arguing is that i'm too blind to know where the line is.


baconbits said:


> It's comments like this that convince me more and more you're being overly sensitive. Me saying this:
> 
> *Dude, you need to grow up. If that's the kind of thing you want policed in the Cafe no one would be able to say anything.*
> 
> Is not character assassination. It's not even close. At worst it's a mild critique.


Saying that i'm immature, confused and overly sensitive is character assassination. You're not addressing my argument, but my character.

Let me provide you with a definition because you once pulled a "that's just what you think it means"


			
				merriam webster said:
			
		

> the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person





baconbits said:


> I've addressed your concerns, I'm just not agreeing with your conclusion. You essentially want me to police baiting of this level:
> 
> *Well you keep coming back, so clearly you're not too upset with how the mods handle the situation.*
> 
> ...


Once again, that comment alone is not why I want him banned. That comment is the least of my worries.

If you think people should be banned for calling someone a product of i*c*st, that's fair. However if that comment wasn't part of a consistent effort to bait people, then you're strawmanning me once again.


----------



## Nello (Jan 31, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I'm not strawmanning.  It's clear you want Chie banned for trolling and being a general nuisance in your opinion.  That's not something I'm going to ban anyone for.  But your example of baiting was so weak it exposed the fact that this is more personal than credible.


It's like you forgot this argument started before Chie even made that particular comment.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 31, 2018)

Nello said:


> It's like you forgot this argument started before Chie even made that particular comment.



You are expecting honesty from bacon, I trust you've found he's short on that.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Nello (Jan 31, 2018)

@baconbits in case you "forgot" again


Chie said:


> Of course, with a 13,000+ post count I'm guessing you're neither studying or working.





Chie said:


> Are you old enough to be posting here?


Now you might stop strawmanning me and instead say "that's not so bad"
These are just recent examples. I'm sure there are plenty more egregious examples to be found if I went digging.

Now you might say "that's not over the line" or "who cares, you're just being sensitive"


mr_shadow said:


> He's got a bunch of reports in the past year, yeah. Don't think it's appropriate for me to disclose the exact number though.


And there's your proof that Chie has indeed been aggravating a lot of people. Now you might say "well then if he's so bad, why didn't shadow ban him"


mr_shadow said:


> Chie is a troll, but I find him kind of entertaining, so I'm leaving him be at the moment.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 31, 2018)

Bacon acts like just one type of person is saying Chie acts up.


----------



## baconbits (Jan 31, 2018)

There's all sorts of people saying it.  I'm not going to ban him because of that.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 31, 2018)

baconbits said:


> There's all sorts of people saying it.  I'm not going to ban him because of that.


Earlier in this thread you talk about the forum being moved back up top where it can be seen, but this theme of letting trouble-makers skirt their way around the rules because they're good at it is going to cause the exact opposite of that.


----------



## Amol (Jan 31, 2018)

Chie is well known troll. 
Surely there is no dispute on that matter, right? 
Mr shadow himself admitted that. 
So unless there is difference of opinion in between Mods in cafe I don't understand why banning Chie is such a controversial topic. 
Trolling and baiting is against forum rules. 
Matter seems quite straightforward to me.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 31, 2018)

We need to force the mods to issue State of the Café Addresses. 

Also, while we're talking about this section, when is the name going to get changed back to Café? That joke was old two weeks after it happened.


----------



## EJ (Feb 1, 2018)

I agree with Nello here. There is something wrong with the modding within this section if you have one mod that openly admits to allowing trolling because it's entertaining to him, but enforces a "no-flame rule." As usual, I don't believe bacon has a good grasp on what constitutes as trolling that shouldn't be allowed within the Cafe.

On a separate note, a lot of the users have the understanding that users like Kiba or Chie are trolls but have still gone out of their way to respond to them, give them ratings, or try to reference them through some kind of means because they can't hold back for whatever reason. To me, it's dumb to complain about trolls and wanting to be rid of them while you respond to every rhetoric they give within a thread. Just as the mods who have banned and warned these users but refrain from taking action now for whatever reason, you're also the reason why these users keep on making a continuous go at trolling within this section.

I guarantee you users like Chie or Kiba would be gone or wouldn't post as much if they weren't given as much attention as some of you throw at them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 1, 2018)

EJ said:


> I agree with Nello here. There is something wrong with the modding within this section if you have one mod that openly admits to allowing trolling because it's entertaining to him, but enforces a "no-flame rule." As usual, I don't believe bacon has a good grasp on what constitutes as trolling that shouldn't be allowed within the Cafe.
> 
> On a separate note, a lot of the users have the understanding that users like Kiba or Chie are trolls but have still gone out of their way to respond to them, give them ratings, or try to reference them through some kind of means because they can't hold back for whatever reason. To me, it's dumb to complain about trolls and wanting to be rid of them while you respond to every rhetoric they give within a thread. Just as the mods who have banned and warned these users but refrain from taking action now for whatever reason, you're also the reason why these users keep on making a continuous go at trolling within this section.
> 
> I guarantee you users like Chie or Kiba would be gone or wouldn't post as much if they weren't given as much attention as some of you throw at them.


I understand what you're saying, and you're right to some degree. But if you want the community to deal with the problem, what solution would you propose?


----------



## EJ (Feb 1, 2018)

Nello said:


> I understand what you're saying, and you're right to some degree. But if you want the community to deal with the problem, what solution would you propose?



ignore Kiba, Chie, and Thorin that are blatant trolls. Mods shouldn't be afraid to implement a procedure to discard users that have showed clear signs that they are trolls and post to get a reaction out of people and nothing more. I would argue they offer nothing substantial to the forum.

But that's not going to happen. People are going to give these users attention for whatever reason.


----------



## Nello (Feb 1, 2018)

EJ said:


> ignore Kiba, Chie, and Thorin that are blatant trolls. Mods shouldn't be afraid to implement a procedure to discard users that have showed clear signs that they are trolls and post to get a reaction out of people and nothing more. I would argue they offer nothing substantial to the forum.
> 
> But that's not going to happen. People are going to give these users attention for whatever reason.


I can only speak for myself, but when someone gives a controversial opinion, I don't know if they're a troll, or as the mods ironically say "real people have those opinions". I can't know if they're serious or trolling without verifying for myself. And at the same time the mods would blame me for feeding the trolls.

I guess you could make a stickied blacklist of known trolls, but at that point I think it would be better to just ban them instead of telling any newbies that the place is infested with trolls.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 2, 2018)

How is Seto Kiba a troll?


----------



## Itachі (Feb 2, 2018)

Ava said:


> How is Seto Kiba a troll?



he's talking about that gay kiba trump lover

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 2, 2018)

Ava said:


> How is Seto Kiba a troll?


Seto is a being held together by hate, not a troll. There’s a difference

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 2, 2018)

Itachі said:


> he's talking about that gay kiba trump lover


Oh I can't read clearly, confused Kiba with Kaiba.

My mistake.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 2, 2018)

As for the actual topic, I don't think people should be banned even if they have "troll opinions" or flamebait.

This isn't the Konoha Countryclub. 

Just put someone on SI if you can't resist getting triggered by their posts. Either the Cafe should stay the same or become even more lax, stricter rules is a terrible idea.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 2, 2018)

Ava said:


> How is Seto Kiba a troll?





Ava said:


> Oh I can't read clearly, confused Kiba with Kaiba.
> 
> My mistake.



How dare you...? If I were a Singaporean I'd cane you for this.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 2, 2018)

My bad bro.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

Ava said:


> As for the actual topic, I don't think people should be banned even if they have "troll opinions" or flamebait.
> 
> This isn't the Konoha Countryclub.
> 
> Just put someone on SI if you can't resist getting triggered by their posts. Either the Cafe should stay the same or become even more lax, stricter rules is a terrible idea.


You just want to make a troll club for entertainment

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

@baconbits let's start over

This is why I think trolls should be banned, and please explain to me where you disagree so we can come to an understanding

I come to the cafe for interesting discussions and otherwise positive conversations. That's not to say that I want everyone to agree with me. The last thing I want is to make the cafe an unbearable circlejerk/echo chamber. But trolls like Chie make the cafe more toxic and divisive, and punish people who want to engage in meaningful discussions.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Gunners (Feb 3, 2018)

Chie isn't a problem for me because I ignore him. I don't understand why people are pushing for him to get banned when he can simply be ignored. If he is flaming people and spamming threads (I wouldn't know), then remove him. If he's presenting obnoxious views, stop responding to him.

Reactions: Like 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Chie isn't a problem for me because I ignore him. I don't understand why people are pushing for him to get banned when he can simply be ignored. If he is flaming people and spamming threads (I wouldn't know), then remove him. If he's presenting obnoxious views, stop responding to him.


I think that solution is far from ideal for two reasons

1) He's still very off putting to any newbies who come in here and get baited for no reason. This is why the cafe is at the bottom of the list.

2) Every time there's discussion that revolves around Trump or some other Republican (which there is a lot of), things become very heated and divisive very quickly. Interesting discussions are few and far between in here imo.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Gunners (Feb 3, 2018)

Nello said:


> I think that solution is far from ideal for two reasons
> 
> 1) He's still very off putting to any newbies who come in here and get baited for no reason. This is why the cafe is at the bottom of the list.
> 
> 2) Every time there's discussion that revolves around Trump or some other Republican (which there is a lot of), things become very heated and divisive very quickly. Interesting discussions are few and far between in here imo.



1) The cafe is at the bottom of the list because some members of staff are petty and stupid. It's not something that matters.

Can you point towards instances where Chie has flamed someone? If he is driving away new members because they don't want to be on the receiving end of personal abuse, that would be worth considering. 

If members don't want to post because they dislike his views, tough. This section doesn't have to be everyone's cup of tea. If people don't like football or a particular team, they're free not to post in the section or threads. Same with manga section, same with the tv section, same with any place on the internet.

2) What do you expect? Even professionals get heated when dealing with politics. People showing passion is one of this section's charms. That you don't find the discussions interesting is almost irrelevant. The answer is for you to find something that interests you.

Reactions: Winner 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

Gunners said:


> 1) The cafe is at the bottom of the list because some members of staff are petty and stupid. It's not something that matters.


That's your belief and i'll leave you with that.


Gunners said:


> Can you point towards instances where Chie has flamed someone? If he is driving away new members because they don't want to be on the receiving end of personal abuse, that would be worth considering.


Yes and i've already done so.


Gunners said:


> If members don't want to post because they dislike his views, tough. This section doesn't have to be everyone's cup of tea. If people don't like football or a particular team, they're free not to post in the section or threads. Same with manga section, same with the tv section, same with any place on the internet.


His "views" are literally things like "gun control is responsible for Hitler"
I never said it should be for everyone. That's why I want to ban trolls.


Gunners said:


> 2) What do you expect? Even professionals get heated when dealing with politics. People showing passion is one of this section's charms. That you don't find the discussions interesting is almost irrelevant. The answer is for you to find something that interests you.


As i've said before I have no problem with people getting heated during a discussion. What Chie is doing is not that. Trolling is different.


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

@mr_shadow if you have something to say, stand up and say it.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 3, 2018)

@Mr. Waffles asked me why I reply to Chie.

I do it because his opinions are ones held by other people, so him brining up for example the claim that SD is the second-largest party in Sweden gives me an opportunity to fact-check and point out that they're actually not, so that others seeing the discussion will have learned that they're actually not.

I'm never going to convince Chie or Thorin to stop being racists, but by sparring with them I can perhaps teach others something. That is when they say something "sparrable". If they just say something like "blacks have smaller brains than whites" then that post is more likely going in the trash than getting a reply.


----------



## Jeroen (Feb 3, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> I'm never going to convince Chie or Thorin to stop being racists



> racist

trolls*
Learn the difference.

Also, there was no question mark, so no question.
Just me pointing out that you, as a mod, are feeding the damned trolls.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> @Mr. Waffles asked me why I reply to Chie.
> 
> I do it because his opinions are ones held by other people, so him brining up for example the claim that SD is the second-largest party in Sweden gives me an opportunity to fact-check and point out that they're actually not, so that others seeing the discussion will have learned that they're actually not.
> 
> I'm never going to convince Chie or Thorin to stop being racists, but by sparring with them I can perhaps teach others something. That is when they say something "sparrable". If they just say something like "blacks have smaller brains than whites" then that post is more likely going in the trash than getting a reply.


He literally made a thread that says dems are dumber than repubs, so don't tell me you're trashing threads. And he insults people.


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> @Zenith @EJ
> 
> This discussion is over.



Shadow, what was the point of ending the discussion?

Nothing had gotten out of hand. This is carebear modding.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 3, 2018)

EJ said:


> Shadow, what was the point of ending the discussion?
> 
> Nothing had gotten out of hand. This is carebear modding.



It's off-topic and nothing good is coming from it.

Reactions: Neutral 1


----------



## baconbits (Feb 3, 2018)

Nello said:


> @baconbits let's start over
> 
> This is why I think trolls should be banned, and please explain to me where you disagree so we can come to an understanding
> 
> I come to the cafe for interesting discussions and otherwise positive conversations. That's not to say that I want everyone to agree with me. The last thing I want is to make the cafe an unbearable circlejerk/echo chamber. But trolls like Chie make the cafe more toxic and divisive, and punish people who want to engage in meaningful discussions.



I think your argument applies more to someone like Seto Kaiba, who has actually driven some posters away, than someone like Chie.  I'm not going to ban Seto for being Seto and I'm not going to ban Chie for being Chie.  I'll ban people who flame.  I won't even ban people who create threads that break the rules: I'll just move their threads, rename them or ban them from creating threads.

What you think of as trolling only shows that you don't really understand that the things Chie says are held by a sizeable portion of the American electorate.  As long as he expresses those views within the guidelines of the Cafe he won't be banned.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

You guys can't honestly believe that Chie isn't a troll.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> You guys can't honestly believe that Chie isn't a troll.


What does that even mean?


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

erictheking said:


> What does that even mean?


That Chie is a troll and I'm semi-surprised that the mods keep him around.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 3, 2018)

How are you defining "a troll" though?


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

erictheking said:


> How are you defining "a troll" though?


It comes down to intent.

Seto Kaiba says inflammatory stuff, but he very clearly believes what he's saying. Even IchLiebe seems genuine about what he says, even if he's basically a Nazi.

People like Blue and Mael, regardless of their hawkish and semi-fringe views, still contributed to this little community and added to discussions, even if, again, their additions were a little bizarre.

The difference between all those people and somebody like Chie is that Chie very obviously posts controversial opinions and only controversial opinions. It's convenient that people like him just happen crawl out of the woodwork whenever there's a controversial opinion to be had and then defend that viewpoint no matter how extreme it is.

It's , or alternatively, rules as written versus rules as intended. The rules are written to maintain a healthy community, and people like Chie, for whatever reason, troll within the bounds for the literal meaning of the rules.

There's obviously no _proof _that Chie is a troll and that section banning him could create a dangerous precedent. At the same time, this section is also one of the most hostile and avoided places on the forum, in large part because of the influx of random trolls.

I'm sure anyone who disagrees will say something about there being no proof that anyone is well-intentioned or genuine about what they write here, but being able to make reasonable judgments like this is what separates mediocre moderation from good moderation. Any halfway decent moderator works with the community to create a forum people actually like posting in while a mediocre one enforces the rules exactly as they're written and lets people like Chie do whatever they want because they're "technically following the rules."

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3 | Winner 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I think your argument applies more to someone like Seto Kaiba, who has actually driven some posters away, than someone like Chie.  I'm not going to ban Seto for being Seto and I'm not going to ban Chie for being Chie.  I'll ban people who flame.  I won't even ban people who create threads that break the rules: I'll just move their threads, rename them or ban them from creating threads.
> 
> What you think of as trolling only shows that you don't really understand that the things Chie says are held by a sizeable portion of the American electorate.  As long as he expresses those views within the guidelines of the Cafe he won't be banned.


Shadow already admitted Chie is a troll. That's not something you or him can backpedal on now. SK may say some things you disagree with, but he truly believes those things and is willing to defend them. Chie just bails if he doesn't get the reaction he seeks. They are not comparable.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 3, 2018)

I think we're using "troll" in different ways, tho.  Define what you think of as a troll, first.


----------



## Ashi (Feb 3, 2018)

Anyone who acts out in a controversial or unruly matter simply to be provocative

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> It comes down to intent.
> 
> Seto Kaiba says inflammatory stuff, but he very clearly believes what he's saying. Even IchLiebe seems genuine about what he says, even if he's basically a Nazi.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to hammer the point but you didn't actually put a clear definition forward. If it is "expressing controversial opinions disingenuously" I don't see how this applies to Chie, who is clearly a genuine alt-righter. The fact that he only posts "controversial" opinions is not a good argument for suggesting that he can't be genuine. Some people don't bother agreeing. 

I can think of several other people who fit the bill much more cleanly than Chie, in terms of posting bait for shock-value. IchLiebe is one example. 

I'd also say Seto Kaiba's personal vendetta against baconbits has nothing to do with contributing to discussions, it's about trying to give him as hard a time as possible while trying not to break any rules.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

erictheking said:


> I don't mean to hammer the point but you didn't actually put a clear definition forward. If it is "expressing controversial opinions disingenuously" I don't see how this applies to Chie, who is clearly a genuine alt-righter. The fact that he only posts "controversial" opinions is not a good argument for suggesting that he can't be genuine. Some people don't bother agreeing.
> 
> I can think of several other people who fit the bill much more cleanly than Chie, in terms of posting bait for shock-value. IchLiebe is one example.
> 
> I'd also say Seto Kaiba's personal vendetta against baconbits has nothing to do with contributing to discussions, it's about trying to give him as hard a time as possible while trying not to break any rules.


He may be an alt righter but he doesn't believe everything he says or he would be willing to have legit discussions

Which I've never seen from him


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 3, 2018)

Nello said:


> You just want to make a troll club for entertainment


You may disagree with me, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However I was 100% serious and genuine in that post. I don't like when mods interfere and try to ban people and delete their posts. They should mind their business most of the time and not interfere.


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

erictheking said:


> I don't mean to hammer the point but you didn't actually put a clear definition forward. If it is "expressing controversial opinions disingenuously" I don't see how this applies to Chie, who is clearly a genuine alt-righter. The fact that he only posts "controversial" opinions is not a good argument for suggesting that he can't be genuine. Some people don't bother agreeing.


There _is _no easy definition.

It goes beyond posting controversial opinions. It's posting controversial opinions that are clearly ingenuous. How we define "clearly ingenuous" is what makes this difficult and why trolls here are so successful.

I'm of the opinion that somebody who _only _shows up to post controversial opinions and vehemently argues his fringe views is probably somebody trolling us with a dupe.



erictheking said:


> I can think of several other people who fit the bill much more cleanly than Chie, in terms of posting bait for shock-value. IchLiebe is one example.


I can't believe I'm about to defend IchLiebe, but unlike Chie, IchLiebe doesn't just... randomly show up when there's a controversial opinion to be had.

The difference between IchLiebe and Chie is that IchLiebe isn't some guy who showed up _only _to post in the Café. I've seen him post in other sections, in discussion threads, and albeit rarely, say something that isn't batshit insane. In contrast, I'm a little suspicious of somebody who joins and then only says fringe things in the Café.

