140

You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:

I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:

  1. Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?

Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.

  1. Why now?

Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.

  1. Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?

The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.

The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.

Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.

30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 19 points 1 month ago

I checked my block list and already had this covered. I don't need that kind of shit in my life. But good on you for making it a better place for everyone. I 100% support banning folks just to make a board less miserable to visit. Both sides is good. Agenda is bad.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Playing devil's advocate here... I exclusively post news from sources on the left to the center. Doesn't that mean I more or less have an agenda?

I think the issue is more so the specificity and the precision in their posts always being about one person.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

See, I'm not interested in Devil's advocacy. The board was overwhelmed by negativity that just made me want to not come here at all. When I blocked them, this became a better place to hang out immediately.

I don't care about the justification (either of the moderation or how I enjoy the board). All the rules and everything is just an attempt to codify how to keep the place enjoyable and useful. If someone makes the place less enjoyable or useful, get rid of them. I don't have room in my life to engage with people or content that just makes me want to be elsewhere.

It's super easy for me to agree when I already had the dude blocked, of course. If there was a voice I liked hearing from, I'm sure I'd feel this is all very dictatorial. But I don't. I think that person is insufferable and people coming to the board for the first time are more likely to stay without their posts being here. And that's plenty of justification for me.

Edit: snipped a paragraph that was just rambling and redundant.

God damn this was way longer and more effort than I wanted to put into this. Guaranteed autocorrect has fucked up a bunch of things I'll need to edit if I even catch them.

Anyway, tldr: fuck that guy and glad riddance. That was an autocorrect failure but I like it so I'm leaving it.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth -4 points 1 month ago

shit, at least you admit you don’t care because you don’t like them.

Everyone else is trying to pretend different

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

Other people are allowed their reasons. They don't have to secretly feel the same way I do. I speak for exactly one person - me.

I already had this person blocked because I felt they contributed negatively to the experience of being here. That's a subjective call, but if the mod happens to agree, I want him to know he has my full support in his efforts to make this a nice place to visit for anyone who doesn't like being around insufferable assholes. Those are my kind of people. I don't personally need any rules cited or clarified, but mine isn't the only perspective.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

It's really just the bad faith part that matters the most. Pushing your opinion is fine if you're honest with what your position is

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

Except from the post it looks like he was banned because he was honest about his opinion (e.g. 'I don't like biden, i prefer articles that support that opinion')

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

What do you suppose ozma's actual opinion was, then?

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

You don't understand propaganda do you?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

When centrists can't answer a question, they get condescending.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth -4 points 1 month ago

Was ozma not?

I think they were perfectly honest about their feelings

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
140 points (76.9% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2857 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS