Life Under The Bridge

[FrancisK]

Guys, over the last three pages, this thread has gone from being entertaining and hilarious to being needlessly antagonizing and largely useless for the readers.

We can have fun, use satire, playfully tease each other, make jokes etc; but slinging mud isn't entertaining nor is it sustainable. Tit-for-tat caustic bickering doesn't add value to the forum, it won't encourage more members to join us, and it represents an opportunity cost, whereby existing members could have spent that time adding value elsewhere on CiK or doing more useful things offline. Please consider your audience when communicating.

I hope to use clear communications, reasoned arguments, and alternative solutions to encourage desired behaviors here. However, persistent neglect or severe disregard of the rules will result in suspensions or bans. For the good of the forum, please consider the below directions moving forward. Thanks for your consideration and all the best.

---

@Shaquilleoatmeal I recognize your dedication in contributing to CiK. I understand the need to defend oneself and the desire to seek fair treatment. That makes sense, and all involved parties have been cautioned for the part they played. Nonetheless, you have been warned multiple times for posting in an unnecessarily aggressive manner. If you don't want people to insult and attack you... then don't insult and attack others. Your screenshotting of edited posts is also concerning and is not aligned with the spirit of the forum.

Further, I attempted to use reason in response to one of your recent requests, even though I thought it was a needless complaint. Yet you ignored the advice and persisted with focusing on your petty grievance to the point of antagonizing our Administrator. Constructively and politely offering suggestions in order to help improve the forum is welcome. Demanding that the volunteers who manage the site bend to all of your personal preferences is unacceptable.

Could you kindly action the following moving forward:
[1] Find another way to express your views without hostility, ideally in a calm and constructive manner that adds value to the discussion.
[2] Refrain from (a) nitpicking the posts of others as a way to find fault, and likewise (b) jumping into threads to exaggerate minor issues and pedantically question the management of the forum (one example).

@FrancisK your return to the forum is welcomed and I hope to see you post more often across CiK. I would ask you to please step away from engaging in this tit for tat; and instead post elsewhere on CiK and use the report function where appropriate. Consider reviewing this post to reflect on how you can best spend your precious energy on that which is worthwhile.

@Get2choppaaa I appreciate your commitment to contributing to CiK. With this in mind, I am also asking you to meditate on the benefits of letting go. Let the other guy have the last word if he wants, and use the report function if you think he has crossed the line.

There is nothing to be gained by attempting to prove others wrong through belittling them. Nobody learns anything -- not the readers and especially not your intended target. Instead, if you feel the other person is beyond reason and is not capable or interested in a good faith intellectual discussion, perhaps the option to simply walk away (keep scrolling) is a better choice. See here for a related discussion on handing disagreements.

I hear you loud and clear brother, believe me this wasn't something I was proud of.

 

[scorpion]

That's what is so amazing over there. We have people so unhinged about their position against BTC that they have gone full throttle to the "Creating money out of thin air is not only OK, it's good".

And then long suspending or banning others. Let's be honest - I called it out earlier, because it's a major abuse of "moderation" - nothing moderate about that at all.

You're still defending jayco after he revealed himself as a deranged IRT obsessed with colonialism and other men's genitalia? Apparently a shared faith in the Bitcoin religion goes a long way in your mind.

Also, if you continue to run around the forum mischaracterizing (or lying about, more accurately) my transparently justified punishment of jayco as "abuse of moderation" motivated by personal bias, we're going to have a problem. Anyone can go view the thread for themselves and clearly see that jayco was spamming the thread with low-quality shitposts, was warned to cut it out, and then chose to respond in an aggressive and belligerent manner.

Let it go and get on with your life.

 

[Blade Runner]

If by pro BTC you mean that Bitcoin is going to save the world

Of course not. Its utility is in insurance from the real technocrat abuse coming, the CBDC. That is a comment on fiat of course, as it is a digital fiat and its purpose is control (vs BTC which is trustless, permission-less, stated ad nauseum).

If banning jayco was a "major abuse of moderation"

It was escalated to be something big that should not have happened.

@scorpion I don't have a problem with you as a poster or in general, at all. I have a problem with how you use your moderator "powers" in the BTC thread, where you contribute. This is something that is recurring, which to me suggests that you shouldn't be moderating it. That is both fair and logical. Again, I don't have a problem with you posting there. You clearly don't like it when people challenge you there. I have been on the receiving end of that already. The other moderators should moderate it.

I've read and re-read the points leading up to the banning of jayco, and I maintain my position on this topic, this instance. The aftermath is just internet mud slinging and more emotions, which incidentally are the ones involved in your suspending him in the first place.

 

[TruckDriver9]

I've read and re-read the points leading up to the banning of jayco, and I maintain my position on this topic, this instance. The aftermath is just internet mud slinging and more emotions, which incidentally are the ones involved in your suspending him in the first place.

I don't know about You, but I was suspended more than once back in the RVF and even when I didn't agree with that, it never crossed my mind to come back swinging and start insulting everyone. And that's what jayco did. He didn't just throw some mud in troll's lounge - that's just the cleaned-up aftermath. He started a whole new thread calling us all "fake Christian, vile imperialist trash" already in the title. And the only reason why @scorpion was the one to drop the banhammer, is because I (as a newbie) didn't want to make this decision single-handedly.

 

[Blade Runner]

And that's what jayco did. He didn't just throw some mud in troll's lounge - that's just the cleaned-up aftermath. He started a whole new thread calling us all "fake Christian, vile imperialist trash" already in the title.

I don't disagree with the banning given what happened. That's not my point. A month suspension set it off. Again, the point here is common contributors to a given thread (with multi paragraph posts and debate back and forth) shouldn't be wielding suspension powers in the same thread: this is my point.

 

[TruckDriver9]

A month suspension set it off

A week.
I think only IIMT scored a month long suspension (not counting Music cause it was a plagiarism case) and when he came back he didn't throw insults left and right.

Again, the point here is common contributors to a given thread (with multi paragraph posts and debate back and forth) shouldn't be wielding suspension powers in the same thread: this is my point.

And we are trying to avoid it.
But jayco's initial suspension wasn't for a different opinion than Scorpion's about bitcoin, it was for sh#posting and mouthing off when asked to stop.
And as I mentioned earlier, anytime you find Yourself in an argument with one of us, just tag another one in the thread and we will sort it out.

 

[Blade Runner]

And as I mentioned earlier, anytime you find yourself in an argument with one of us, just tag another one in the thread an we will sort it out.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Servant of Christ]

I'm not going to point any fingers and I fully support all of our moderators, however I think it is reasonable for a moderator to ask another moderator where there is a potential conflict of interest. Even if their actions were justified there may be a perception of bias and it harms the good work they do and the site as a whole. So for example if they are posting in a particular thread a lot and have beef with someone in that thread, they should voluntarily recuse themselves when it comes to discipline. We have enough moderators to share duties so that this should not be an issue. This is what I would like to see going forward.