This isn't r/politics. It's a subforum on a Naruto message board, and knowing that, it's a little weird how my far-right libertarians we have.



erictheking said:


> I'd also say Seto Kaiba's personal vendetta against baconbits has nothing to do with contributing to discussions, it's about trying to give him as hard a time as possible while trying not to break any rules.


I can't defend half the stuff Seto says to bacon. A lot of what he says _is _clearly inflammatory and counter-productive to good community building.

Though, I don't think there's a single person here who hasn't said something purposefully disruptive, inflammatory, etc. The difference is that it's not _all _we do.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> You guys can't honestly believe that Chie isn't a troll.


So? Trolling shouldn't be a bannable offense.


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

Ava said:


> So?


See my responses to erictheking.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> See my responses to erictheking.


I read one of those novels. And I just have one question.

Why can't you just put Chie on super ignore if he rustles you that much?  

Wanting someone to be banned over that is mod abuse.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

Ava said:


> You may disagree with me, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
> 
> However I was 100% serious and genuine in that post. I don't like when mods interfere and try to ban people and delete their posts. They should mind their business most of the time and not interfere.


I was just joking with that post  Your opinion is perfectly valid

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

Ava said:


> I read one of those novels. And I just have one question.
> 
> Why can't you just put Chie on super ignore if he rustles you that much?


I have him on Ignore, and no, he doesn't rustle me. My problem is, more broadly, with the fact that this exact thing keeps happening: some random user joins, comes straight to the Café, and posts _only _bizarre, controversial opinions.

Believe it or not, I wrote those novels because I care about this section.



Ava said:


> Wanting someone to be banned over that is mod abuse.


>mod abuse

NF has some weird views on what constitutes moderation. This "they're technically obeying the rules" thing is why the section got to this point in the first place.


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

Ava said:


> I read one of those novels. And I just have one question.
> 
> Why can't you just put Chie on super ignore if he rustles you that much?
> 
> Wanting someone to be banned over that is mod abuse.


Problem is trolling can affect the whole section


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

Also, I'm only using Chie as an example because he's currently one of the guys doing it. A few years ago, I probably would have said Jersey Shore Jesus or whatever his name was.

Let's not pretend that this hasn't been happening for _years _now.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 3, 2018)

Yeah this is just one of those things we won't ever agree on. I'm a fan of as much lax modding as possible and you guys prefer the mods to be stricter. 

Guess we'll just have to see what bacon and shadow decide to do with this section.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 3, 2018)

Which begs the question...when are they gonna make a final decision on how this section is gonna work?


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> Also, I'm only using Chie as an example because he's currently one of the guys doing it. A few years ago, I probably would have said Jersey Shore Jesus or whatever his name was.
> 
> Let's not pretend that this hasn't been happening for _years _now.



Jershey Shore Jesus to my knowledge was never a troll.

Besides Chie, you have Rukia, Thorin, and Kiba. 

And as it was already pointed out, the main reason they get away with their shit (at least Chie) is because:

1. mr_shadow acknowledges he is a troll but he's entertaining.

2. bacon fails to see him as such.


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2018)

Nello said:


> That's your belief and i'll leave you with that.
> 
> Yes and i've already done so.
> 
> ...



Np, he is right. A group of mods stupidly moved us to the bottom of the forum because "it was very hostile." They thought the hostility would "drive users away", but that's exactly what has happened to the Cafe as a whole with moving it to the bottom to appease some carebears.

Which begs the question, when are we getting moved back up? If the mods are cracking down on hostility on flaming now, when are we getting moved back up? 



mr_shadow said:


> @Mr. Waffles asked me why I reply to Chie.
> 
> I do it because his opinions are ones held by other people, so him brining up for example the claim that SD is the second-largest party in Sweden gives me an opportunity to fact-check and point out that they're actually not, so that others seeing the discussion will have learned that they're actually not.
> 
> I'm never going to convince Chie or Thorin to stop being racists, but by sparring with them I can perhaps teach others something. That is when they say something "sparrable". If they just say something like "blacks have smaller brains than whites" then that post is more likely going in the trash than getting a reply.





Mr. Waffles said:


> > racist
> 
> trolls*
> Learn the difference.
> ...



Thank you very much, I overlooked this.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

EJ said:


> Np, he is right. A group of mods stupidly moved us to the bottom of the forum because "it was very hostile." They thought the hostility would "drive users away", but that's exactly what has happened to the Cafe as a whole with moving it to the bottom to appease some carebears.
> 
> Which begs the question, when are we getting moved back up? If the mods are cracking down on hostility on flaming now, when are we getting moved back up?
> 
> ...


Were they wrong though? From what I hear the cafe has been toxic for years, and that probably did turn users away. If you want to stay at the top and get more traffic, I think it's sensible to require stricter moderation.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

Keep in mind shadow is acting against the global forum rules of NF by allowing trolls


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2018)

Nello said:


> Were they wrong though? From what I hear this section has been toxic for years, and that probably did turn users away. If you want to stay at the top and get more traffic, I think it's sensible to require stricter moderation.



The section has always had hostility. However, the idea to move the section down wasn't brought up to the users that frequented the section. It was done so in a swift manner, as well as the increased modship (which they later backdowned upon) within the section. 

No, the section lost activity gradually as it got moved down. I have been posting here since the move was made, so I have noticed it.


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2018)

So if you're going to increase the modding to crackdown on flaming (while ignoring trolling), the least the mods can do is move the section back up to where it used to be imo.


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

EJ said:


> The section has always had hostility. However, the idea to move the section down wasn't brought up to the users that frequented the section. It was done so in a swift manner, as well as the increased modship (which they later backdowned upon) within the section.
> 
> No, the section lost activity gradually as it got moved down. I have been posting here since the move was made, so I have noticed it.


I think I misunderstood you. I'm sure the Cafe lost activity as a result of being moved down

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

EJ said:


> So if you're going to increase the modding to crackdown on flaming (while ignoring trolling), the least the mods can do is move the section back up to where it used to be imo.


I think that's fair if shadow and bacon agree to comply with the global rules and the cafe becomes less toxic


----------



## EJ (Feb 3, 2018)

The section still has a basis to have continuous discussion. I also like that both bacon and shadow seemed involved with the community to an extent. The debate section is a good example of this. Though there are improvements that should be easy enough to obtain like the ones that are currently being discussed.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 3, 2018)

Gunners said:


> 1) The cafe is at the bottom of the list because some members of staff are petty and stupid.



Oh, my ears are burning.

Nvm, you said staff


----------



## baconbits (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> Also, I'm only using Chie as an example because he's currently one of the guys doing it. A few years ago, I probably would have said Jersey Shore Jesus or whatever his name was.
> 
> Let's not pretend that this hasn't been happening for _years _now.



It's very clear you care about this section but if you really want to look forward to more debates you can't ban everyone you find that posts intentionally controversial posts, because that definition is so subjective it's bound to be abused.

Suppose I decided to use that definition to ban people.  I could probably ban about ten people right now who have never flamed and probably honestly hold their viewpoints.  This is a section of the forum meant for debates.  If we're going to ban people just because we think their views are controversial or provocative we're hurting ourselves.

The reason I stick to the "letter of the law" is not to be pedantic; its so that no one can abuse posters because of their political or religious persuasion.  It eliminates personality and viewpoints and centers the punishment entirely on how the other person behaves.

Trolls can be a problem.  I understand that.  But everyone on the left thinks the right wingers are trolls and everyone on the right thinks the left wingers are trolls.  You'd be surprised how many calls I get to ban Bender (not recently since he's not been back), Seto Kaiba or others on the left.  But the provocative posters make this section what it is.  The guidelines I've adopted are only meant to make the conversation palatable; in no way should we expect the section to stop being aggressive or controversial.


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I could probably ban about ten people right now who have never flamed and probably honestly hold their viewpoints.


This can only be true if you have zero ability to judge people


baconbits said:


> But everyone on the left thinks the right wingers are trolls and everyone on the right thinks the left wingers are trolls.


Sweeping generalizations aside, I think trolls will only exacerbate the problem by making a terrible example of people with similar but genuine beliefs. Surely you can agree with that logic?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I think your argument applies more to someone like Seto Kaiba, who has actually driven some posters away, than someone like Chie.  I'm not going to ban Seto for being Seto and I'm not going to ban Chie for being Chie.  I'll ban people who flame.  I won't even ban people who create threads that break the rules: I'll just move their threads, rename them or ban them from creating threads.
> 
> What you think of as trolling only shows that you don't really understand that the things Chie says are held by a sizeable portion of the American electorate.  As long as he expresses those views within the guidelines of the Cafe he won't be banned.



I've driven away people...and not incompetent individuals like yourself that have been modding this place for years. Pathetic, bacon.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> I can't defend half the stuff Seto says to bacon. A lot of what he says _is _clearly inflammatory and counter-productive to good community building.
> 
> Though, I don't think there's a single person here who hasn't said something purposefully disruptive, inflammatory, etc. The difference is that it's not _all _we do.



I don't even say anything that bad! 

I call him ignorant, dishonest, a sophist, a shit debater, etc. All things I think I have demonstrated repeatedly. I've called him a contemptible individual for his views, and call them out for their inconsistency, and that isn't bad at all. bacon tries. or rather used to try, to pretend like those things rolled off his back until it became evident that more people were confident to call him out on his shit as well.


----------



## Darkmatter (Feb 3, 2018)

I don't see why this is even debatable really.
People like IchLiebe and Junta have some of the most unpopular views (even extreme views), but we at least know they're serious about what they believe in: that isn't trolling, and it's not an issue.
People like Chie and Thorin stirs the pot in threads where it's really sensitive: that's trolling.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Island (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> It's very clear you care about this section but if you really want to look forward to more debates you can't ban everyone you find that posts intentionally controversial posts, because that definition is so subjective it's bound to be abused.
> 
> Suppose I decided to use that definition to ban people.  I could probably ban about ten people right now who have never flamed and probably honestly hold their viewpoints.  This is a section of the forum meant for debates.  If we're going to ban people just because we think their views are controversial or provocative we're hurting ourselves.


I don't want to sound like an ass, but if you can't discern between somebody who's contributing to a community and somebody who's bringing it down, you have no business being a moderator.

Also, you're the second person to mention mod abuse. I don't know any other community where a mod using his judgment to make decisions instead of weirdly following rules as they're written is considered "abuse."



baconbits said:


> The reason I stick to the "letter of the law" is not to be pedantic; its so that no one can abuse posters because of their political or religious persuasion.  It eliminates personality and viewpoints and centers the punishment entirely on how the other person behaves.


Chie's personality is "troll." I'd be very happy if it was eliminated.



baconbits said:


> Trolls can be a problem.  I understand that.  But everyone on the left thinks the right wingers are trolls and everyone on the right thinks the left wingers are trolls.


Nobody here has that black and white viewpoint.


----------



## Atlas (Feb 3, 2018)

Darkmatter said:


> I don't see why this is even debatable really.
> People like IchLiebe and Junta have some of the most unpopular views (even extreme views), but we at least know they're serious about what they believe in: that isn't trolling, and it's not an issue.
> People like Chie and Thorin stirs the pot in threads where it's really sensitive: that's trolling.



Pretty much all of Thorin's posts seem to be so.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> Nobody here has that black and white viewpoint.



It's intentional dishonesty.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 3, 2018)

Island said:


> I don't want to sound like an ass, but if you can't discern between somebody who's contributing to a community and somebody who's bringing it down, you have no business being a moderator.



It's not about not being able to discern the different; the point is that in a section that thrives on free speech and the free exchange of ideas less is more.  There are lots of people that don't contribute anything positive to this section.  Again you create these sweeping statements about who should be banned that could include so many people when you're only targeting one or two.  It's odd to me that you can't see that if we take your words at face value we could ban almost anyone from this section and yet you're really only targeting one or two people.  That's a problem.  It's not something you can ever implement as policy without displaying clear bias.



Island said:


> Also, you're the second person to mention mod abuse. I don't know any other community where a mod using his judgment to make decisions instead of weirdly following rules as they're written is considered "abuse."



You don't read the complaint threads daily, like I do.



Island said:


> Chie's personality is "troll." I'd be very happy if it was eliminated.



We won't agree on that.



Island said:


> Nobody here has that black and white viewpoint.



Fair enough.  But I'll say this: I've yet to see a person call another person on their side of the political spectrum a troll.  This is why I take all of these accusations with a gallon of salt.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Fair enough. But I'll say this: I've yet to see a person call another person on their side of the political spectrum a troll. This is why I take all of these accusations with a gallon of salt.



Davychan? He definitely was called such and he was a "leftist", a term you like to use these days.

You just don't know what you're talking about most of the time. I think what's more frustrating is having someone that pretends they are open-minded when you know full well they are not. It's one thing to remain firm in one's stances, it's another to continue on with them when the facts undermine them. You constantly do the latter.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 3, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Davychan? He definitely was called such and he was a "leftist", a term you like to use these days.



I don't remember anyone calling him a troll, but if they did kudos to you all.  But I can tell you from lots of interactions with the dude that he sincerely believed what he posted.  I wouldn't have banned him from posting here, either.


----------



## Nello (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> No, I don't. You want me to sweep out folks you disagree with because you find their viewpoints toxic and I'm not going to do that.


You view the world in a very tribal sense, as you admitted. But be careful not to project your own beliefs onto others. I could've just put every right-winger on ignore, or gone to r/politics, if I wanted to be part of a circlejerk. What I want is to mend the divisiveness and foster interesting discussion around here. There's nothing sweeping about banning a single person.


baconbits said:


> Again you create these sweeping statements about who should be banned that could include so many people when you're only targeting one or two. It's odd to me that you can't see that if we take your words at face value we could ban almost anyone from this section and yet you're really only targeting one or two people.


His statement is only sweeping if you don't exercise judgement and just ban them all to be safe.


baconbits said:


> You don't read the complaint threads daily, like I do.


People who get reprimanded are going to cry about mod abuse. That's how it goes.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I don't remember anyone calling him a troll, but if they did kudos to you all.  But I can tell you from lots of interactions with the dude that he sincerely believed what he posted.  I wouldn't have banned him from posting here, either.



Me neither. Nor would I ban you despite the fact you engage in passive-aggressive trolling. Especially when the increasingly constant event occurs where you are cornered in an argument.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 4, 2018)

I don't care about the location of the forum but can someone change the name back?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gunners (Feb 4, 2018)

*"If you have a problem be man enough to say it"*

@Nello what you said is not something that makes sense as I expressed the problems I have with your position. I think the root of your problem is a lack of humility. The section doesn't have to be for you, so if you find disagreeable views too problematic you can always walk away. 

You've noted the divisiveness and heated nature of discussions as a problem when those things are too be expected in political conversations. They're not reasons to ban a member, they're reasons for you to recognise the section might not be for you and walk away. You've mentioned that he's a troll but the definition you have given is too loose: How will you consistently differentiate between an idiot and a troll? Why does that difference matter? If he is being sincere or insincere, is the result any different? 

If he is to be banned, I'd expect to see receipts of him directly antagonising members and spamming threads. I wouldn't expect him to get banned because someone concluded that he was trolling after he expressed and defended his views.


----------



## Nello (Feb 4, 2018)

Gunners said:


> *"If you have a problem be man enough to say it"*
> 
> @Nello what you said is not something that makes sense as I expressed the problems I have with your position. I think the root of your problem is a lack of humility. The section doesn't have to be for you, so if you find disagreeable views too problematic you can always walk away.
> 
> ...


No i'm pretty sure you did not in any way whatsoever explain what you disagree with in your latest rating.

You have a personal grudge, I get it. But don't just use your ratings to throw shade, explain yourself.

As for the rest of your rant, you criticised my arguments when you hadn't even seen the examples I had posted. In fact you have Chie on ignore so you don't even know what you're talking about.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 4, 2018)

Nello said:


> No i'm pretty sure you did not in any way whatsoever explain what you disagree with in your latest rating.
> 
> You have a personal grudge, I get it. But don't just use your ratings to throw shade, explain yourself.
> 
> As for the rest of your rant, you criticised my arguments when you hadn't even seen the examples I had posted. In fact you have Chie on ignore so you don't even know what you're talking about.



Did you say something fundamentally different to what you said before? No, it was more of the same which means I had in fact made it clear why I disagree with your position. 

I don't know you. I vaguely remember you presenting similar ideas in the past but that's about it. That being said, I do find people like you annoying. 

I haven't seen Chie's posts. What I have seen and what I disagree with is your reasoning; so no, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Did any of your examples include instances of Chie flaming users? If the answer is yes, your argument should from ''I think members should be banned for causing a divide and trolling'' to ''I think members should be banned for flaming others users".


----------



## Nello (Feb 4, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Did you say something fundamentally different to what you said before? No, it was more of the same which means I had in fact made it clear why I disagree with your position.
> 
> I don't know you. I vaguely remember you presenting similar ideas in the past but that's about it. That being said, I do find people like you annoying.
> 
> I haven't seen Chie's posts. What I have seen and what I disagree with is your reasoning; so no, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Did any of your examples include instances of Chie flaming users? If the answer is yes, your argument should from ''I think members should be banned for causing a divide and trolling'' to ''I think members should be banned for flaming others users".


You briefly argued that you think the cafe shouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. If anything I just said I don't want the cafe to be a circlejerk.

You can't comment on my reasoning if you won't look at it. Yes, my examples did include instances of Chie flaming users. It's the only thing they included. This is derailing the thread for no reason. If you have any more complaints take it in the PMs


----------



## Island (Feb 4, 2018)

baconbits said:


> It's not about not being able to discern the different; the point is that in a section that thrives on free speech and the free exchange of ideas less is more.  There are lots of people that don't contribute anything positive to this section.  Again you create these sweeping statements about who should be banned that could include so many people when you're only targeting one or two.  *It's odd to me that you can't see that if we take your words at face value we could ban almost anyone from this section and yet you're really only targeting one or two people.  That's a problem.  It's not something you can ever implement as policy without displaying clear bias.*


Yes, that's why it's important to have moderators who are impartial and trusted by the community. Good moderating requires good judgment and making decisions based on judgment.

Literally anyone can write rules and enforce them to the letter. You can teach a child to do that.

And of course there's going to be bias. There's bias in literally every decision made, but a good decision is made by minimizing bias, and again, if you can't do that, I question why you're a moderator in the first place.



baconbits said:


> You don't read the complaint threads daily, like I do.


>Implying those matter.



baconbits said:


> We won't agree on that.


Then what's the point of this thread? The thread is specifically about stricter or laxer enforcement of rules, but as soon as you say "We won't agree on that", you're basically deciding the outcome of this thread.

You might as well not even bother posting threads like this if you're going to fight tooth and nail against meaningful change. I don't think I've seen a post by you in this thread that _hasn't _shot an idea down.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 4, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Fair enough.  But I'll say this: I've yet to see a person call another person on their side of the political spectrum a troll.  This is why I take all of these accusations with a gallon of salt.



Show me someone who fits that definition here now and I'll call them the fuck out too. You act like it's still 2008 and we have Bender filling the front page with pro Obama threads from blacknewsplanet dot com or some shit. Liberal trolls aren't that common because even other liberals will get offended at them and push them out of circles. 

On the other hand you guys elected a troll to the Presidency. Seriously, I have heard numerous people cite "I just like how Trump makes leftists/libertards mad". I've seen it said on this forum, it's not uncommon. But your cover is "people don't call those on their own side trolls".

So you're going to sit there and say despite basically everyone in this thread, even another mod or two, claiming that this person is a troll (not saying that they think he should be banned, just that the definition fits) you're not willing to admit that's what they are and that is indeed what is going on.


