Oh the irony, lol
Atheists are cowards.
Posts
Total:
203
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting we remove the private chat function ?
Not at all. Just the open forum.
Here is a perfect example of what I am saying and it comes from yourself.
Just recently above,
Witch wrote: I never found the original post but I did find where it was discussed. 3RU7AL suggested it would be easy to do a list of banned members, both me and RM were to definitely be on that list, where we would be basically blocked no one could see our post and that in order for people to see those posts they'd have to opt out. It was also discussed that this list would be secret and that we would just have to figure out that's what was going on. It was basically a list of members disliked or mods hate. As long as the mods are going to allow people to make disgusting comments then I'm going to use the block function especially so I don't get messages from those people. That said those functions only work when you're logged in anyway log out and you can see everything.#1153RU7AL wrote: 100% FALSE#116
Now take a good look at that and tell me, would you have ever had a chance to dispute, deny and or correct what the Witch had to say had she had YOU on blind block where YOU were unable to see and read her " 100% false claims" ?
It is as I have said above:
Stephen wrote: What you appear to be advocating is for those that block other members should be allowed to put in print anything about anyone they don't agree with or simply outright hate and make unsupported claims about anything while displaying out-right double standards and allowing intentional misquotation and misrepresentation while not allowing the blocked member any sort of response.#117
I rest my case.
Stepehn wrote: But we are speaking of the written word, 3RU7AL . If one decides to put their thoughts down in writing on a public forum on the WWW then it is they that engrave their own thoughts and words in stone.The right to be forgotten (RTBF[1]) is the right to have private information about a person be removed from Internet searches and other directories under some circumstances.
Then in that case of the Witch should request that her own thoughts put into words and freely and voluntarily posted on a religion forum the WWW by no one else but herself, be removed. Until that happens it should stay there written "in stone" for all to see. With the caveat that she would have to explain why her own freely given un- coerced comments should be removed. But image what that would do to a thread with answers and replies given but no one can see the original question or comment, chaos perhaps?
And you are confusing a things here. Private and personal information put on the WWW by others about others especially if they are mistakes or outright lies is not the same as someone posting his/ her own thoughts in words on a forum that one has freely offered and posted without coercion, bribery or blackmail. i.e. no one has or is being forced to comment, at all, ever. In fact, if I remember correctly , in the case of the Witch, she begged to be allowed to return and post comments here after a permanent ban.
The concept has been discussed and put into practice in several jurisdictions, including Argentina,[2][3] the European Union (EU), and the Philippines.[4] The issue has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past."[5]: 231
We are speaking of comments on a public religion forum where words of statements and comments can be corrected and or disputed. Where outright lies and or the person themselves can be exposed for what they truly are . We are not speaking comments made in the past by someone wishing to be state leader and wishing s/he hadn't said something s/he regrets that will come back to haunt them and ruin any chances of high office, are we?
And try to keep this in mind. When joining this public forum one is asked to say something about themselves (Personal Information), this is not compulsory, it is voluntary and can be left completely blank .
I stand by what I have said. If the likes of the Witch do not wish to communicate with other members here, it is she that should not be allowed to read the comments of those she freely chose to block.
-->
@Stephen
Now take a good look at that and tell me, would you have ever had a chance to dispute, deny and or correct what the Witch had to say had she had YOU on blind block where YOU were unable to see and read her " 100% false claims" ?
and that's fine by me
-->
@Stephen
What you appear to be advocating is for those that block other members should be allowed to put in print anything about anyone they don't agree with or simply outright hate and make unsupported claims about anything while displaying out-right double standards and allowing intentional misquotation and misrepresentation while not allowing the blocked member any sort of response.
all comments will still be visible by the moderators and subject to the code of conduct
Hate is not a COC rule. Extravagant Lies are. If I'm lying about that feel free to say something to the mods but it is here on the site we addressed it in another post I just can't find the original where it was brought up. But honestly even if I could find it it really wouldn't matter the mods can still do what they want and there are plenty of people who post after post reiterate lies about other members and nothing happens to them. Not only is it extravagant lies but they are harassing extravagant lies and they are repeated daily. So pretty much do what you want, say what you want, the mods might ding you, they might not. Depends on what mood they're in that day if they actually feel like doing their job.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
i never suggested "you lied"
i merely pointed out that your impressions of my proposal are inaccurate
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Hate is not a COC rule.
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
-->
@3RU7AL
There were two proposals. The one that you've talked about and the one that I've talked about. I found conversations discussing both I can't find where the original suggestion was made but I distinctly remember the whole thing because I followed every goddamn post about the presidency.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well they are but certain members are allowed to do them but you can't tell someone you're not allowed to hate another member you can hate whoever the fuck you want to.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There were two proposals.
now we're getting somewhere
-->
@3RU7AL
Witch wrote: I never found the original post but I did find where it was discussed. 3RU7AL suggested it would be easy to do a list of banned members, both me and RM were to definitely be on that list, where we would be basically blocked no one could see our post and that in order for people to see those posts they'd have to opt out. It was also discussed that this list would be secret and that we would just have to figure out that's what was going on. It was basically a list of members disliked or mods hate. As long as the mods are going to allow people to make disgusting comments then I'm going to use the block function especially so I don't get messages from those people. That said those functions only work when you're logged in anyway log out and you can see everything.#1153RU7AL wrote: 100% FALSE#116Now take a good look at that and tell me, would you have ever had a chance to dispute, deny and or correct what the Witch had to say had she had YOU on blind block where YOU were unable to see and read her " 100% false claims" ?and that's fine by me
So on the one hand you speak about the offenders "right to be forgotten ".
