Please indicate if you agree, disagree, or have no opinion:
Bsh1 should be replaced as chief mod by someone who has a more lax approach to moderation.
Poll on Moderation
Posts
Total:
188
I'm gonna put in a vote for "Agree" obviously.
== Vote Count ==
PRO-BSH
0
ANTI-BSH
1
NEITHER
0
Disagree actually would agree to the opposite type of replacement.
I would support virtuoso replacing bsh1 as head.
-->
@Tyrone
Agree
== Vote Count ==
PRO-BSH
1
ANTI-BSH
2
NEITHER
0
-->
@Tyrone
Why is 'neither' an option?
-->
@Tyrone
Anyone who votes neither is just a soft-disagree-user and you are trying to split the population to make agree seem more of a majority or less of a minority than it is.
Yes... I'm trying to get an idea of how many people actually care one way or the other.
Also, unblock me, you fucking bitch.
-->
@RationalMadman
@Tyrone
Stop. Both of you stop replying to each other.
-->
@David
Or what? From what I see godltop is entirely entiteld to harass me for 100 posts straight where I beg him to stop.
-->
@David
Fuck off.
It is incredibly dishonest to equate
"I'm indifferent to the whether or not you change the status quo"
with
"I support the status quo."
-->
@Tyrone
While the latter is more passionate, I do not see an actual difference other than an excuse to separate two approaches to disagreeing for the sake of 'agree' appearing as a bigger slice of the pie.
There is clearly a meaningful difference between the two. If you can't see why, that's your problem.
-->
@Tyrone
Since I posted it here, those who would initially have voted 'neither' hopefully will catch on and instead of my problem it shall become yours.
-->
@Tyrone
Also, unblock me, you fucking bitch.
He won't. He's scared of you
Yes, terrified.
Do remind me when you'll unblock me, good sir.
Coward, it is always directly after a bannable insult that he blocks somebody. You can try to justify it all you want, but there is only one sensible reason to block somebody and that is because you fear what they will say to you. If there was an alternative reason it would have already been mentioned. You can try making up an alternate explanation now though.
Do remind me when you'll unblock me.
I blocked you because I'm not going to give you the power to ping me if I can't do the same to you. This is like when you were a child, and you had that thing happen to you, you was too afraid to talk about.
You can try to justify it all you want, but there is only one sensible reason to block somebody and that is because you fear what they will say to you. If there was an alternative reason it would have already been mentioned. You can try making up an alternate explanation now though.
I blocked you because I'm not going to give you the power to ping me if I can't do the same to you. This is like when you were a child, and you had that thing happen to you, you was too afraid to talk about.
There we go again with the false equivocation. Reciprocating a block is not the same as initiating a block.
If there was an alternative reason it would have already been mentioned
Notice how I mentioned my alternative reason immediately when motives were brought up. Because I have a sensible alternate explanation, but since you don't you haven't mentioned motive. You have no reason to keep the motive secret unless it is something to be ashamed of. Since you have failed to mention a sensible motive, it follows that you are a scared little bitch.
-->
@Tyrone
Initiating in reaction to a block explains how it's both.
I am confused why you feel that I need to justify a block to you or anyone and why you feel you know the full extent of my motive in absence of me doing so but mind-read all you please. If I am a coward, I am a coward. Then what?
I feel bad for arguing with someone who is so clearly mentally disabled.
-->
@Tyrone
He already is lax, I am still here, ya dig? I disagree with some choices made, but I wont whine.
-->
@Tyrone
Do not worry, you will be feeling worse the more often you call me such things in the end.