----------



## Island (Feb 4, 2018)

There aren't far-left trolls because the far-right has way more inflammatory rhetoric. I can't even think of a far-left equivalent to things like saying Obama is a Muslim or that illegal Mexicans are destroying America.

Or the whole red pill rhetoric. Or white nationalism.

Far-left rhetoric has what, black nationalism, radical feminism? Those are cringe worthy in comparison.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 4, 2018)

Island said:


> There aren't far-left trolls because the far-right has way more inflammatory rhetoric. I can't even think of a far-left equivalent to things like saying Obama is a Muslim or that illegal Mexicans are destroying America.
> 
> Or the whole red pill rhetoric. Or white nationalism.
> 
> Far-left rhetoric has what, black nationalism, radical feminism? Those are cringe worthy in comparison.


I mean you can get into cartoon levels of feminist weirdness where you say stuff like "all penis in vagina sex is rape" or you could get into weird stuff like we should just go full communist and cut off the heads of government officials, or the kind of weird black groups that don't really gain much traction. 

Even black nationalism is a little conservative, really. Nationalism usually is.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 4, 2018)

Island said:


> You might as well not even bother posting threads like this if you're going to fight tooth and nail against meaningful change. I don't think I've seen a post by you in this thread that _hasn't _shot an idea down.



Can you say that you're surprised by this?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 4, 2018)

Nello said:


> You view the world in a very tribal sense, as you admitted. But be careful not to project your own beliefs onto others. I could've just put every right-winger on ignore, or gone to r/politics, if I wanted to be part of a circlejerk. What I want is to mend the divisiveness and foster interesting discussion around here. There's nothing sweeping about banning a single person.





Island said:


> Yes, that's why it's important to have moderators who are impartial and trusted by the community. Good moderating requires good judgment and making decisions based on judgment.



Here's what you're both missing: it's not fair to ban someone if they can't understand what they did to get banned and if the rules don't sanction their behavior.  How could your stance ever be implemented as a rule?  Other than insulting my judgment neither of you have expounded on that.



Island said:


> You might as well not even bother posting threads like this if you're going to fight tooth and nail against meaningful change. I don't think I've seen a post by you in this thread that _hasn't _shot an idea down.



You guys are ridiculous.  I just had a thread up where you got to write the rules of this section.  Did you miss that?  This thread is about moderation.  Just because you have a right to make your voice heard does not mean you also have a right to make me listen to your point of view.


----------



## Nello (Feb 4, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Here's what you're both missing: it's not fair to ban someone if they can't understand what they did to get banned and if the rules don't sanction their behavior. How could your stance ever be implemented as a rule? Other than insulting my judgment neither of you have expounded on that.


There already is a rule against baiting and trolling, which you evidently did not read: 

Not anywhere in the cafe guidelines is it mentioned that global rules don't apply. If you want to interpret them other than as written, then you must use your judgement, a notion you already rejected.


baconbits said:


> You guys are ridiculous. I just had a thread up where you got to write the rules of this section. Did you miss that? This thread is about moderation. Just because you have a right to make your voice heard does not mean you also have a right to make me listen to your point of view.


You mean the thread where we suggest definitions for flaming? That is not saying we get to write the rules on trolls. Do not lie to us.


----------



## Island (Feb 4, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Here's what you're both missing: it's not fair to ban someone if they can't understand what they did to get banned and if the rules don't sanction their behavior.  How could your stance ever be implemented as a rule?  Other than insulting my judgment neither of you have expounded on that.


"If they can't understand what they did to get banned."

Nobody here is saying that you should just ban random people. What I (and I assume Nello) is saying is that you should boot those people who are very clearly and obviously trolls.

Do you legitimately believe that somebody who joins this forum, makes a beeline for this section, and only posts about their bizarre fringe views is "somebody who can't understand what they did to get banned"? Nobody joins a Naruto message board to _exclusively _discuss their hardline views on libertarianism.

You keep twisting my argument to say "ban anyone who has weird views." It's not. Stop accusing me of saying this. In fact, I'm going to spell it out exactly: "I think people who are very clearly and obviously troll, posting for no other reason than to antagonize the denizens of this section, should be banned." In anticipation of you repeating this "mod abuse" nonsense, I'll repeat my response to that: "A good moderator uses judgment to determine who is genuinely trying to contribute to a discussion and who is very clearly a dupe."

This is the part where judgment comes in: "This person is technically not breaking any rules, but all signs point to them being somebody's dupe who is trolling for giggles."

This is how  works, incidentally. You can very rarely prove that somebody did something short of a witness or getting them on camera, but when you put on your critical thinking cap, you can make a reasonable guess.



baconbits said:


> You guys are ridiculous.  I just had a thread up where you got to write the rules of this section.  Did you miss that?  This thread is about moderation.  *Just because you have a right to make your voice heard does not mean you also have a right to make me listen to your point of view.*


Again, if you're going to be this inflexible, why did you even make this thread? This thread is pointless if you don't listen to _anyone's_ point of view.

We've also reached the point where you don't have a legitimate counter-argument, so you're resorting to calling us ridiculous.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Island (Feb 4, 2018)

I also want to point out the absurdity of how you were talking the other day about how it's acceptable for a few innocent people to be tortured in Gitmo among all the guilty, but you aren't willing to ban trolls on the off-chance that they're not trolling.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 4, 2018)

@Island this is what i've been arguing from day one


> He's playing you like a fiddle by skirting the guidelines on technicalities and knowing you won't use your judgement to uphold the spirit of said guidelines.



The kicker is mr_shadow already admitted Chie is a troll. That's why bacon is trying to twist our arguments.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 4, 2018)

Nello said:


> You briefly argued that you think the cafe shouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. If anything I just said I don't want the cafe to be a circlejerk.
> 
> You can't comment on my reasoning if you won't look at it. Yes, my examples did include instances of Chie flaming users. It's the only thing they included. *This is derailing the thread for no reason. If you have any more complaints take it in the PMs*



Lol.

The topic is called "Cafe location and Moderation". We were talking about moderation in this section with Chie being the example. After telling me to take it to the PMs, you continued on the same trajectory in two other posts.

The issue isn't about you wanting to keep discussions interesting and on topic. It is about you removing content that goes against your sensibilities.

I did look at your reasoning so it is something I can comment on:


			
				You said:
			
		

> I think that solution is far from ideal for two reasons
> 
> 1) He's still very off putting to any newbies who come in here and get baited for no reason. This is why the cafe is at the bottom of the list.
> 
> 2) Every time there's discussion that revolves around Trump or some other Republican (which there is a lot of), things become very heated and divisive very quickly. Interesting discussions are few and far between in here imo.





			
				Me said:
			
		

> 1) The cafe is at the bottom of the list because some members of staff are petty and stupid. It's not something that matters.
> 
> Can you point towards instances where Chie has flamed someone? If he is driving away new members because they don't want to be on the receiving end of personal abuse, that would be worth considering.
> 
> ...



If you want to argue that he has flamed members directly, show the receipts.


----------



## Nello (Feb 4, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Lol.
> 
> The topic is called "Cafe location and Moderation". We were talking about moderation in this section with Chie being the example. After telling me to take it to the PMs, you continued on the same trajectory in two other posts.
> 
> ...


What you're doing is saying what a shitty person I am, and asking me to repeat myself because you can't be bothered to read the thread. This is what you are looking for: 



> If you want to argue that he has flamed members directly, show the receipts.


The crux of this entire debate is the fact that he is flaming people, but just indirectly enough to skirt the guidelines. Evidently you did not come here to inform yourself and give my argument an honest assessment. You're just being a condescending hypocrite and I resent that.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 4, 2018)

Imo you guys are only going to solve this this the way we solved the Megaharrison problem.

Create a thread on the Complaints forum, explain we have been dominated by trolls, tag every active member of the Cafe so we can go there support you, and let the top brass of NF know that the current mod team has lost control of the forum, so this way they can intervene.

Megaharrison was a troll. The current mods like the trolls. Neither are situations we can can solve by complaining to those mods directly.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Winner 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 5, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Imo you guys are only going to solve this this the way we solved the Megaharrison problem.
> 
> Create a thread on the Complaints forum, explain we have been dominated by trolls, tag every active member of the Cafe so we can go there support you, and let the top brass of NF know that the current mod team has lost control of the forum, so this way they can intervene.
> 
> Megaharrison was a troll. The current mods like the trolls. Neither are situations we can can solve by complaining to those mods directly.



On these specific issues, yeah. This has gone on for about a year now, and the mod team has been entirely inconsistent in regards to trolling.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Imo you guys are only going to solve this this the way we solved the Megaharrison problem.
> 
> Create a thread on the Complaints forum, explain we have been dominated by trolls, tag every active member of the Cafe so we can go there support you, and let the top brass of NF know that the current mod team has lost control of the forum, so this way they can intervene.
> 
> Megaharrison was a troll. The current mods like the trolls. Neither are situations we can can solve by complaining to those mods directly.


That's a surefire way to make sure we never get moved back up the front page. This forum will be known as a problem forum and they'll just leave us to stew down here and hope we all drift away.


----------



## EJ (Feb 5, 2018)

I would also like the mods that are in favor to keep us at the bottom of the section to speak up, and argue specifically what they mean besides utilize mr_shadow and baconbits as messengers towards what "they" feel like is best for the forum. 

This "I got your back" shit the mods utilize is annoying.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 5, 2018)

Anybody else think Megaharrison = 4th Mizukage (Yagura), mr_shadow = 5th Mizukage(Mei), baconbits = 6th Mizukage(Chojuro)?

We escaped the bloody reign of Mega and mr_shadow had to rebuild and earn the trust of the Cafe.  He did a relatively good job.  Now baconbits is trying to follow in his footsteps and is slow to anger, but there are some who believe he isn't fit for the office.

Reactions: Creative 2


----------



## Gunners (Feb 5, 2018)

Nello said:


> What you're doing is saying what a shitty person I am, and asking me to repeat myself because you can't be bothered to read the thread. This is what you are looking for:



What you're doing is being sensitive, too senseitive. I'm not saying you are a shitty person and I asked you to provide a link because you would know where to look. Thanks by the way. 

So these are the inflammatory insults that are driving members away:

"Are you old enough to be posting here?" "Of course, with a 13,000+ post count I'm guessing you're neither studying or working."

They're lukewarm and at most deserve a warning. 



Nello said:


> The crux of this entire debate is the fact that he is flaming people, but just indirectly enough to skirt the guidelines. Evidently you did not come here to inform yourself and give my argument an honest assessment. You're just being a condescending hypocrite and I resent that.


How am I being hypocrite?  

No, that isn't the crux of this entire debate:



			
				You said:
			
		

> This is why I think trolls should be banned, and please explain to me where you disagree so we can come to an understanding
> 
> *I come to the cafe for interesting discussions and otherwise positive conversations.* That's not to say that I want everyone to agree with me.  The last thing I want is to make the cafe an unbearable circlejerk/echo chamber. *But trolls like Chie make the cafe more toxic and divisive, and punish people who want to engage in meaningful discussions.*





			
				Me said:
			
		

> Chie isn't a problem for me because I ignore him. I don't understand why people are pushing for him to get banned when he can simply be ignored. *If he is flaming people and spamming threads (I wouldn't know), then remove him. If he's presenting obnoxious views, stop responding to him.*



The part highlighted in blue isn't relevant to what I'm about to say. It's just something that stood out to me because the impression I get is the complete opposite. 

I made it clear that if he is flaming people and spamming threads he should be removed. What I disagreed with is the view that he should be banned for spreading obnoxious views. 

You then responded to my view with this: 



> *I think that solution is far from ideal for two reasons*
> 
> 1) He's still very off putting to any newbies who come in here and get baited for no reason. This is why the cafe is at the bottom of the list.
> 
> 2) Every time there's discussion that revolves around Trump or some other Republican (which there is a lot of), things become very heated and divisive very quickly. Interesting discussions are few and far between in here imo.



Seeing as I agreed with the belief that someone, in this situation Chie, should be banned for flaming members and spamming threads, what you are challenging is the belief that someone should not be banned for expressing obnoxious views. 

You presented examples of him _flaming_ and I gave those examples consideration. At most they deserve a warning and at the least they require your consideration. In the long run, who do you think is going to suffer more from a change in procedure, the guy who doesn't give a shit or the guy who is passionate? 

It's not going to be difficult for Chie to express his views and simply hit the report button for the countless posts that fall under a widely defined inflammatory remark.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 5, 2018)

honestly i just ignore chie and the other trolls.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 5, 2018)

@Gunners

*Spoiler*: __ 





Gunners said:


> What you're doing is being sensitive, too senseitive. I'm not saying you are a shitty person and I asked you to provide a link because you would know where to look. Thanks by the way.
> 
> So these are the inflammatory insults that are driving members away:
> 
> ...





I told you both very specifically that I don't want someone banned because I disagree with their views. I've said the exact opposite. The main reason I want him banned is because he is a troll who baits people. He doesn't even believe the things he is saying, and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about. You can try to downplay his flaming if you want but he received "a bunch of reports" so clearly he's aggravating a lot of people. And that's not something you can comment on, is it? You're being just as sleazy as bacon is and you don't want to admit it.

Don't try to tell me what my own argument is and then give me shit when you didn't even read the thread, let alone Chie's posts.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2018)

Nello said:


> @Gunners
> 
> I told you both very specifically that I don't want someone banned because I disagree with their views. I've said the exact opposite. The main reason I want him banned is because he is a troll who baits people. He doesn't even believe the things he is saying, and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about. You can try to downplay his flaming if you want but he received "a bunch of reports" so clearly he's aggravating a lot of people. And that's not something you can comment on, is it? You're being just as sleazy as bacon is and you don't want to admit it.
> 
> Don't try to tell me what my own argument is and then give me shit when you didn't even read the thread, let alone Chie's posts.



Guy always chooses the worst times to come to bat for someone.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 5, 2018)

Nello said:


> @Gunners
> 
> I told you both very specifically that I don't want someone banned because I disagree with their views. I've said the exact opposite. The main reason I want him banned is because he is a troll who baits people. He doesn't even believe the things he is saying, and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about. You can try to downplay his flaming if you want but he received "a bunch of reports" so clearly he's aggravating a lot of people. And that's not something you can comment on, is it? You're being just as sleazy as bacon is and you don't want to admit it.
> 
> Don't try to tell me what my own argument is and then give me shit when you didn't even read the thread, let alone Chie's posts.



I quoted your argument. They are your own words. The problem is you're flip flopping. 

I made it clear that Chie should be banned if he's flaming people. At that point, you had the option of presenting examples of him flaming but you chose to go down the route of arguing that he causes a divide and drives members is away with his trolling.

I put forward my argument for why that isn't enough and you flopped to he flames. Gave your examples some consideration told you I'm of the view they're worth no more than a warning. You've gone back to he baits and aggravates people.

And on that note...



Seto Kaiba said:


> Guy always chooses the worst times to come to bat for someone.



@Nello what are your views on Seto? You accused me of being a hypocrite earlier on. Well I'm interested in hearing your views on a member who is consistently rude to others and has made it his mission in life to provoke another member the moment half an opportunity presents itself. He has driven members away and epitomizes the hostility others so hate.

In the interest of keeping discussions interesting and open, how do you think he should be handled.

@Seto Kaiba thanks for chiming in. You're a useful prop.


----------



## Nello (Feb 5, 2018)

Gunners said:


> I quoted your argument. They are your own words. The problem is you're flip flopping.
> 
> I made it clear that Chie should be banned if he's flaming people. At that point, you had the option of presenting examples of him flaming but you chose to go down the route of arguing that he causes a divide and drives members is away with his trolling.
> 
> I put forward my argument for why that isn't enough and you flopped to he flames. Gave your examples some consideration told you I'm of the view they're worth no more than a warning. You've gone back to he baits and aggravates people.


If I say "Hitler is responsible for retarded SJWs like you" that's clearly baiting and just makes people, such as yourself, simply ignore them. Putting someone on ignore is the exact opposite of listening to their viewpoints. And yet here you are telling me I don't want to listen to viewpoints I don't like.

I told you he was flaming, so don't tell me I chose another route. You just didn't want to read the thread and get a complete view. The hypocrisy is astounding.


> @Nello what are your views on Seto? You accused me of being a hypocrite earlier on. Well I'm interested in hearing your views on a member who is consistently rude to others and has made it his mission in life to provoke another member the moment half an opportunity presents itself. He has driven members away and epitomizes the hostility others so hate.
> 
> In the interest of keeping discussions interesting and open, how do you think he should be handled.
> 
> @Seto Kaiba thanks for chiming in. You're a useful prop.


SK isn't a troll. He may be abrasive, but he's honest. You accuse me of being overly sensitive, and at the same time you want me to argue that SK is a problem that needs to be dealt with because he's, what? Rude?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2018)

EJ said:


> I would also like the mods that are in favor to keep us at the bottom of the section to speak up, and argue specifically what they mean besides utilize mr_shadow and baconbits as messengers towards what "they" feel like is best for the forum.
> 
> This "I got your back" shit the mods utilize is annoying.


I want to know what this stricter moderation style means, because if that's the case leave us down here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2018)

Gunners said:


> @Nello what are your views on Seto? You accused me of being a hypocrite earlier on. Well I'm interested in hearing your views on a member who is consistently rude to others and has made it his mission in life to provoke another member the moment half an opportunity presents itself. He has driven members away and epitomizes the hostility others so hate.
> 
> In the interest of keeping discussions interesting and open, how do you think he should be handled.
> 
> @Seto Kaiba thanks for chiming in. You're a useful prop.



Sticking up for someone at the most inopportune moment is pretty much risking defining you at this point.

You wanna know hypocrisy is? You bitching about this while you've defended absolute racists like Zero.

I know affirmatively of one person I've driven away and he was like you, someone who half-assed in paying attention to my interactions with types like bacon and yet still saw fit to try and call me out on it. So forgive me if I find that a miniscule matter in comparison to the longstanding issue of incompetence of the staff. You'll also understand if your bitching falls flat when you "gotta stick up for a brother" even when they are being a racist jackass, or just a plain fool.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2018)

Nello said:


> If I say "Hitler is responsible for retarded SJWs like you" that's clearly baiting and just makes people, such as yourself, simply ignore them. Putting someone on ignore is the exact opposite of listening to their viewpoints. And yet here you are telling me I don't want to listen to viewpoints I don't like.
> 
> I told you he was flaming, so don't tell me I chose another route. You just didn't want to read the thread and get a complete view. The hypocrisy is astounding.



That would be an example of flaming, something I said was worthy of consideration. It is not the example you presented and your argument spreads further.

The examples you presented included lukewarm insults and the view that Gun control caused Hitler. The insults warrant a warning and the views aren't worth considering. 

Me having him in ignore doesn't make me a hypocrite. I'm not looking to have him removed because I feel scrolling through his posts is a waste of my time.



Nello said:


> SK isn't a troll. He may be abrasive, but he's honest. You accuse me of being overly sensitive, and at the same time you want me to argue that SK is a problem that needs to be dealt with because he's, what? Rude?



I want you to show consistency. You can't champion the need to remove people who drive other members away, flame, make topics toxic and then ignore Seto.

If you value an open discussion where members aren't deterred from posting, your eyes shpuld also be focused on him but they're not because you are a hypocrite.

You talk of global forum rules not being followed with Chie, and then you turn a blind eye when it applies to someone who is coincidentally on the same political side as you.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Sti



Thank you for your input but you're no longer needed. When I have a role for yoy to play, I will be sure to tag you.


----------



## Nello (Feb 6, 2018)

Gunners said:


> That would be an example of flaming, something I said was worthy of consideration. It is not the example you presented and your argument spreads further.
> 
> The examples you presented included lukewarm insults and the view that Gun control caused Hitler. The insults warrant a warning and the views aren't worth considering.
> 
> Me having him in ignore doesn't make me a hypocrite. I'm not looking to have him removed because I feel scrolling through his posts is a waste of my time.


Your opinion does not invalidate me or anyone else.

You preach consistency while you bomb me with strawmen and you call me arrogant and annoying without even reading my arguments. Which you still won't acknowledge.


Gunners said:


> I want you to show consistency. You can't champion the need to remove people who drive other members away, flame, make topics toxic and then ignore Seto.
> 
> If you value an open discussion where members aren't deterred from posting, your eyes shpuld also be focused on him but they're not because you are a hypocrite.
> 
> You talk of global forum rules not being followed with Chie, and then you turn a blind eye when it applies to someone who is coincidentally on the same political side as you.


I will not attack your strawman. If you can't see the difference between SK and Chie then we're done here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Thank you for your input but you're no longer needed. When I have a role for yoy to play, I will be sure to tag you.



I love it. You get blown out the water on your base hypocrisy, and you act like bacon. No wonder you're coming to his defense. Just for posterity:

Sticking up for someone at the most inopportune moment is pretty much risking defining you at this point.

You wanna know hypocrisy is? You bitching about this while you've defended absolute racists like Zero.

I know affirmatively of one person I've driven away and he was like you, someone who half-assed in paying attention to my interactions with types like bacon and yet still saw fit to try and call me out on it. So forgive me if I find that a miniscule matter in comparison to the longstanding issue of incompetence of the staff. You'll also understand if your bitching falls flat when you "gotta stick up for a brother" even when they are being a racist jackass, or just a plain fool.

You can't sidestep this, and you are doing the same thing to Nello. You can't respond to the points she's raising worth shit.



Nello said:


> Your opinion does not invalidate me or anyone else.
> 
> You preach consistency while you bomb me with strawmen and you call me arrogant and annoying without even reading my arguments. Which you still won't acknowledge.
> 
> I will not attack your strawman. If you can't see the difference between SK and Chie then we're done here.



He doesn't know what point he wants to make. He's just trying to stick up for someone out of some misguided complex.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 6, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Imo you guys are only going to solve this this the way we solved the Megaharrison problem.
> 
> Create a thread on the Complaints forum, explain we have been dominated by trolls, tag every active member of the Cafe so we can go there support you, and let the top brass of NF know that the current mod team has lost control of the forum, so this way they can intervene.
> 
> Megaharrison was a troll. The current mods like the trolls. Neither are situations we can can solve by complaining to those mods directly.




Second post from bottom to the top. You advocate the high school popularity contest system for the board. Why should anyone take your opinion on the matter seriously?. All it would take is 5-10 people ''flopping and pretending to be fouled'' and you would start banning people. There are echo chambers out there you would enjoy.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

I seriously don't understand how we still have (a few apparently) people that don't believe Chie is a troll. One of them being a mod, nevermind the fact another mod that actively feeds him all the time and has flat out stated he only keeps him around for entertainment purposes. Actively going against the rules themselves. @Nello brings up a good point which @mr_shadow didn't even respond to. 

But wants to warn people off the most carebear shit.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> I seriously don't understand how we still have (a few apparently) people that don't believe Chie is a troll. One of them being a mod, nevermind the fact another mod that actively feeds him all the time and has flat out stated he only keeps him around for entertainment purposes. Actively going against the rules themselves. @Nello brings up a good point which @mr_shadow didn't even respond to.
> 
> But wants to warn people off the most carebear shit.


most carebear shit.
Is this common internet lingo or it is only used here?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> I seriously don't understand how we still have (a few apparently) people that don't believe Chie is a troll. One of them being a mod, nevermind the fact another mod that actively feeds him all the time and has flat out stated he only keeps him around for entertainment purposes. Actively going against the rules themselves. @Nello brings up a good point which @mr_shadow didn't even respond to.
> 
> But wants to warn people off the most carebear shit.


This becomes the problem around here. The mods just keep troublemakers around for fun or because they halfway agree with them. I think that the latter might be bacon's case with Chie.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

Like ok, allow trolling. But if you're going to give a pass towards it, don't start throwing warnings off the drop of a hat because you don't like the direction a thread is going and that "someone's feelings got hurt." Granted yeah there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. I can overlook it and not send in a report, but I understand if others would depending what was stated.

Like telling someone "Your mother should have swallowed you" for example. But stating "Man, you're being an idiot here" shouldn't be grounds to ban someone imo.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 6, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's a surefire way to make sure we never get moved back up the front page. This forum will be known as a problem forum and they'll just leave us to stew down here and hope we all drift away.



*We will never get moved back up to the front page.*

It's 2018, you still think that is a thing that can happen? The Cafe is cancer, has always been cancer and will always be. What you are proposing is that we hide the cancer from the general staff so they don't notice we have been overrun by trolls. That won't work in the long term.

A politics discussion forum is always a problem forum, in every place of the internet I've been in. It's a fact of life.

I'd rather have a troll-free forum located below. I already use Watched Forums to browse everything here anyway.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 6, 2018)

[HASHTAG]#banchie2018[/HASHTAG]

Reactions: Agree 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 6, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> *We will never get moved back up to the front page.*
> 
> It's 2018, you still think that is a thing that can happen? The Cafe is cancer, has always been cancer and will always be. What you are proposing is that we hide the cancer from the general staff so they don't notice we have been overrun by trolls. That won't work in the long term.
> 
> ...


Is the word troll even helpful in this situation assuming i even think there is a situation?


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 6, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> Is the word troll even helpful in this situation assuming i even think there is a situation?



It's the only word that describes the situation.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 6, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> It's the only word that describes the situation.


That word does not describe anything in 2018. Maybe on the early commercial net it did.

Reactions: Creative 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 6, 2018)

Maybe this would work @EJ 

Under "Questions & Complaints" there's a subsection called "Staff Conference Room"
Only you and the staff can see what you post there. If enough of us speak up, the staff might start listening

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Imo you guys are only going to solve this this the way we solved the Megaharrison problem.
> 
> Create a thread on the Complaints forum, explain we have been dominated by trolls, tag every active member of the Cafe so we can go there support you, and let the top brass of NF know that the current mod team has lost control of the forum, so this way they can intervene.
> 
> Megaharrison was a troll. The current mods like the trolls. Neither are situations we can can solve by complaining to those mods directly.


Anyone have a link to this thread? Sounds entertaining.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

Will rep for near 6,000 to whoever gives me a link.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 6, 2018)

Rep? That is so 2015.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 6, 2018)

I'll try to look for it

Edit: can't find it. I think it was trashed.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

Nello said:


> Maybe this would work @EJ
> 
> Under "Questions & Complaints" there's a subsection called "Staff Conference Room"
> Only you and the staff can see what you post there. If enough of us speak up, the staff might start listening



That's usually just a place where they can dogpile you in isolation.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Nello (Feb 6, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's usually just a place where they can dogpile you in isolation.


So we need to shame them publicly?


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

Nello said:


> So we need to shame them publicly?



Drain the Swamp!!!

Reactions: Dislike 3


----------



## Nello (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Drain the Swamp!!!


After 7 pages you decide to answer me and it's a meme. You could not possibly take your position as mod less seriously.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

I feel as though a thread should be made which is pinned at the top of the section. Regulars are all tagged within the thread or private messaged to provide their input. Topics such as trolling/flaming(revisit the idea of 'flaming', but trolling definitely needs to be addressed), and the placement of the section should be discussed here. The mods that argued for, and continuously argue against moving the Cafe to its past area should be tagged as well.

A vote should be made in regards to changes that we would like to see be made, in which any opposing viewpoints should be made within that specific thread...for these topics, we are currently discussing.

If those mods that continuously state that the Cafe needs to be kept at the bottom of the forum are not willing to argue their case openly  and only want to utilize mr_shadow and baconbits as messengers that give small information or "justification" as to why the changes that have been made, then we should not consider their arguments. Unless they are inactive, I believe that would be substantial evidence that they would be unwilling to back up whatever claim they would have, and take it as a concession.

Or they just don't care. So yeeeah, concession accepted. lol


----------



## Ashi (Feb 6, 2018)

Nello said:


> So we need to shame them publicly?


Yeah cause staff always try to cover eachother’s asses.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Drain the Swamp!!!



So how come we can troll and not flame? Answer this.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> So how come we can troll and not flame? Answer this.



Flaming directly attacks a fellow NF member while "trolling" is a nebulous concept of "being inflammatory" without it necessarily being directed at a fellow member.

A troll is president of the United States, so it's something we have to get used to existing.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Feb 6, 2018)

I'm of the opinion trolling is fine as long as bacon rescinds his desire to punish flaming. I think most agree with that.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Flaming directly attacks a fellow NF member while "trolling" is a nebulous concept of "being inflammatory" without it necessarily being directed at a fellow member.
> 
> A troll is president of the United States, so it's something we have to get used to existing.



So you're against conforming the Cafe to the same rules the forum has as a whole. Ok, it's good you admit this.

If the initial argument was:

"Flaming is against the rules, therefore it has no place in the Cafe" that falls flat on its face now. You're excusing other users breaking rules simply for your entertainment, while actively warning and would presumably ban users that engage flaming others. This is inconsistent modding.

I propose that you allow both flaming and trolling and utilize good judgment with what is crossing the line, or hold users accountable and not give excuses for your own personal biased.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> So you're against conforming the Cafe to the same rules the forum has as a whole. Ok, it's good you admit this.
> 
> If the initial argument was:
> 
> ...



TBH if you can't take people shilling for Trump on the internet without feeling you need to bash their faces in, maybe you need to take up kickboxing or something.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

I'd still like to know what @baconbits has to say in response. I know things got a little heated, but unless you intend to address what people say here, this thread amounts to Thoughts & Prayers: Café Edition.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's usually just a place where they can dogpile you in isolation.


Agreed.

Never been a fan of the SRC, all issues should always be discussed publicly so the rest of the class can see.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

And tbh I just like reading members fight with the staff tbh.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 6, 2018)

Island said:


> I'd still like to know what @baconbits has to say in response. I know things got a little heated, but unless you intend to address what people say here, this thread amounts to Thoughts & Prayers: Café Edition.


Maybe he is busy or not in the mood.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

@Nello

Is trolling really an endemic problem anymore? I don't think I've gotten a report about it for months... The Café is nowhere near the state of anarchy it was when I took over from Mega.


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

Ava said:


> And tbh I just like reading members fight with the staff tbh.


Not gonna lie, it's kinda fun. 



Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> Maybe he is busy or not in the mood.


He's also too busy to reply to @Seto Kaiba in that debate thread too, apparently.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> TBH if you can't take people shilling for Trump on the internet without feeling you need to bash their faces in, maybe you need to take up kickboxing or something.



No. It's not the feeling that is wrong, it is lacking the control to not act on it that is.

When someone like @baconbits advocates detaining of legal citizens, even children, because they're a blind ideologue that supports just about any policy Trump spews forth like his first immigration order, or cheers on the screwing over of tens of millions out of their healthcare, or even more heinously advocates for things like gay conversion therapy...the feeling of "I'd like to bash this guy's face in", is perfectly natural. It's acting on it that makes the difference, although I guess I should remember who I'm talking to, and the shit you've spouted in the past...


Well, I suppose that is beside the point...the staff has become synonymous with incompetence. I think I do believe bacon's words when he says Trump has grown on him, considering his attempts to shift blame for the Cafe's reduction in activity (still more active than most sections), his absolute dishonesty and avoidance of legitimate points against him. Very Trump-like.

Reactions: Creative 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> TBH if you can't take people shilling for Trump on the internet without feeling you need to bash their faces in, maybe you need to take up kickboxing or something.



mr_shadow, this has nothing to do with "wanting to bash someone's face in", and way to shift the entirety of my post into another topic altogether. How can you expect anyone to take your modding seriously or consider it fair to the best of your ability if you're openly admitting to excuse the breaking of the rules when it's done to your liking? 

Again, if you want to allow trolling ok. But trying to police up flaming is hypocritical.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> I feel as though a thread should be made which is pinned at the top of the section. Regulars are all tagged within the thread or private messaged to provide their input. Topics such as trolling/flaming(revisit the idea of 'flaming', but trolling definitely needs to be addressed), and the placement of the section should be discussed here. The mods that argued for, and continuously argue against moving the Cafe to its past area should be tagged as well



....

What do you think this thread is, lol?



Island said:


> I'd still like to know what @baconbits has to say in response. I know things got a little heated, but unless you intend to address what people say here, this thread amounts to Thoughts & Prayers: Café Edition.



I don't have much to add to Gunners' argument.  If you feel a user has flamed point that out and it will be dealt with.  Your explanation of what trolling is is so broad that I can't implement such a policy.  The fact that many posters don't like or enjoy the presence of another is not something I'm going to use as a basis for action.

I know your argument is more complex than this, but in my opinion you're trying to justify the fact that you don't like another poster to push me to ban them.  I don't see this issue as something that is poisoning the entire community.  Or as Shadow said:



mr_shadow said:


> @Nello
> 
> Is trolling really an endemic problem anymore? I don't think I've gotten a report about it for months... The Café is nowhere near the state of anarchy it was when I took over from Mega.



Also, for those pessimists who believe the Cafe will always be stuck at the bottom, we're working on that as well.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Also, for those pessimists who believe the Cafe will always be stuck at the bottom, we're working on that as well.



What's the likelihood of it moving? What mods are against it being moved back up?


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> mr_shadow, this has nothing to do with "wanting to bash someone's face in", and way to shift the entirety of my post into another topic altogether. How can you expect anyone to take your modding seriously or consider it fair to the best of your ability if you're openly admitting to excuse the breaking of the rules when it's done to your liking?
> 
> Again, if you want to allow trolling ok. But trying to police up flaming is hypocritical.



I'll go after trolling when it's something blatant like Thorin's "blacks have smaller brains" type posts, but Chie's usually have some kind of argument to them and therefore aren't pure bait.


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I know your argument is more complex than this, but in my opinion you're trying to justify the fact that you don't like another poster to push me to ban them.  I don't see this issue as something that is poisoning the entire community.


This really, _really _isn't my argument.

Maybe you don't like respond to long posts, so just read this: I don't think that people who join this board, beeline this section, and exclusively discuss their fringe views about hating [Insert Minority Here] are genuine about what they're saying and are dragging the whole section down. Nobody joins a Naruto message board to exclusively discuss their fringe political views, and I think the staff should make more of an effort to weed out individuals who are here _solely _to drag this section down.

This has nothing to do with me not liking other posters. Stop telling me that this is what I'm saying. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion, and you've _repeatedly _decided what my argument is for me. My argument is that people who are very clearly somebody's dupe or here for no other reason to troll are the problem. Seto's not the problem. Gunner's not the problem. Even IchLiebe isn't the problem. People who come here exclusively to troll are.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Friendly 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> I'll go after trolling when it's something blatant like Thorin's "blacks have smaller brains" type posts, but Chie's usually have some kind of argument to them and therefore aren't pure bait.



IE: "There are certain trolls I don't pay attention to because their rhetoric is boring to me so I don't mind banning them, but this troll is more entertaining so I'll keep him around"

 A user might call another individual an idiot, but 99 percent of their post will have substance to it. That's not grounds to ban someone. Again, you're actively trying to find a loophole in the forum rules for trolling. I believe you should try to find a loophole for flaming as well, especially if users are not sending in any reports.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> IE: "There are certain trolls I don't pay attention to because their rhetoric is boring to me so I don't mind banning them, but this troll is more entertaining so I'll keep him around"
> 
> A user might call another individual an idiot, but 99 percent of their post will have substance to it. That's not grounds to ban someone. Again, you're actively trying to find a loophole in the forum rules for trolling. I believe you should try to find a loophole for flaming as well, especially if users are not sending in any reports.



Why is it so important to you that you get to flame people? You're not Mael. I don't think you need NF to vent.

And how come trolling suddenly became such a big issue in the past few weeks when it's been silent for months? Did I miss something?


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Why is it so important to you that you get to flame people? You're not Mael. I don't think you need NF to vent.
> 
> And how come trolling suddenly became such a big issue in the past few weeks when it's been silent for months? Did I miss something?



Trying to shift the argument again. 

No, it's been brought up off and on for quite awhile now.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> Trying to shift the argument again.
> 
> No, it's been brought up off and on for quite awhile now.



Bottom line is that if you think Chie or someone else is trolling, please report the offending post and I'll see if I can find grounds for a ban.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Bottom line is that if you think Chie or someone else is trolling, please report the offending post and I'll see if I can find grounds for a ban.



People have brought it up constantly to you and @baconbits, you both have done nothing about it. So if that's where the section is at. Ok. But don't get uptight when users start flaming people. You know what screw it, I'm going to start flaming. I don't care, you don't care about the rules. So I don't care.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

EJ said:


> People have brought it up constantly to you and @baconbits, you both have done nothing about it. So if that's where the section is at. Ok. But don't get uptight when users start flaming people. You know what screw it, I'm going to start flaming. I don't care, you don't care about the rules. So I don't care.



Who do you plan on flaming?


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Who do you plan on flaming?



Don't worry about it, I do what I want.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

The solution is to just make me the Cafe mod.

I'll get this section back to the top of the forum or wherever you guys want it. And I would never punish anyone for flaming and trolling.

It will be a new era for the Cafe.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Feb 6, 2018)

Ava said:


> The solution is to just make me the Cafe mod.
> 
> I'll get this section back to the top of the forum or wherever you guys want it. And I would never punish anyone for flaming and trolling.
> 
> It will be a new era for the Cafe.



MOD THIS MAN!

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

His Royal Majesty ZatchRaven of Östersjöarna said:


> MOD THIS MAN!


I just wanna see invisible people in mafia games I mean I wanna improve the section.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

@His Royal Majesty ZatchRaven of Östersjöarna why is that sad


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Feb 6, 2018)

Ava said:


> @His Royal Majesty ZatchRaven of Östersjöarna why is that sad



I thought you had the best interest of the Covfefé at heart, but you're just another politician who wants to abuse his power for personal gain.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

His Royal Majesty ZatchRaven of Östersjöarna said:


> I thought you had the best interest of the Covfefé at heart, but you're just another politician who wants to abuse his power for personal gain.



I would like to be a mod and make a some sections a better place and help it grow, but the Cafe isn't one of them.

I only come here to watch baconbits drama. Other then that, I don't care about this section.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Why is it so important to you that you get to flame people? You're not Mael. I don't think you need NF to vent.
> 
> *And how come trolling suddenly became such a big issue in the past few weeks when it's been silent for months? Did I miss something?*



Yeah I have no idea where this issue came from either and was going to ask if I missed something.

I don't even notice Chie's "trolling" or register it as that very often. He obviously enjoys annoying Democrats, liberals and leftists, but there's plenty of people who enjoy annoying Republicans and right-wingers, including all of the people complaining about Chie. I enjoy annoying both sides at times. Are we all "trolls" or what? 

This whole complaint is childish and disingenuous.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2018)

Nello said:


> Your opinion does not invalidate me or anyone else.
> 
> You preach consistency while you bomb me with strawmen and you call me arrogant and annoying without even reading my arguments. Which you still won't acknowledge.
> 
> I will not attack your strawman. If you can't see the difference between SK and Chie then we're done here.



It is not a strawman to challenge your reasoning. 

You have argued the need to take action against those who drive members away and those who cause a divide with their misconduct. You have argued that it is wrong of them to overlook Chie's conduct when it goes against the global forum rules. 

Seto and Chie do not have to be clones of one another for your reasoning to apply to both. In fact, I would go so far as to say it applies more to someone like Seto who is overt in his rule breaking. In your own words, someone Chie skirts the guidelines. 

You taking a different approach shows that you don't sincerely care about removing hostility from conversation and obstacles that drive people away.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I love it. You get blown out the water on your base hypocrisy, and you act like bacon. No wonder you're coming to his defense. Just for posterity:
> 
> Sticking up for someone at the most inopportune moment is pretty much risking defining you at this point.
> 
> ...





I don't remember tagging you. 

Take a seat and calm down. The person I'm actually defending in this situation is Chie and, funnily enough, people like you. I have enough discipline and flexibility to get by in the event that the moderators decide to take a more strict approach towards handling members. The last time they took a strict approach, you were banned within a couple of weeks (or was it days) and I defended you. 

I don't think you should be banned for your conduct. However there needs to be an understanding of how the current set up benefits people like you and the results of fairly applying the reasoning presented by Nello. 

We start moderating the section with the view that hostility should be limited with respect to_ the global forum rules_ you're getting removed with the quickness.


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

erictheking said:


> This whole complaint is childish and *disingenuous*.


Don't be like this. While I heavily disagree with bacon and a few others in this thread, I don't think that anyone who's posted here is being disingenuous.

Some topics are more controversial than others, but there are plenty that have been derailed by people who are very obviously trolling.

On the first page alone, highlights include the Japan thread being derailed by Chie saying immigrants would destroy Japanese culture, three consecutive Syria threads that amount to Son of Goku accusing Mider T of supporting terrorism, and the First Lady thread getting side-tracked by Thorin saying Michelle Obama is secretly a man.

As funny as the last two things are, they contribute to why this section is where it is. Personally, I find some of the trolls to be hilarious, but if we wanna move back up, I don't think "Michelle Obama is a man" posts have a place here.

Broadly, this isn't about the past few weeks. It's about the Café in general. Admittedly, the Café is much better than where it was back when Mega was around, I still think there's plenty of work to be done.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 6, 2018)

Island said:


> Don't be like this. While I heavily disagree with bacon and a few others in this thread, I don't think that anyone who's posted here is being disingenuous.
> 
> Some topics are more controversial than others, but there are plenty that have been derailed by people who are very obviously trolling.
> 
> ...


By that I mean to say that I think some are exaggerating the detrimental effects of "trolling". The examples you bring up - while obviously being a small sample - are somewhat offensive; sure, but are they really driving members and activity away from the Cafè? Or making discussions toxic to participate in? Some "trolling" is effectively harmless to be honest. I find Rukia to be hilarious for example - if you can't laugh at ironic self-parody you need to grow a sense of humour.


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

erictheking said:


> By that I mean to say that I think some are exaggerating the detrimental effects of "trolling". The examples you bring up - while obviously being a small sample - are somewhat offensive; sure, but are they really driving members and activity away from the Cafè? Or making discussions toxic to participate in? Some "trolling" is effectively harmless to be honest. I find Rukia to be hilarious for example - if you can't laugh at ironic self-parody you need to grow a sense of humour.


Tbh, I find some of them funny, but at the same time, if the goal here is to move up and not be known as the cesspool of the forum, it'd probably be better if some of those examples didn't exist.

If I was a new member, or even a regular who posted in other sections, I'd probably be deterred by threads that are pretty much "Mider T supports terrorism."

I guess it comes down to what we want to happen. Like I said, if the goal is to get the section moved back up and not be considered the shithole of NF, I think a good place to start would be removing content like "Immigrants destroy everything they touch." It's a bad look.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 6, 2018)

I sensed someone slandering me so I came (in my peelants).

Reactions: Lewd 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

Gunners said:


> I don't remember tagging you.
> 
> Take a seat and calm down. The person I'm actually defending in this situation is Chie and, funnily enough, people like you. I have enough discipline and flexibility to get by in the event that the moderators decide to take a more strict approach towards handling members. The last time they took a strict approach, you were banned within a couple of weeks (or was it days) and I defended you.
> 
> ...



No, you're not defending people like me. You don't even know what point you're even trying to make. "Discipline and flexibility". Please. You're just doing what you constantly do, and defend someone like bacon or in the past Zero, while not even beginning to try and acknowledge the arguments of the person you're going after in contrast.

The last time I was banned the rules weren't even changed, you can't even get your fucking story right. Bacon banned me for calling him a 'dishonest fuck' the same as he banned afgpride for telling him to 'shut the fuck up'. It'd be nice if you have some memory retention, but I'm sure that's pretty hard for you these days. I think it's kind of funny you're trying to craft such a narrative now considering I repeatedly demonstrate way more competence in what this section is about than you have at the relatively few examples of your best.

Your inability to differentiate what someone like Chie does and my activity says everything about your lack of credibility on the matter. There's a difference between people like you or bacon being bitter over your inability to get over that despite my demeanor, I present valid arguments and believe what I say and you can't provide proper counter to them and Chie's plain trolling and seeking out to be as inflammatory as possible.

I just again, find it rich with hypocrisy that you get on my case when you stepped up to defend people like Zero. Sod off.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 6, 2018)

Island said:


> This really, _really _isn't my argument.
> 
> Maybe you don't like respond to long posts, so just read this: I don't think that people who join this board, beeline this section, and exclusively discuss their fringe views about hating [Insert Minority Here] are genuine about what they're saying and are dragging the whole section down..



I honestly don' t mind if the post is long or short.  In my opinion others responded to your posts better than I could.

In my opinion the problem with your argument is that it goes against what the Cafe should be.  The Cafe should be a place where the viewpoints of the world can meet and battle.  The Cafe should be a place where a white supremacist can debate a radical muslim in one thread and they both argue against an atheist in another.  What we want in the Cafe are lots of viewpoints but stated with some class.

But your argument is based off of limiting those viewpoints.  Essentially you've decided which views are fringe, which ones are inflammatory and decided; you've decided, based on your perception of those viewpoints, what shouldn't be allowed in the Cafe.

That's the antithesis of what the last few moves have been about and what moderation in general should be about.  Moderation should be about behavior.  If someone is ruining the Cafe with their behavior their behavior should be punished.  The fact that you consistently talk about "views" rather than behavior in my opinion points to the fact that you're allowing political bias to be the determining factor of whether or not someone should be allowed to post here.

Your argument has two additional weakpoints.  First, it's premised on a precise definition of a term, "trolling", that's used in such a broad context that it's almost impossible to clearly define.  When pressed on this the second weakness of your argument appears: it's impossible to implement in a way that make sense.  When taken literally you'd have us punish people that you have no intention of targeting.

Your default after this has been to question our judgment.  That would be a fair critique if you actually had a basis for arguing that, but you don't.  It's essentially a concession to the fact that your rules don't have a clear outcome.  A good set of rules should lead to a clear and obvious outcome.

No there's no getting around the fact that I've asked for everyone's input.  I do ask for that and as a section I value that.  But it should also be understood that by asking for your input I'm not signing up to implement everything that's stated.

And this is the Cafe.  If we didn't argue something endlessly the section should be shut down because it would stop being itself.  I don't expect everyone to agree with every decision.  You only have our word that we'll be open and honest about what we're doing.


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I honestly don' t mind if the post is long or short.  In my opinion others responded to your posts better than I could.
> 
> In my opinion the problem with your argument is that it goes against what the Cafe should be.  The Cafe should be a place where the viewpoints of the world can meet and battle.  The Cafe should be a place where a white supremacist can debate a radical muslim in one thread and they both argue against an atheist in another.  What we want in the Cafe are lots of viewpoints but stated with some class.
> 
> But your argument is based off of limiting those viewpoints.  Essentially you've decided which views are fringe, which ones are inflammatory and decided; you've decided, based on your perception of those viewpoints, what shouldn't be allowed in the Cafe.


No, common sense says what views are fringe.

Let's use an example. Do you believe Thorin's posts about Michelle Obama secretly being a man are legitimate? What about Son of Goku's three consecutive threads accusing Mider T of supporting terrorism? How about Chie saying that immigrants would destroy Japan?

Stop telling me that I want to limit viewpoints. I do not want that. I want a section where threads don't get derailed by clearly trollish behavior like "Michelle Obama is secretly a man" and threads posted clearly out of spite.



baconbits said:


> Your argument has two additional weakpoints.  First, it's premised on a precise definition of a term, "trolling", that's used in such a broad context that it's almost impossible to clearly define.  *When pressed on this the second weakness of your argument appears: it's impossible to implement in a way that make sense.  When taken literally you'd have us punish people that you have no intention of targeting.*


I can't have this conversation if you keep putting words at my mouth. Answer this question: do you want to have a legitimate, constructive conversation, or are you going to keep telling me what my argument is? I'm trying to work with you because I genuinely care about this section, and whoever thought this thread up does too, but I don't know what I can do if you're going to keep telling me what I'm arguing.

I'm not telling you to ban people with disagreeable opinions. I am saying that people who are clearly and obviously baiting, like saying that Michelle Obama is secretly a ban, don't belong here. If you can't make sense of that, that _does _fall on you.



baconbits said:


> Your default after this has been to question our judgment.  That would be a fair critique if you actually had a basis for arguing that, but you don't.  It's essentially a concession to the fact that your rules don't have a clear outcome.  A good set of rules should lead to a clear and obvious outcome.


I'm not questioning mr_shadow's judgment.

I'm questioning yours because you've repeatedly supported this "follow the rules to the letter" nonsense.



baconbits said:


> And this is the Cafe.  *If we didn't argue something endlessly the section should be shut down because it would stop being itself.*  I don't expect everyone to agree with every decision.  You only have our word that we'll be open and honest about what we're doing.


I didn't argue against this. Stop implying this is what I want, and more broadly, stop trying to tell me that I want all argument in this section to cease. I don't want that. I never said I wanted that. If you think I do, show me _exactly _where I said that.

There's a world of difference between "I don't think threads should get derailed by absurd viewpoints by people who are clearly trolling" and "I think we should all play nice." I'll pull up this example again: do you think that somebody posting that Michelle Obama is secretly a man is "what makes this section itself"?

Again, I don't know what you want out of this thread if all you're going to do is twist my words and tell me what I'm arguing for.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## baconbits (Feb 6, 2018)

Island said:


> No, common sense says what views are fringe.



The fact that you even care about what's fringe is my point.  You still center on "views" when I'm focused solely on behavior.



Island said:


> Let's use an example. Do you believe Thorin's posts about Michelle Obama secretly being a man are legitimate?



I don't think a lot of things people post are "legitimate", but that's the difference in our positions.  You're focused on the values being transmitted and I'm focused on how they're being communicated.   If I were to implement your stance I'd necessarily be limiting viewpoints.



Island said:


> Stop telling me that I want to limit viewpoints. I do not want that. I want a section where threads don't get derailed by clearly trollish behavior like "Michelle Obama is secretly a man" and threads posted clearly out of spite.



I don't care what motivates people.  It's pretty obvious that bugs motivate Swarmy and all things Italian motivate Saishin.  When it comes to moderating I don't much concern myself with that.



Island said:


> Answer this question: do you want to have a legitimate, constructive conversation, or are you going to keep telling me what my argument is?



I don't see how we can have a constructive conversation if I don't tell you what I think your argument is.



Island said:


> I'm not telling you to ban people with disagreeable opinions. I am saying that people who are clearly and obviously baiting, like saying that Michelle Obama is secretly a ban, don't belong here.



To me that was obviously a joke.  If it wasn't I don't see why it bothers you so much: it's clearly stupid.



Island said:


> I'm questioning yours because you've repeatedly supported this "follow the rules to the letter" nonsense.



I support the "follow the rules to the letter" mantra because this is a section where bias has more of an impact and can be more insidious than in other sections.  If I don't like Naruto fanboys that impacts no one.  If I don't like leftwingers and try to hurt them through the way I moderate this forum that has an impact.  That's why the rules are so important to me: they are a way of eliminating bias.  

I'm not against using judgment.  My judgment says your stance isn't a good way to moderate this section.



Island said:


> I didn't argue against this.



You're going into the classic "debate every line" mode.  That little bit at the end was merely to say that I value everyone's input and that I'm not going to shut down this thread just because most of you are saying things I disagree with.  It wasn't meant to characterize you or anyone else.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, you're not defending people like me. You don't even know what point you're even trying to make. "Discipline and flexibility". Please. You're just doing what you constantly do, and defend someone like bacon or in the past Zero, while not even beginning to try and acknowledge the arguments of the person you're going after in contrast.



Do you or do you not fall under the umbrella of a member who injects hostility into threads whilst breaking the global forum rules? I am defending people like you. You're just too short-sighted to see the implications of widening the criteria for banning members. 

We take the view that hostility should be removed and members should feel comfortable to post, the spotlights are on you. We take the view that members who cause those things by breaking the global forum rules, you are out. 

I am actually disciplined and flexible enough to operate in a stricter cafe. I don't see why that was followed up with a please. You are not. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> The last time I was banned the rules weren't even changed, you can't even get your fucking story right. Bacon banned me for calling him a 'dishonest fuck' the same as he banned afgpride for telling him to 'shut the fuck up'. It'd be nice if you have some memory retention, but I'm sure that's pretty hard for you these days. I think it's kind of funny you're trying to craft such a narrative now considering I repeatedly demonstrate way more competence in what this section is about than you have at the relatively few examples of your best.



I was referring to the time when the section was first moved and shadow was made moderator. That being said, it is nice of you to further prove my point. When the rules get applied by the book, you get removed. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Your inability to differentiate what someone like Chie does and my activity says everything about your lack of credibility on the matter. There's a difference between people like you or bacon being bitter over your inability to get over that despite my demeanor, I present valid arguments and believe what I say and you can't provide proper counter to them and Chie's plain trolling and seeking out to be as inflammatory as possible.



Recognising the factors that are similar and relevant to the rules does not amount to an inability to differentiate between the two of you. The two of you have different motives. However as far as the rules are concerned, you deliberately go against the _global forum rules_, and as far as results go you inject hostility into threads that may drive other members away. 

You can't sincerely support the removal of Chie on the basis that forum rules need to be upheld and hostility limited, whilst turning a blind eye to you.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

@Island you've seen enough of bacon in enough contexts to know an honest discussion isn't going to be had with him. Personally, I've always focused on simply discrediting him. Yet in this case, I can see why one would need to do more than that.


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2018)

baconbits said:


> snip


I don't know what else to say. If you genuinely think that "Michelle Obama is secretly a man" and "immigrants destroy everything they touch" belong in this section, then I don't think there's anything left to discuss.

And no, it doesn't bother me, but this thread isn't about what bothers me. This thread is about this section being the NF version of that cousin nobody likes. My answer to that is it's because this "let every single viewpoint be legitimate" moderation style attracts dupes and trolls who take the mods up on that.



Seto Kaiba said:


> @Island you've seen enough of bacon in enough contexts to know an honest discussion isn't going to be had with him. Personally, I've always focused on simply discrediting him. Yet in this case, I can see why one would need to do more than that.


Yeah, just discrediting somebody wouldn't get anything done, even if it's tempting right now.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Do you or do you not fall under the umbrella of a member who injects hostility into threads whilst breaking the global forum rules? I am defending people like you. You're just too short-sighted to see the implications of widening the criteria for banning members.



Not really. I use a lot of profanity, and I may call people ignorant or incompetent but I demonstrate why I think that way. It's not like I'm going on calling them a particular slur that would belie any sense of bigotry, or immaterial to my problems with the individual. If I say one lacks reading comprehension or what they've said is stupid, or that they are being stupid, I explain why. Like I said, you can't even get your shit straight.



> We take the view that hostility should be removed and members should feel comfortable to post, the spotlights are on you. We take the view that members who cause those things by breaking the global forum rules, you are out.



No, "we" don't. You do.

You are desperately trying to come to bacon's defense and all you've done is discredit yourself in trying to equate myself to Chie. Any half-competent individual can see the world of difference between us, so it's a question of why you're unable to. Or rather, you are willfully trying to sidestep it rather than admit you may be full of shit here.



> I am actually disciplined and flexible enough to operate in a stricter cafe. I don't see why that was followed up with a please. You are not.



Hahahaha.



> I was referring to the time when the section was first moved and shadow was made moderator. That being said, it is nice of you to further prove my point. When the rules get applied by the book, you get removed.



I wasn't even banned then. The last two times I was banned was when Mega was a mod and when bacon banned me for calling him a 'dishonest fuck'.

No, bacon got spiteful at afg and myself getting on his case, and he repeatedly demonstrates that spite even as a mod. For example, when a thread happens and he chooses to not go after say, *the white supremacists* that I go after but my posts specifically. Despite the unambiguous inflammatory nature of the posts that I respond to.

Like I stated, he banned afg for telling him to 'shut the fuck up', and there is no material difference in calling him 'dishonest' or a 'dishonest fuck'. Especially when such is demonstrated.

Once again, you display an inability to retain information and reliably recall on past memory.



> Recognising the factors that are similar and relevant to the rules does not amount to an inability to differentiate between the two of you. The two of you have different motives. However as far as the rules are concerned, you deliberately go against the _global forum rules_, and as far as results go you inject hostility into threads that may drive other members away.



You can't even recognize those factors, and you've demonstrated repeated inability to differentiate between the two of us.

It's even sadder still that it hasn't dawned on you this very exchange reveals the glaring world of difference between someone like Chie and myself.

"The global forum rules" do not prohibit profanity, nor do they prohibit demonstration of particular behavior or character traits (incompetence, dishonesty, ignorance, etc.).

I inject hostility into threads...sure. Let's leave out that 1, I'm not nearly as active as I used to be. Haven't been for almost a year and a half now. Second, my presence has rarely ever deterred others from posting. You're presenting a weak hypothetical in some piss-poor attempt to defend bacon's shit arguments. bacon can't take responsibility that the shit modship has more a deleterious effect on activity than I ever did. Even when I was at my worst, and I have been worse, the Cafe was far more active. So please don't give me that bullshit.

Again, you have zero consistency here because you constantly have defended types like Zero, even seeing fit to get on my case when I go after him for his gross racism. This is more of that weird compulsion for you to come to bacon's aid when he's trying to bullshit everyone.



> You can't sincerely support the removal of Chie on the basis that forum rules need to be upheld and hostility limited, whilst turning a blind eye to you.



This is you doing the exact same thing you did with Nello. The hostility isn't the issue, stop trying to pretend it is.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 6, 2018)

I'm trying to stay out of this discussion, but I am observing, I feel like I should elaborate on this.

The reason the cafe was moved wasn't because of trolling, that is low hanging fruit. The Cafe was moved because as long as you follow the guidelines, your allowed to be as passive aggressive as you want and lob insults. The move to the outskirts wasn't some kind of punishment, it was to move it to a area that would better facilitate the cafe as it exists without any drastic changes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> I'm trying to stay out of this discussion.



How come? If you dont mind me asking  

My first assumption is you don't want to undermine shadowbits since it's their section?


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 6, 2018)

Ava said:


> How come? If you dont mind me asking
> 
> My first assumption is you don't want to undermine shadowbits since it's their section?



Pretty much, I'm not really a mod here, just a browser and occasional shitposter. The debate where the cafe is placed should be determined by the staff and the members of said section. Me getting involved in one side or another could unduly sway things and I want to avoid that.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 6, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Pretty much, I'm not really a mod here, just a browser and occasional shitposter. The debate where the cafe is placed should be determined by the staff and the members of said section. Me getting involved in one side or another could unduly sway things and I want to avoid that.



Interesting, I always assumed that the admins made all the decisions and the mods had to follow them, but I guess I assumed incorrectly.

Learned something new I guess.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 6, 2018)

Ava said:


> Interesting, I always assumed that the admins made all the decisions and the mods had to follow them, but I guess I assumed incorrectly.
> 
> Learned something new I guess.



There are times to whip out my Big Black Control Panel, this is not one of those times.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 6, 2018)

Gunners said:


> It is not a strawman to challenge your reasoning.
> 
> You have argued the need to take action against those who drive members away and those who cause a divide with their misconduct. You have argued that it is wrong of them to overlook Chie's conduct when it goes against the global forum rules.
> 
> ...


You're not challenging my reasoning, you're ignoring it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (Feb 6, 2018)

So how many assholes in the cafe are assholes outside of the cafe? I ask because this huff about the cafe exposing people's political opinions and creating more conflict because it's about real life issues with real life consequences is just a bluff if the people who lose their shit in the cafe also lose their shit discussing anime.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that every single asshole in the cafe was also an asshole about naruto, and in the same way, developing uncontrollable hatred of other posters because of their opinions about a cartoon.

...if you hated sasuke sakura shippers, that doesn't count. They obviously deserved it. No judgment.


----------



## Nello (Feb 6, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Flaming directly attacks a fellow NF member while "trolling" is a nebulous concept of "being inflammatory" without it necessarily being directed at a fellow member.
> 
> A troll is president of the United States, so it's something we have to get used to existing.


Is it hard to understand words? Are you upset because you need a new diaper? I'm just asking questions here. It's not flaming, as you have clearly demonstrated.

You're not consistent


mr_shadow said:


> @Nello
> 
> Is trolling really an endemic problem anymore? I don't think I've gotten a report about it for months... The Café is nowhere near the state of anarchy it was when I took over from Mega.


Yes because you said so yourself. The reason you haven't gotten a report in a while is because people just gave up because no one listened to them. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is bad.


baconbits said:


> Your explanation of what trolling is is so broad that I can't implement such a policy.


You are completely inconsistent. Global rules clearly forbid trolling. If they don't apply, then am I allowed to post porn here, as long as it can possibly be argued that it's art, not porn?


mr_shadow said:


> I'll go after trolling when it's something blatant like Thorin's "blacks have smaller brains" type posts, but Chie's usually have some kind of argument to them and therefore aren't pure bait.


I even asked you to defend Chie's post and you couldn't because it was blatant trolling. And you admitted he's a troll. Stop backpedaling.


erictheking said:


> but are they really driving members and activity away from the Cafè? Or making discussions toxic to participate in?


I think they are. It may not be the end of the world proportions, but I don't think that means we should accept it.


baconbits said:


> But your argument is based off of limiting those viewpoints.


No it's not. How can you be a mod when you refuse to take anyone seriously.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Tarot (Feb 6, 2018)

baconbits said:


> I don't see why it bothers you so much: it's clearly stupid.


You are literally describing trolling while also denying that it was trolling.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2018)

Island said:


> Yeah, just discrediting somebody wouldn't get anything done, even if it's tempting right now.



Ultimately, it's like it has always been with such threads, bacon exhibits the typical traits of a staff member here. Especially of the past few years, they aren't actually here to be open to your suggestions. They're doing it to convince themselves why you're wrong. He has likely made up his mind.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Island said:


> Don't be like this. While I heavily disagree with bacon and a few others in this thread, I don't think that anyone who's posted here is being disingenuous.
> 
> Some topics are more controversial than others, but there are plenty that have been derailed by people who are very obviously trolling.
> 
> ...


If i start a topic about some inter right issue it will immediately turn into some left vs right fight...
But that would not bother you.



Island said:


> Tbh, I find some of them funny, but at the same time, if the goal here is to move up and not be known as the cesspool of the forum, it'd probably be better if some of those examples didn't exist.
> 
> If I was a new member, or even a regular who posted in other sections, I'd probably be deterred by threads that are pretty much "Mider T supports terrorism."
> 
> I guess it comes down to what we want to happen. Like I said, if the goal is to get the section moved back up and not be considered the shithole of NF, I think a good place to start would be removing content like "Immigrants destroy everything they touch." It's a bad look.


Politics is the cesspool of the Internet.

Since Bernie and Trump are practically third party i say the fringe is popular and the forum should have these opinions.



Seto Kaiba said:


> @Island you've seen enough of bacon in enough contexts to know an honest discussion isn't going to be had with him. Personally, I've always focused on simply discrediting him. Yet in this case, I can see why one would need to do more than that.



Progress report?


----------



## EJ (Feb 7, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Ultimately, it's like it has always been with such threads, bacon exhibits the typical traits of a staff member here. Especially of the past few years, they aren't actually here to be open to your suggestions. They're doing it to convince themselves why you're wrong. He has likely made up his mind.



I don't understand why they even ask for our suggestions if they completely disregard it.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Island (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> If i start a topic about some inter right issue it will immediately turn into some left vs right fight...
> But that would not bother you.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have opinions. I'm saying that crap like "Michelle Obama is secretly a man" and "[Insert Minority Here] is destroying this country" is clearly inflammatory, trollish, and brings the whole section down.


----------



## EJ (Feb 7, 2018)

Island said:


> I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have opinions. I'm saying that crap like "Michelle Obama is secretly a man" and "[Insert Minority Here] is destroying this country" is clearly inflammatory, trollish, and brings the whole section down.



You have repeated this like 5-6 times already. Anyone that argues "You're just trying to police thought" is either not paying attention or being dishonest. Considering that you even stated that someone like Ichliebe doesn't have to be banned.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Island said:


> I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have opinions. I'm saying that crap like "Michelle Obama is secretly a man" and "[Insert Minority Here] is destroying this country" is clearly inflammatory, trollish, and brings the whole section down.


Republicans are evil type of rhetoric is also tolerated. I don't think politics is uplifting in the first place.


----------



## Island (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> Republicans are evil type of rhetoric is also tolerated. I don't think politics is uplifting in the first place.


What's your point?



EJ said:


> You have repeated this like 5-6 times already. Anyone that argues "You're just trying to police thought" is either not paying attention or being dishonest. Considering that you even stated that someone like Ichliebe doesn't have to be banned.


I like to think the people posting in this thread actually want to make this section better, but this is fair.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Island said:


> What's your point?


It is pretty much the same thing you complained about...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> Republicans are evil type of rhetoric is also tolerated. I don't think politics is uplifting in the first place.


Well when you try to take health care from millions, strive to pollute the planet despite all of the evidence of what it's doing, and plan military parades to honor yourself you become an easy target.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well when you try to take health care from millions, strive to pollute the planet despite all of the evidence of what it's doing, and plan military parades to honor yourself you become an easy target.


But not fucking evil, also they do not see it that way. How is the US ever going to have immigrants if it was up to these judgy people?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> But not fucking evil, also they do not see it that way. How is the US ever going to have immigrants if it was up to these judgy people?


Taking healthcare from millions, deporting children to countries they don't know, actively trying to push dirty energy just for the sake of it -- Captain Planet had more reasonable villains than some of the GOP members. Hoggish Greedly never fucked any kids.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Taking healthcare from millions, deporting children to countries they don't know, actively trying to push dirty energy just for the sake of it -- Captain Planet had more reasonable villains than some of the GOP members. Hoggish Greedly never fucked any kids.


If you would ask Rand Paul he would say the free market give the most health care for the most people, they will have their websites and wonks ready with their climate science is wrong arguments, people were deported back into unpleasant situations under democrats also. You have no real case to paint them as Evil aka Nazis.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> If you would ask Rand Paul he would say the free market give the most health care for the most people, they will have their websites and wonks ready with their climate science is wrong arguments, people were deported back into unpleasant situations under democrats also. You have no real case to paint them as Evil aka Nazis.


Rand Paul needs to get some relaxer. His curls are too tight and their cutting off the air to his brain.

And I will call anyone a Nazi who is flying Nazi flags, doing their salutes, and complaining about the death of the white race. 

Same goes for these traitors (Confederates wannabes). A spade is a spade. I don't sugarcoat what I say.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Rand Paul needs to get some relaxer. His curls are too tight and their cutting off the air to his brain.
> 
> And I will call anyone a Nazi who is flying Nazi flags, doing their salutes, and complaining about the death of the white race.
> 
> Same goes for these traitors (Confederates wannabes). A spade is a spade. I don't sugarcoat what I say.


He is handsome for his age. Probably still has a great ass. You declaring him insane does not help your case. Not evil.

There are more dudes fucking car exhausts than walking around in that unironically with those belief in the US.

Confederate wannabe. Another accurate definition. Could you stop caring about the Civil War already. You are a progressive, move on.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> He is handsome for his age. Probably still has a great ass. You declaring him insane does not help your case. Not evil.
> 
> There are more dudes fucking car exhausts than walking around in that unironically with those belief in the US.
> 
> Confederate wannabe. Another accurate definition. Could you stop caring about the Civil War already. You are a progressive, move on.


I'm declaring him stupid, the free market leads to the problems we have now, just worse because it's somewhat regulated. There's no incentive to do right when your bottom line is at stake. That's why companies that got tax breaks laid off thousands of workers. They don't need to hire people to make money because the government gave it to them and they can get rid of some people and make more by not paying those people. 

And sure, you can believe that shit if you. I actually live in a state where some people still sometimes celebrate a Confederate holiday. And there are more Nazis in this country than you think. There were Nazis here in WWII and they just kind of had to cut it out after the war effort went from passive to aggressive in the US. 

And even more, there's millions of people who think it's okay to be a Nazi. Let's be clear, you can't be good and be a Nazi and I'd argue that if you think someone else being a Nazi is okay, then you're a mess too and probably a little bit racist.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm declaring him stupid, the free market leads to the problems we have now, just worse because it's somewhat regulated. There's no incentive to do right when your bottom line is at stake. That's why companies that got tax breaks laid off thousands of workers. They don't need to hire people to make money because the government gave it to them and they can get rid of some people and make more by not paying those people.
> 
> And sure, you can believe that shit if you. I actually live in a state where some people still sometimes celebrate a Confederate holiday. And there are more Nazis in this country than you think. There were Nazis here in WWII and they just kind of had to cut it out after the war effort went from passive to aggressive in the US.
> 
> And even more, there's millions of people who think it's okay to be a Nazi. Let's be clear, you can't be good and be a Nazi and I'd argue that if you think someone else being a Nazi is okay, then you're a mess too and probably a little bit racist.


The government has incentive to do the right thing because...?

Pretty harmless holiday based on regional identity. To discuss the issues of 2018 let us go back to 1940. Brilliant.

Data on the last pharagraph? What should be done about a tiny amount of people existing while Nazi?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> The government has incentive to do the right thing because...?
> 
> Pretty harmless holiday based on regional identity. To discuss the issues of 2018 let us go back to 1940. Brilliant.
> 
> Data on the last pharagraph? What should be done about a tiny amount of people existing while Nazi?


I'm not here to give you a social studies lecture, but common sense would tell you that government does the right thing because the people are elected to government by the people in the country. The government mostly doesn't work because we allow large companies to bribe politicians to work against best interests of voters.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2018)

reiatsuflow said:


> So how many assholes in the cafe are assholes outside of the cafe? I ask because this huff about the cafe exposing people's political opinions and creating more conflict because it's about real life issues with real life consequences is just a bluff if the people who lose their shit in the cafe also lose their shit discussing anime.
> 
> I'm gonna take a wild guess that every single asshole in the cafe was also an asshole about naruto, and in the same way, developing uncontrollable hatred of other posters because of their opinions about a cartoon.
> 
> ...if you hated sasuke sakura shippers, that doesn't count. They obviously deserved it. No judgment.


You can count on one hand the number of times I've discussed Naruto here in all these years. 

And I really think some people come into the Cafe with an axe to grind or trying to show off or start trouble.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 7, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not here to give you a social studies lecture, but common sense would tell you that government does the right thing because the people are elected to government by the people in the country. The government mostly doesn't work because we allow large companies to bribe politicians to work against best interests of voters.


Long live the holy majority who does not look up who funds their politicians and some of them do not even know who the vice president is. 

So you have no case to call the people you called evil, evil.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Gunners (Feb 9, 2018)

*Do you or do you not fall under the umbrella of a member who injects hostility into threads whilst breaking the global forum rules?*


Seto Kaiba said:


> *Not really. *I use a lot of profanity, and I may call people ignorant or incompetent but I demonstrate why I think that way. It's not like I'm going on calling them a particular slur that would belie any sense of bigotry, or immaterial to my problems with the individual. If I say one lacks reading comprehension or what they've said is stupid, or that they are being stupid, I explain why. Like I said, you can't even get your shit straight.





Person 1: I think there are 13 months in a year. 
Person 2: No, there are 12. 

Person A: I think there are 13 months in a year. 
Person B: No, you ignorant fuck. There are 12 months in a year. 

Demonstrating why you think a certain way does not rob your posts of their hostile and rule breaking nature. I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or you're just socially unaware. 






Seto Kaiba said:


> No, "we" don't. You do.
> 
> You are desperately trying to come to bacon's defense and all you've done is discredit yourself in trying to equate myself to Chie. Any half-competent individual can see the world of difference between us, so it's a question of why you're unable to. Or rather, you are willfully trying to sidestep it rather than admit you may be full of shit here.



I don't know if Baconbits is on your mind too much or if this is the same old tactic of trying to shift the conversation to someone's motives. 

There are differences between you an Chie. As I'm sure I have said, the two of you do not have to be clones of one another to demonstrate my point. If we are going to focus on the the global forum rules, you are both in breach of them (for you, this is clear. If we are going to focus on the hostility and divide caused, you are both issues. That's not something that can be debated. 

You're distinguished by your motives and the quality, which is immaterial. It's immaterial when the argument is that global forum rules need to be upheld when their breach is the cause of hostility and divide. It is proof that Nello is a hypocrite:

_Keep in mind shadow is acting against the global forum rules of NF by allowing trolls
I think that's fair if shadow and bacon agree to comply with the global rules and the cafe becomes less toxic
_
If he sincerely expected them to comply with the global forum rules, if he truly believed they were something they should be followed by the members of staff and that they were wrong for not doing so, he would admit that you are someone who should have been banned for his conduct. He won't admit that because he is either insincere or doesn't want to lose an ally. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Hahahaha.



You're laughing, but you are not making a point. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> I wasn't even banned then. The last two times I was banned was when Mega was a mod and when bacon banned me for calling him a 'dishonest fuck'.
> 
> No, bacon got spiteful at afg and myself getting on his case, and he repeatedly demonstrates that spite even as a mod. For example, when a thread happens and he chooses to not go after say, *the white supremacists* that I go after but my posts specifically. Despite the unambiguous inflammatory nature of the posts that I respond to.
> 
> ...



_There is no material difference in calling him 'dishonest' or a 'dishonest fuck'



Fuck
noun
 8. a person, especially one who is annoying or contemptible.  

_
Telling someone they are dishonest points towards what they are doing; calling someone a dishonest fuck points towards what they are doing and is an insult. In the context of the global forum rules, that difference is material. 

You can't see the forest for the trees and lack the humility to admit any wrong doing on your part. I don't remember the events in great detail but, even as you clarify certain aspects, my point still stands. When the rules are applied by the book, you get removed. You get removed because it is easy to look at your behaviour and see that they are clear violation of the existing rules; lying about there being no material difference between calling someone "dishonest" and calling them a "dishonest fuck" does not change that. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> You can't even recognize those factors, and you've demonstrated repeated inability to differentiate between the two of us.
> 
> It's even sadder still that it hasn't dawned on you this very exchange reveals the glaring world of difference between someone like Chie and myself.
> 
> ...






> *Flaming, baiting, trolling and harassment is not allowed.*
> Don't bully or harass members, guys. Refrain from insults and hostile behavior. Snide, dismissive or disruptive remarks are also discouraged. Try to be tolerant without carrying out character assassination (general personal attacks included) or being a general tool when engaging. This applies to discriminatory remarks aswell (e.g. xenophobia, sexism, racism, etc).Threats like telling people to kill themselves are not tolerated, nor is using someone's images without their permission.
> 
> Barating users in an overly sexual, aggressive or otherwise manner that creates discomfort will also not be tolerated.
> ...



The problem is two-pronged: You don't understand the rules in places and you don't understand your behaviour. 

When you call someone a ''dishonest fuck'', you are moving beyond demonstrating particular traits and firmly into the real of insulting the person. You don't understand that the rules, by the book, ward against repeatedly tagging someone in an attempt to humiliate them: it can be construed as character assassination, harassment, baiting and being a general tool. 

The problem isn't my alleged inability to recognise the difference between you and Chie. The problem is you not realising that the same noose being measured up for his neck will fit comfortably around yours. 



Nello said:


> You're not challenging my reasoning, you're ignoring it.



I have challenged your reasoning. One of the challenges was a simple, stand by your own words; something you couldn't do.

Reactions: Like 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Nello (Feb 9, 2018)

Gunners said:


> I have challenged your reasoning. One of the challenges was a simple, stand by your own words; something you couldn't do.


No, you ignored my primary argument and then claimed that I denied my secondary argument. I stand by the argument that Chie is causing an unnecessary rift in the cafe, but that is far from the only reason I want Chie banned.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 9, 2018)

Nello said:


> No, you ignored my primary argument and then claimed that I denied my secondary argument. I stand by the argument that Chie is causing an unnecessary rift in the cafe, but that is far from the only reason I want Chie banned.



No, I didn't ignore your primary argument. You presented the argument that he was ruining the cohesiveness of the section and injecting hostility into threads with his trolling. When that was challenged, you started to point your finger at the global forum rules with the view that Shadow and Bacon were wrong for not complying with them. 

It is clear that they're not statements you can stand by, so it is clear to me that sincerity is not there for me to respect.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 9, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Person 1: I think there are 13 months in a year.
> Person 2: No, there are 12.
> 
> Person A: I think there are 13 months in a year.
> ...



That's not rulebreaking. You're fucking up. 



Gunners said:


> I don't know if Baconbits is on your mind too much or if this is the same old tactic of trying to shift the conversation to someone's motives.
> 
> There are differences between you an Chie. As I'm sure I have said, the two of you do not have to be clones of one another to demonstrate my point. If we are going to focus on the the global forum rules, you are both in breach of them (for you, this is clear. If we are going to focus on the hostility and divide caused, you are both issues. That's not something that can be debated.
> 
> ...



You haven't. Your memory is getting spotty. On the contrary you tried to equate the two of us.

You can't even establish a proper example of breaking 'global forum rules'.



Gunners said:


> _Fuck
> noun
> 8. a person, especially one who is annoying or contemptible.
> 
> ...



I have called bacon contemptible as well, yes. You're not really doing much to establish a point here.

Calling one dishonest and demonstrating they are dishonest is not an insult, it's a demonstration of fact. 

You keep citing 'global forum rules' and you clearly don't know the first thing of what you're talking about.

Because under your harebrained interpretations me calling him a mere liar would be rulebreaking. It very much isn't.

It's also ironic for you to talk of humility when you haphazardly come to bacon's defense, can't even get Nello's arguments down right nor mine, and trying to excuse the most arrogant guy in this section, i.e., baconbits. 


You're supposed to be a native English speaker yet you lack enough comprehension to understand that this can be so broadly applied that you yourself would be a target. Not to mention, they've elaborated on this multiple times...it's telling of your own dishonesty, an inevitability when defending someone like bacon, that you willfully ignored that. 



Gunners said:


> The problem is two-pronged: You don't understand the rules in places and you don't understand your behaviour.
> 
> When you call someone a ''dishonest fuck'', you are moving beyond demonstrating particular traits and firmly into the real of insulting the person. You don't understand that the rules, by the book, ward against repeatedly tagging someone in an attempt to humiliate them: it can be construed as character assassination, harassment, baiting and being a general tool.
> 
> The problem isn't my alleged inability to recognise the difference between you and Chie. The problem is you not realising that the same noose being measured up for his neck will fit comfortably around yours.



I have repeatedly referred to myself as combative and rude, but someone that makes material arguments and relevant points. You are again, trying to engage in willful dishonesty just to defend bacon's piss-poor reasoning and sidestepping of Nello's arguments. Again, with as vaguely as the posted criteria are you would be under such and so would bacon, and even shadow. Snide remarks are something you do all the time yourself. What you willfully ignored once again, is that the staff in the 10+ years you and I have been here have done is try to elaborate on exactly what falls under such parameters. Calling someone a "^ (use bro)" for example, has a wide difference between calling someone a 'dishonest fuck' especially when the latter is something that can be demonstrated and the former is just a slur.


----------



## Nello (Feb 9, 2018)

Gunners said:


> No, I didn't ignore your primary argument. You presented the argument that he was ruining the cohesiveness of the section and injecting hostility into threads with his trolling. When that was challenged, you started to point your finger at the global forum rules with the view that Shadow and Bacon were wrong for not complying with them.
> 
> It is clear that they're not statements you can stand by, so it is clear to me that sincerity is not there for me to respect.


Feels like i'm debating bacon

Let me remind you of what you said:


Gunners said:


> You have argued the need to take action against those who drive members away and those who cause a divide with their misconduct. You have argued that it is wrong of them to overlook Chie's conduct when it goes against the global forum rules.
> 
> Seto and Chie do not have to be clones of one another for your reasoning to apply to both. In fact, I would go so far as to say it applies more to someone like Seto who is overt in his rule breaking. In your own words, someone Chie skirts the guidelines.


You accuse me of not treating SK and Chie on the same basis. So I point to my arguments that explain what seperates Chie from people like SK.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 9, 2018)

Nello said:


> Feels like i'm debating bacon



You might as well be.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 9, 2018)

Should also point out that Gunners lazy rationale would have this entire section nuked.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 9, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's not rulebreaking. You're fucking up.


I have a billion pounds. I'm fucking rich. 

Alas, it is as I thought. Saying something with conviction is not enough to alter what is truth. By the book, calling someone an "dishonest fuck" is against the rules: it's something that falls under the umbrella of flaming. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> You haven't. Your memory is getting spotty. On the contrary you tried to equate the two of us.
> 
> You can't even establish a proper example of breaking 'global forum rules'.



The problem is that you're treating things as absolutes to serve the claim you're trying to make. Gunners pointed out how the reasoning presented applies equally to Seto and Chie, so that means Gunners does not recognise the difference between Chie and Seto. That line of thinking is wrong. 

As I have said before, when it comes to global forum rules, both of you are in breach of them. When it comes to causing hostility and division, both of you are culpable. You have different motives and the quality of your posts differs, but that is immaterial when we are measuring the result of your actions and whether or not you adhere to the forum rules. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> I have called bacon contemptible as well, yes. You're not really doing much to establish a point here.
> 
> Calling one dishonest and demonstrating they are dishonest is not an insult, it's a demonstration of fact.
> 
> ...



You keep saying that I don't have the ability to establish a global forum rule when the issues is clearly your inability to accept any act you commit as a wrong. Calling someone a ''dishonest fuck" isn't something you get to wave aside as "You're not doing much to establish a point". It establishes that you go beyond demonstrating someone's behaviour and into the realm of insulting their person. 

You could call someone a liar and it would be different to calling them a lying fuck. How long do you continue to act as though labelling someone with a profanity means nothing in discourse? For all of his faults, baconbits has been able to hold his hands up and say "I was wrong", which means, at the least, he's the second most arrogant person in this section next to you. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> You're supposed to be a native English speaker yet you lack enough comprehension to understand that this can be so broadly applied that you yourself would be a target. Not to mention, they've elaborated on this multiple times...it's telling of your own dishonesty, an inevitability when defending someone like bacon, that you willfully ignored that.


It can be broadly applied and at my worst I would be a target. I don't remember denying this so I don't see where the claim of dishonesty comes from. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> I have repeatedly referred to myself as combative and rude, but someone that makes material arguments and relevant points. You are again, trying to engage in willful dishonesty just to defend bacon's piss-poor reasoning and sidestepping of Nello's arguments. Again, with as vaguely as the posted criteria are you would be under such and so would bacon, and even shadow. Snide remarks are something you do all the time yourself. What you willfully ignored once again, is that the staff in the 10+ years you and I have been here have done is try to elaborate on exactly what falls under such parameters. Calling someone a "^ (use bro)" for example, has a wide difference between calling someone a 'dishonest fuck' especially when the latter is something that can be demonstrated and the former is just a slur.



Yeah, unlike you, I can actually hold my hand up in the air and say ''Some of my conduct would get me banned." I don't have a problem appreciating the leeway provided by the lax nature of the staff. 

There's a wide difference between beating someone into hospital and giving someone a black eye. They are both offences but by your logic the wide difference should result in people overlooking battery. By your logic it would also be okay to call someone a "dishonest ^ (use bro)" since the dishonest part can be demonstrated.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Feb 9, 2018)

Chie has already said he trolls because making "normal posts" get no attention. The majority of his posts have no factual basis; he often misquotes articles to spin them in unfavorable ways; and he is fine with genocide.

Kaiba, on the other hand, makes posts whilst linking evidence to corroborate what he's saying. What's the point of attempting to conflate their behavior?  it achieves nothing. Kaiba is the type of poster that is worthwhile to have around, whereas Chie isn't.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Gunners (Feb 9, 2018)

Nello said:


> Feels like i'm debating bacon
> 
> Let me remind you of what you said:You accuse me of not treating SK and Chie on the same basis. So I point to my arguments that explain what seperates Chie from people like SK.



You pointed towards differences that are immaterial. Repeating myself: 

If he sincerely expected them to comply with the global forum rules, if he truly believed they were something they should be followed by the members of staff and that they were wrong for not doing so, he would admit that you are someone who should have been banned for his conduct. He won't admit that because he is either insincere or doesn't want to lose an ally.

You have argued what? That Seto isn't a troll and is honest. That might be the case but in order to keep him around, you're going to have to ask the members of staff not to follow the global forum rules where he is concerned. That you feel this way makes you hypocrite for pointing out their failure to comply with the rules as an issue.


----------



## Nello (Feb 9, 2018)

Gunners said:


> You pointed towards differences that are immaterial. Repeating myself:
> 
> If he sincerely expected them to comply with the global forum rules, if he truly believed they were something they should be followed by the members of staff and that they were wrong for not doing so, he would admit that you are someone who should have been banned for his conduct. He won't admit that because he is either insincere or doesn't want to lose an ally.
> 
> You have argued what? That Seto isn't a troll and is honest. That might be the case but in order to keep him around, you're going to have to ask the members of staff not to follow the global forum rules where he is concerned. That you feel this way makes you hypocrite for pointing out their failure to comply with the rules as an issue.


Did you just quote something you said to someone else and assume i'd read it 

I don't believe SK has broken any of the global rules. He's certainly been abrasive, but never without a legitimate criticism afaik. However shadow admitted that Chie is a troll. There's no doubt that Chie is in violation of the global rules.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 9, 2018)

Nello said:


> Did you just quote something you said to someone else and assume i'd read it
> 
> I don't believe SK has broken any of the global rules. He's certainly been abrasive, but never without a legitimate criticism afaik. However shadow admitted that Chie is a troll. There's no doubt that Chie is in violation of the global rules.



Yeah I did quote something I said to someone else. If you don't want to read it, . 

This gets even better. If shadow were to, let's say, admit that Seto flames people, would that remove all doubt that Seto is breaking forum rules? His statements aren't something that places certainty on one person's act whilst another's exist with some doubt. 

You have moved from hypocrisy into dishonesty. The presence of legitimate criticism isn't something that stops a post from being inflammatory which is what many of Seto's posts are. The presence of legitimate criticism isn't something that stops the repeated tagging of a member to call him pathetic and/or put him on the spot from falling under umbrella of harassment (capable of existing on a forum).


----------



## baconbits (Feb 9, 2018)

His Royal Majesty ZatchRaven of Östersjöarna said:


> Chie has already said he trolls because making "normal posts" get no attention. The majority of his posts have no factual basis; he often misquotes articles to spin them in unfavorable ways; and he is fine with genocide.
> 
> Kaiba, on the other hand, makes posts whilst linking evidence to corroborate what he's saying. What's the point of attempting to conflate their behavior?  it achieves nothing. Kaiba is the type of poster that is worthwhile to have around, whereas Chie isn't.



It's not conflation, it's a comparison.  A comparison does not make the two things being compared equal; it only uses a similarity in one aspect to explain that same similarity in another situation.  For example, "that guy smells like a dog" is probably not always true.  It's a comparison so that those who didn't smell the guy but know what a dog smells like have a common point of reference.

In this situation Chie and Seto are not the same.  However if Nello is honest about is concern for division in the Cafe he can't defend Seto.  If he really wants the global rules he needs to support banning more than just those he listed.


----------



## Nello (Feb 9, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Yeah I did quote something I said to someone else. If you don't want to read it, .
> 
> This gets even better. If shadow were to, let's say, admit that Seto flames people, would that remove all doubt that Seto is breaking forum rules? His statements aren't something that places certainty on one person's act whilst another's exist with some doubt.
> 
> You have moved from hypocrisy into dishonesty. The presence of legitimate criticism isn't something that stops a post from being inflammatory which is what many of Seto's posts are. The presence of legitimate criticism isn't something that stops the repeated tagging of a member to call him pathetic and/or put him on the spot from falling under umbrella of harassment (capable of existing on a forum).


Well that went over your head. You expect one thing out of me but won't do it yourself

If I believed SK was flaming someone and a moderator of the relevant section confirmed it then yes, that would remove all doubt in my mind. This is not the case with SK. I shouldn't have to repeat this so many times.


----------



## Nello (Feb 9, 2018)

baconbits said:


> It's not conflation, it's a comparison.  A comparison does not make the two things being compared equal; it only uses a similarity in one aspect to explain that same similarity in another situation.  For example, "that guy smells like a dog" is probably not always true.  It's a comparison so that those who didn't smell the guy but know what a dog smells like have a common point of reference.
> 
> In this situation Chie and Seto are not the same.  However if Nello is honest about is concern for division in the Cafe he can't defend Seto.  If he really wants the global rules he needs to support banning more than just those he listed.


I can't believe i'm gonna have to repeat this again

Chie's divisive influence is completely unnecessary because it stems from trolling
SK on the other hand makes legitimate criticisms. His (less) divisive influence is a necessary evil because it stems from legitimate arguments. I do not want to ban everyone who says something rude.

And this is important because Chie is NOT going to make people more understanding of his views, far from it, but SK very well might


----------



## baconbits (Feb 9, 2018)

Nello said:


> I can't believe i'm gonna have to repeat this again
> 
> Chie's divisive influence is completely unnecessary *because it stems from trolling*
> SK on the other hand* makes legitimate criticisms*. *His (less) divisive influence is a necessary evi*l because it stems from legitimate arguments. I do not want to ban everyone who says something rude.
> ...



These are very dubious claims.  First, you're the one defining trolling in such a way that it would actually ban Seto, not me.  Under my guidelines he's allowed to post.  Under yours he'd be banned... if you were consistent.

Second, his criticisms might or might not be legitimate.  It depends on your personal views.  But his behavior can hardly be called a "necessary evil".  A necessary evil is killing someone who is about to kill someone else.  It's not a necessary evil to add insults into what would otherwise be a normal argument.

Third, I don't find Seto convincing in the least.  I've found that people who behave abrasively are less persuasive than people who aren't.  He's polarizing.


----------



## Nello (Feb 9, 2018)

baconbits said:


> These are very dubious claims.  First, you're the one defining trolling in such a way that it would actually ban Seto, not me.  Under my guidelines he's allowed to post.  Under yours he'd be banned... if you were consistent.
> 
> Second, his criticisms might or might not be legitimate.  It depends on your personal views.  But his behavior can hardly be called a "necessary evil".  A necessary evil is killing someone who is about to kill someone else.  It's not a necessary evil to add insults into what would otherwise be a normal argument.
> 
> Third, I don't find Seto convincing in the least.  I've found that people who behave abrasively are less persuasive than people who aren't.  He's polarizing.


Wtf are you on about  Under my guidelines the mods would actually exercise judgement instead of acting like a broken machine incapable of thought. And I told you I wouldn't ban SK, so your story doesn't really add up.

Yes he could make his arguments without the spice perfectly fine, but that's not realistic. People are going to get heated, and that's why you need a certain amount of leeway in order to foster productive discussions.

He may be less convincing because he's abrasive, but he can still be convincing.


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 9, 2018)

Going back and forth between the two threads is tough work


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 9, 2018)

baconbits said:


> These are very dubious claims.  First, you're the one defining trolling in such a way that it would actually ban Seto, not me.  Under my guidelines he's allowed to post.  Under yours he'd be banned... if you were consistent.
> 
> Second, his criticisms might or might not be legitimate.  It depends on your personal views.  But his behavior can hardly be called a "necessary evil".  A necessary evil is killing someone who is about to kill someone else.  It's not a necessary evil to add insults into what would otherwise be a normal argument.
> 
> Third, I don't find Seto convincing in the least.  I've found that people who behave abrasively are less persuasive than people who aren't.  He's polarizing.




You're not even trying to acknowledge her argument. Don't talk of consistency when your selectivity is part of the problem to begin with.

Bacon, the only reason you aren't polarizing is because everyone knows your opinions are shit. Yet if you don't think you're nothing short of a punching bag here, you should probably tune back in to reality. As for your criteria on whether or not I'm convincing...forgive me if I consider you one that has little credibility there. Especially your demonstrable and consistent failures in that department.


My abrasive personality is simply an excuse for you to pretend that I don't mount substantial refutation. As you exhibit the same dismissive attitude with any person or fact that runs contrary to your ideological and theological dogma.

It's also funny that you have bitched that I have some bandwagon behind me, yet I'm supposed to be polarizing and unconvincing at the same time?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 9, 2018)

Nello said:


> Wtf are you on about  Under my guidelines the mods would actually exercise judgement instead of acting like a broken machine incapable of thought. And I told you I wouldn't ban SK, so your story doesn't really add up.



We exercise judgment now.  You simply don't like our conclusions.  But the problem is that for you "judgment" is an insult and a cop out.  You can't admit that your rules don't make sense, so you appeal to judgment and claim they don't have to.  In other words you know you can't apply your rules uniformly, but you want a staff member to ignore the rules when you want them to.

Yet... you can't accept that we might ignore a rule that is in the global rulebook.  It's a contradictory position.



Nello said:


> Yes he could make his arguments without the spice perfectly fine, but that's not realistic. People are going to get heated, and that's why you need a certain amount of leeway in order to foster productive discussions.



Amazing.  You can give leeway to Seto, because a little heat is acceptable but you can't give leeway to Chie, because he causes divisions.  You're not doing a good job convincing me you're not biased.



Nello said:


> He may be less convincing because he's abrasive, but he can still be convincing.



The point is that his abrasiveness doesn't help him; it doesn't help anyone.  It's merely fluff that gets in the way of a good discussion.  I'm just amazed you think your argument has any internal consistency when you can accept Seto's nonsense but claim that Chie's is a step too far.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You're not even trying to acknowledge her argument.



Responding to it logically is acknowledging it.  I reject the argument.

You shouldn't even be here to be honest.  You don't even agree with their position; you're merely jumping on the bandwagon.  You've said yourself you wouldn't ban Chie, so its disingenuous to come in and pretend to refute the very arguments you agree with simply because I'm making them.  Show some intellectual integrity.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 9, 2018)

baconbits said:


> Responding to it logically is acknowledging it. I reject the argument.
> 
> You shouldn't even be here to be honest. You don't even agree with their position; you're merely jumping on the bandwagon. You've said yourself you wouldn't ban Chie, so its disingenuous to come in and pretend to refute the very arguments you agree with simply because I'm making them. Show some intellectual integrity.



"Logically". Dodging it is not logical. You reject it by consequence of refusing to acknowledge it. You reject it because you're incapable of truly addressing it.

I'm acknowledging their argument, that's the difference. Ah that bandwagon bitching again! Ever dawn on you that you may be just too incompetent for your position, and that's why you have such pushback? No, I wouldn't ban Chie...Not hastily at least, but I do have another plan in mind to deal with them. Banning would only be a last resort, and with consideration of what they've laid out here more specifically. Truth of the matter is you and shadow have failed this section in some fairly basic ways, and I do chalk it up to your individual traits that you exhibit when you encounter any kind of challenge in other contexts. Your own ineptitude in particular...

Pfft, "intellectual integrity" bacon you don't know the meaning of the word. Don't pretend like you have any integrity here.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 9, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You reject it because you're incapable of truly addressing it.



It's been addressed multiple times, by myself, @Gunners , @mr_shadow and @erictheking .  In my opinion you know that side of the argument has been beaten and you've decided to snipe from the sidelines, even tho it's the side of the argument you're actually on, lol.  It's disingenuous.  There's no need to try to put any other face on it.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No, I wouldn't ban Chie...



Lol.  You should have just stopped there and retained some sensibility.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 9, 2018)

baconbits said:


> It's been addressed multiple times, by myself, @Gunners , @mr_shadow and @erictheking .  In my opinion you know that side of the argument has been beaten and you've decided to snipe from the sidelines, even tho it's the side of the argument you're actually on, lol.  It's disingenuous.  There's no need to try to put any other face on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  You should have just stopped there and retained some sensibility.



Gunners didn't address it. As a matter of fact the guy was so desperate to have your back he tried to retort with such a broad application that would see himself and you gone included. "In your opinion", means shit because I know how much you actively disregard basic facts to form your opinion on anything. I'm sniping from the sidelines by directly addressing you? No. I'm making a point that there is a world of difference between a hostile individual (me), or someone that has shit, ignorant views (you), and someone that is unambiguously a troll with nothing to offer (Chie). The reason I wouldn't be so quick to ban Chie is because I'd want to build the case to do so with the points again, Nello and Island raised. I just emphasized before it will become a problem for example if everyone has to be told to put him on ignore on a constant basis there is an undeniable factor there that you willfully dodge. This is where Gunners in particular fucks up, but you know if he wants to come up rolling in here like he's posting on some hip-hop forum, he'd only be fucking it up even more.

You keep using terms that you have no understanding of, and exhibit none of yourself.


----------



## Nello (Feb 10, 2018)

baconbits said:


> We exercise judgment now. You simply don't like our conclusions. But the problem is that for you "judgment" is an insult and a cop out. You can't admit that your rules don't make sense, so you appeal to judgment and claim they don't have to. In other words you know you can't apply your rules uniformly, but you want a staff member to ignore the rules when you want them to.
> 
> Yet... you can't accept that we might ignore a rule that is in the global rulebook. It's a contradictory position.


Are you even reading? I just defended that word. Your interpretation of the rules is completely black and white, which is why they get so easily circumvented and abused. Using your judgement is what every other section does, so don't tell me my rules don't make sense.


baconbits said:


> Amazing. You can give leeway to Seto, because a little heat is acceptable but you can't give leeway to Chie, because he causes divisions. You're not doing a good job convincing me you're not biased.


You're not reading a word i'm typing. I have very clearly explained why SK's abrasiveness is acceptable and Chie's is not.


baconbits said:


> The point is that his abrasiveness doesn't help him; it doesn't help anyone. It's merely fluff that gets in the way of a good discussion. I'm just amazed you think your argument has any internal consistency when you can accept Seto's nonsense but claim that Chie's is a step too far.


I just told you it doesn't help anyone. Your reading comprehension can't possibly be this bad.

It's a necessary evil because everyone can be abrasive, and we don't want to ban everyone. We want to ban those who are purely toxic and contribute nothing.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 10, 2018)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Gunners didn't address it. As a matter of fact the guy was so desperate to have your back he tried to retort with such a broad application that would see himself and you gone included. "In your opinion", means shit because I know how much you actively disregard basic facts to form your opinion on anything. I'm sniping from the sidelines by directly addressing you? No. I'm making a point that there is a world of difference between a hostile individual (me), or someone that has shit, ignorant views (you), and someone that is unambiguously a troll with nothing to offer (Chie). The reason I wouldn't be so quick to ban Chie is because I'd want to build the case to do so with the points again, Nello and Island raised. I just emphasized before it will become a problem for example if everyone has to be told to put him on ignore on a constant basis there is an undeniable factor there that you willfully dodge. This is where Gunners in particular fucks up, but you know if he wants to come up rolling in here like he's posting on some hip-hop forum, he'd only be fucking it up even more.
> 
> You keep using terms that you have no understanding of, and exhibit none of yourself.


Anyone on the right put him on ignore? if so, why?


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 12, 2018)

Just wanted to let everyone know that the staff is discussing the concerns that have been brought up. Change obviously comes at a snail's pace around here but you're not being ignored. Bacon and shadow (believe me or not) do care about what Cafe regulars say. We obviously can't please everyone in here but we're always striving to improve the quality of the section as a whole. The overall trajectory of change and improvement is better compared to several years ago. It's still slow but just know that we're trying, for better or worse.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 12, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> Bacon and shadow (believe me or not) do care about what Cafe regulars say.


Why? They are a bunch of assholes.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Darkmatter (Feb 12, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> Bacon and shadow (believe me or not) do care about what Cafe regulars say.



Based on what I've read and how they responded, I have my doubts.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 12, 2018)

Kalondo Zephyrin said:


> Why? They are a bunch of assholes.





Darkmatter said:


> Based on what I've read and how they responded, I have my doubts.



Well, it's impossible to please everyone no matter what section we're talking about. Throw in the incredibly tense political times we live in and the situation looks that much more difficult. Shadow and bacon have been very robust in what they can take in terms of criticism and I honestly think the members who post in earnest have also been generously patient. Political discussion is just a really hard thing to mod even on the best of days.

Any protectiveness I show towards bacon or shadow comes from more than staff solidarity. We're all responsible for what happens on the forum (especially at higher levels). Section mods make day-to-day decisions in threads but they are beholden to overall staff discussion about how things should be done. You can say we all suck and I wouldn't throw you in e-jail for that statement, but responsibility as a whole is shared.

_*ducks flying cabbage*_


----------



## Darkmatter (Feb 12, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> Well, it's impossible to please everyone no matter what section we're talking about. Throw in the incredibly tense political times we live in and the situation looks that much more difficult. Shadow and bacon have been very robust in what they can take in terms of criticism and I honestly think the members who post in earnest have also been generously patient. Political discussion is just a really hard thing to mod even on the best of days.
> 
> Any protectiveness I show towards bacon or shadow comes from more than staff solidarity. We're all responsible for what happens on the forum (especially at higher levels). Section mods make day-to-day decisions in threads but they are beholden to overall staff discussion about how things should be done. You can say we all suck and I wouldn't throw you in e-jail for that statement, but responsibility as a whole is shared.
> 
> _*ducks flying cabbage*_



I don't understand what's so difficult to understand though. I'm only asking to crack down on trolling, something that users like Chie and Thorin (although changed his name) has been doing for a long time now.
It has nothing to do with political affiliations nor does it have anything to do with "banning people over disagreement" the way Bacon and many people in the complaint thread are talking about.

I've made my point about how people like IchLiebe and Junta hold some of the most unpopular and extreme views that could stir controversy, but at the very least, majority of the people knows that they're serious and firmly believes what they spew. People like them aren't a problem in the Cafe, and they never will be a problem.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 12, 2018)

I can’t get into specifics, but just know that we’re discussing everything and things will adjust to reflect changing ideas about Cafe culture (even if it takes longer than it ought to). Thanks for being understanding in spite of how messed up things may seem. I care and I know other staff members care too. All I can really offer at the moment is that this isn’t being ignored.


----------



## Darkmatter (Feb 12, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> I can’t get into specifics, but just know that we’re discussing everything and things will adjust to reflect changing ideas about Cafe culture (even if it takes longer than it ought to). Thanks for being understanding in spite of how messed up things may seem. I care and I know other staff members care too. All I can really offer at the moment is that this isn’t being ignored.



Fair enough.
It's just that it's really pointless to make any form of point in the complaint thread when it got derailed and turned into a pit of flame.

At least you got my message. I strongly agree that the Cafe shouldn't be some Echo-Chamber and that people with various positions deserves to be heard, but I also don't wish the Cafe to turn into complete anarchy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 13, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> I can’t get into specifics, but just know that we’re discussing everything and things will adjust to reflect changing ideas about Cafe culture (even if it takes longer than it ought to). Thanks for being understanding in spite of how messed up things may seem. I care and I know other staff members care too. All I can really offer at the moment is that this isn’t being ignored.



Kind of like how "We'll look into moving the Cafe section up." 

This is going to be another issue where no progress will be made and be swept underneath the rug when people don't bring awareness as much. The cliche "thank you for your patience, we'll get back to you" only goes so far.


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Kind of like how "We'll look into moving the Cafe section up."
> 
> This is going to be another issue where no progress will be made and be swept underneath the rug when people don't bring awareness as much. The cliche "thank you for your patience, we'll get back to you" only goes so far.



I know I sound downright corporate at times, but I’m being completely real with you. Slowly shifting the overall philosophy of the section is more important in the big picture than any specific incident. I know this is infuriating when specifics matter but from my point of view, it’s like making sure the foundations of a house are solid. When section culture is improved from the roots it has the greatest impact. Flaming has been handled this way and, in my opinion, other facets of forum behavior need to be looked at in a similar manner.

Anyone who wants to post their opinions in a reasonable way should think of it as a vote. You might not see immediate change but any change you do see will impact everything it touches. I know that’s unsatisfying but it’s the best way to see lasting improvement.


----------



## EJ (Feb 13, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> I know I sound downright corporate at times, but I’m being completely real with you. Slowly shifting the overall philosophy of the section is more important in the big picture than any specific incident. I know this is infuriating when specifics matter but from my point of view, it’s like making sure the foundations of a house are solid. When section culture is improved from the roots it has the greatest impact. Flaming has been handled this way and, in my opinion, other facets of forum behavior need to be looked at in a similar manner.
> 
> Anyone who wants to post their opinions in a reasonable way should think of it as a vote. You might not see immediate change but any change you do see will impact everything it touches. I know that’s unsatisfying but it’s the best way to see lasting improvement.



IMO, that's the issues with the mods in general. You all make decisions or state to have 'discussions' that are supposed to account for long-term planning for a section while keeping the users who post within the section out of the loop. The decision to move the Cafe to the bottom of the section, for example, wasn't brought up to the regulars of the section. It was just swiftly done. The decision to implement an overly harsh policy on anything that could be considered flaming or flame-baiting pissed a lot of users off, in which the moderation had to backpedal at one point. 

Past decisions that were made in regards to the Cafe in which many users had issues with could had potentially been avoided if you all had been transparent, as opposed to trying to have secretive discussions where you'll have moderators giving their input about how to best mod the section when they don't even post or view the section as often. 

Why can't a decision be made with actual regulars that post there in the loop? Why do you all need a separate thread to have this discussion?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> IMO, that's the issues with the mods in general. You all make decisions or state to have 'discussions' that are supposed to account for long-term planning for a section while keeping the users who post within the section out of the loop. The decision to move the Cafe to the bottom of the section, for example, wasn't brought up to the regulars of the section. It was just swiftly done. The decision to implement an overly harsh policy on anything that could be considered flaming or flame-baiting pissed a lot of users off, in which the moderation had to backpedal at one point.
> 
> Past decisions that were made in regards to the Cafe in which many users had issues with could had potentially been avoided if you all had been transparent, as opposed to trying to have secretive discussions where you'll have moderators giving their input about how to best mod the section when they don't even post or view the section as often.
> 
> Why can't a decision be made with actual regulars that post there in the loop? Why do you all need a separate thread to have this discussion?



That’s a fair question. I’ll readily agree with you that the top Cafe posters are likely to be more familiar with the section than some of the mods who give input. That’s why it’s so important for people in here voice their opinions. The most influential voices are always going to be from those who know the section best, regardless of rank or title. The aggregate of rational opinions shapes our overall policy and approach. 

When the Cafe was moved, the current Cafe mods and regulars had nothing to do with it. That’s not how we do things now. There has been a big push for more transparency and I view that as a change for the better.

It’s not _easier_ to listen to regulars and I wonder if a mod from another forum would see me posting right now and wonder wtf I’m doing. It’s far simpler to “rule” with absolutism. The current staff bends over backwards to avoid excessive force and to offer explanations for their actions because it’s the right thing to do in these circumstances. There may be exceptions to this, but on the whole I think things have changed. A few years ago I would not have been able to discuss this so candidly.

I do have to repeat that it’s impossible to please everyone. There will always be some members or mods left with a sour taste in their mouth. These people might be downright disgusted with decisions made. That’s the nature of a somewhat democratic approach. If a majority of people are happy with whatever changed, that’s probably the best we can hope for.

I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you that things will work out. In fact, it would be a mistake for me to promise that. All I can do is reiterate that the current approach takes very seriously what top contributors have to say.


----------



## Nello (Feb 13, 2018)

I'll believe there's transparency and accountability when I see it. You can't blame the political climate for the dishonesty and disregard demonstrated by the mods.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Why can't a decision be made with actual regulars that post there in the loop? Why do you all need a separate thread to have this discussion?


Section stuff has traditionally been the dedicated mods + admins making most of the decisions, more or less. Decisions like section placement are often meta-related stuff that admins have to deal with.  Suppose for instance the cafe was right at the top of the home page.  It would be the most visible section to new guests, which means posts containing profanity, political and social controversies and so on will have more of a magnifying glass on them which affects SEO, increases the likelihood of Google wagging its finger and so on.  That's a decision the admins have to concern themselves with because they're the ones that have to deal with the constant headaches of copyright trolls, search engine optimization and so on.

Involving regulars more in decision making is a newer development due to the current staff personnel and the shifting tides of forum dynamics, but this is a change calibrated in intensity to how beneficial outside opinions are deemed to be for the forum as a whole, not an outright change to a democratic system. Don't forget, Megaharrison would've laughed any idea of "opinions" from regulars out of the building.  Bacon's soliciting of outside opinions (regardless of how faithful you think they've been to the consensus) is arguably the first of its kind in cafe modship.  Before bacon was shadow, before shadow was shadow, amanda and distracted, before them was megaharrison, before him was Jello.  Cafe regulars have never actually decided how they were modded at all, to any degree, until recently, and even now there's a mistaken assumption of "we get to choose" going around partially (and ironically) due to bacon soliciting input in a lot of his decisions.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 13, 2018)

Nello said:


> I'll believe there's transparency and accountability when I see it. You can't blame the political climate for the dishonesty and disregard demonstrated by the mods.


You shoud never trust most mods in the first place. Sorry bacon.


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Feb 13, 2018)

Kitsune is one of the progenitors of more democracy on the forum and open-sourced decisions via members. She's not the one to be yelling at.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 13, 2018)

His Royal Majesty ZatchRaven of Östersjöarna said:


> Kitsune is one of the progenitors of more democracy on the forum and open-sourced decisions via members. She's not the one to be yelling at.



As much as I’d love to take credit for this, it was all bacon’s idea to ask Cafe members for direct input on Cafe policy. If anything, I’ve changed my viewpoint from being on the other side of the spectrum _because_ of mods like bacon and Trinity who have pushed for more openness. It might be a little bit harder once you open that door because the complaints come flooding in but in the long run I think it’s good for the prosperity of the forum.

Reactions: Friendly 2


----------



## A Optimistic (Feb 14, 2018)

I'm probably in the minority but I actually think bacon is one of the top 3 best mods on this site.

Never had a problem with him...yet. We'll see if that opinion ever changes.

Reactions: Friendly 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 14, 2018)

Kitsune said:


> As much as I’d love to take credit for this, it was all bacon’s idea to ask Cafe members for direct input on Cafe policy. If anything, I’ve changed my viewpoint from being on the other side of the spectrum _because_ of mods like bacon and Trinity who have pushed for more openness. It might be a little bit harder once you open that door because the complaints come flooding in but in the long run I think it’s good for the prosperity of the forum.



I don't dislike you but your words carry little value at this point. He's not even being open. He's just wanting to affirm something to himself.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Feb 14, 2018)

Kits is being 100% serious even if it doesn't look like it right now.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 15, 2018)

For all it's worth it sounds Bacon is really trying to reach an agreement with the community, considering he made a thread about trolling and all.

A lot of us are disguted with his ideological views or the very... pragmatic way he defends them, but I think we should separate Bacon the mod from bacon the debater. The mod is not perfect, but is not that bad either. I was expecting a worse response from Nello's thread in the Complaints forum.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 15, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> For all it's worth it sounds Bacon is really trying to reach an agreement with the community, considering he made a thread about trolling and all.
> 
> A lot of us are disguted with his ideological views or the very... pragmatic way he defends them, but I think we should separate Bacon the mod from bacon the debater. The mod is not perfect, but is not that bad either. I was expecting a worse response from Nello's thread in the Complaints forum.



They are the same person. There is no separation of the two.


----------



## Tarot (Feb 16, 2018)

Lol, the other threads have been a complete waste of time. The mods ineptitude reminds me of when I used to troll on Narutobase and got away with it for the same reason. This isn't a fucking government entity where there need be some strict criterion to take action lest some horrible human rights abuse occur. It doesn't take a lawyer to know when someone is being facetious. If someone is obviously derailing from productive environment, snuff them out or else keep abusing the inaction. 

You guys are the dumbest contradiction of taking your jobs too highly while also not giving a shit. It's pretty stupid to try to be so concerned about future problems of stricter moderation, but not give a shit about current problems. If you can't trust your own judgement then give up your mod powers to someone else who will. The decision making should go to those whom contribute most to the cafe and its improvement, not a bunch of detached admins.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 3


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 16, 2018)

That's the oddest thing, it's like they both want to take the job so seriously, but also not do anything at the same time.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 16, 2018)

Tarot said:


> Lol, the other threads have been a complete waste of time. The mods ineptitude reminds me of when I used to troll on Narutobase and got away with it for the same reason. This isn't a fucking government entity where there need be some strict criterion to take action lest some horrible human rights abuse occur. It doesn't take a lawyer to know when someone is being facetious. If someone is obviously derailing from productive environment, snuff them out or else keep abusing the inaction.


I seen mods describe political opponents as subhuman. That's why it's had and the precedents are important.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's the oddest thing, it's like they both want to take the job so seriously, but also not do anything at the same time.



I works as well as it could in this format.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 16, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's the oddest thing, it's like they both want to take the job so seriously, but also not do anything at the same time.



You can disagree with what we've done but you can't be serious and say we've done nothing.  We've gotten the Cafe moved back up to the downtown, we've updated the rules on flaming and now we're tackling trolling.  Anyone being honest would admit that the Cafe has improved since Shadow and I have started here.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## EJ (Feb 16, 2018)

Tarot said:


> Lol, the other threads have been a complete waste of time. The mods ineptitude reminds me of when I used to troll on Narutobase and got away with it for the same reason. This isn't a fucking government entity where there need be some strict criterion to take action lest some horrible human rights abuse occur. It doesn't take a lawyer to know when someone is being facetious. If someone is obviously derailing from productive environment, snuff them out or else keep abusing the inaction.
> 
> You guys are the dumbest contradiction of taking your jobs too highly while also not giving a shit. It's pretty stupid to try to be so concerned about future problems of stricter moderation, but not give a shit about current problems. If you can't trust your own judgement then give up your mod powers to someone else who will. The decision making should go to those whom contribute most to the cafe and its improvement, not a bunch of detached admins.



I agree with you entirely.  One who is actively not good at calling someone for what it is, another for being disingenuous and believing trolls should have a right to post in the section. After a while it increasingly becomes clear that it's pointless.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Feb 24, 2018)

I actually liked it more when the Cafe was down below. I could easily go here from Mafia and back to it. Now I have to scroll up to Chatterbox and places I don't go to.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## EJ (Feb 24, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Darkmatter (Feb 24, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I actually liked it more when the Cafe was down below. I could easily go here from Mafia and back to it. Now I have to scroll up to Chatterbox and places I don't go to.



Or use a better method that I use: Bookmark the places of the forum for easy navigation.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 24, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I actually liked it more when the Cafe was down below. I could easily go here from Mafia and back to it. Now I have to scroll up to Chatterbox and places I don't go to.


Hear hear!

Now the mafia sits lonely. Perhaps it can be moved downtown?


----------



## aiyanah (Feb 25, 2018)

tabs people


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Feb 25, 2018)

Tarot said:


> Lol, the other threads have been a complete waste of time. The mods ineptitude reminds me of when I used to troll on Narutobase and got away with it for the same reason. This isn't a fucking government entity where there need be some strict criterion to take action lest some horrible human rights abuse occur. It doesn't take a lawyer to know when someone is being facetious. If someone is obviously derailing from productive environment, snuff them out or else keep abusing the inaction.



If 3 more random right wing regulars would start posting in the Cafe...

Thhis place is horrible!!!!!!!!!!  Racist!!!!!!!!  Unproductive!!!!!!!!!!  MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should anyone care about people who don't challenge their own minds with ideas of the other side and see them as subhuman think?

Reactions: Winner 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Detective (Feb 25, 2018)

tfw there is no seperation between Church and State, and logic is thrown in jail for being too much of a security risk


----------