Yet one the other you are happy and it is fine by you then that someone can spread and tell "100%" falsehood's about another member here without their knowledge and where they have no chance of recompense or response to defend themselves against such "100%" false hoods?
😂
-->
@Stephen
there is currently a very complicated process used by the mods that is some sort of "mutual restraining order"
that has been implemented upon two members who insist on harassing each other
this type of mod action is very time consuming and difficult to police
AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THAT WOULD REQUIRE ZERO MOD ATTENTION
i proposed a "mutual-mute" that could be initiated by EITHER PARTY
specifically
poly seems to enjoy interacting with SOME members but despises SOME other members
the proposed "mutual-mute" would allow someone who feels this way, to "keep the good" and "throw out the bad"
basically insuring that their reading experience will never again be sullied by interjections from "bad" members
and at the same time, knowing their own words will not be scrutinized by those who have been determined (by themselves) to argue in "bad faith"
knowing that your words will not be seen by your detractors and you will not see the words of your detractors DISINCENTIVIZES "harassing language" on both sides
-->
@Stephen
Witch wrote: I never found the original post but I did find where it was discussed. 3RU7AL suggested it would be easy to do a list of banned members, both me and RM were to definitely be on that list, where we would be basically blocked no one could see our post and that in order for people to see those posts they'd have to opt out. It was also discussed that this list would be secret and that we would just have to figure out that's what was going on. It was basically a list of members disliked or mods hate. As long as the mods are going to allow people to make disgusting comments then I'm going to use the block function especially so I don't get messages from those people. That said those functions only work when you're logged in anyway log out and you can see everything.#1153RU7AL wrote: 100% FALSE#116Now take a good look at that and tell me, would you have ever had a chance to dispute, deny and or correct what the Witch had to say had she had YOU on blind block where YOU were unable to see and read her " 100% false claims" ?
There's no need for the quotes. Polytheist-Witch's description/impression of 3RU7AL's Proposal is 100% FALSE. The proposal can be found here. Neither Polytheist-Witch nor RationalMadman were EVER suggested to be placed on this list by default.
Discipulus_Didicit gave a rather concise and accurate description of how this proposal would function:
Example world where 3RU7AL's proposal goes into effect (for your own understanding of the concept):Users A-C are put on a list by mods based on people the mods deem toxic to the community.Users A-C ARE NOT given a choice about whether to be part of the program because they are on the list.Users D-J ARE given a choice about whether to be part of the program because they are not on the listUsers D-F OPT IN to the program. They CANNOT see anything that users A-C say.Users G-J OPT OUT of the program. They CAN see everything that users A-C say.
And it should be noted that 3RU7AL suggested that this was an idea--a starting point where kinks can be worked out.
So on the one hand you speak about the offenders "right to be forgotten ".Yet one the other you are happy and it is fine by you then that someone can spread and tell "100%" falsehood's about another member here without their knowledge and where they have no chance of recompense or response to defend themselves against such "100%" false hoods?
If two members have mutually-muted each other, why would any of this matter? Members can already talk smack and spread falsehood about other members through PM and Questions without them knowing; why should any member be concerned with statements that aren't submitted to them directly?
-->
@Athias
Discipulus_Didicit
good point
that was a proposed as an alternative to "perma-ban"
-->
@3RU7AL
No discussion here ever goes anywhere lets not pretend like we're making any sort of headway or resolving any issues or even doing anything productive.
-->
@Athias
There's no need for the quotes. Polytheist-Witch's description/impression of 3RU7AL's Proposal is 100% FALSE.
My point is that 3RU7AL wouldn't have had the chance to refute the Witches "100% false" claim had not been able to see it.
But lets us just hope 3RU7AL never gets his way concerning his proposal.
If two members have mutually-muted each other, why would any of this matter?
It wouldn't . Because that would simply mean they BOTH parties chose not to see one another's posts' hence they wouldn't be able to respond to, or refute one another's comments, claim's or outright lies.
I have suggested if it ever comes to it and - if you have read the thread- that the person a member has chosen to block shouldn't be able to view the comments of the person they have chosen to ignore and block.
Like I have said- lets us just hope 3RU7AL never gets his way concerning his proposal .
-->
@3RU7AL
good pointthat was a proposed as an alternative to "perma-ban"
I'm still have trouble understanding the objections to proposal. Most of what I've read thus far is centered on "spreading slander" without response, which as you've already pointed out can be done, muted or not.
-->
@3RU7AL
there is currently a very complicated process used by the mods that is some sort of "mutual restraining order"
Then why are you even suggesting blind posting if that in your opinion is enough?
i proposed a "mutual-mute" that could be initiated by EITHER PARTY
The operative word being "mutual". I have no reason or wish for instance to block the Witch, she feels different. She has CHOSEN to put me on block thereby by showing she want's no contact with me. If she is sincere in her choice then she has no complaints about not being able to see my posts. I on the other hand, don't have reason to block her.. You are acting as if you don't understand my point when I know you do.
YOU gave a perfect example of my points then in the next breath practically told us that is was "fine by you" that she could but into print "100%" falsehoods even if you couldn't see her lies and unable to respond without recourse.
I have said enough on the matter and you have proved my point perfectly for me.
I just hope for the sake of the forum that you never get your way, 3RU7AL.
-->
@Stephen
My point is that 3RU7AL wouldn't have had the chance to refute the Witches "100% false" claim had not been able to see it.
If Polytheist-Witch were to have muted 3RU7AL, why would 3RU7AL concern himself with what she states? If anyone had questions or concerns with any statements or proposals made by 3RU7AL, then why not just approach 3RU7AL directly, rather than rely strictly on second-hand information?
But lets us just hope 3RU7AL never gets his way concerning his proposal.
I hope he does.
It wouldn't . Because that would simply mean they BOTH parties chose not to see one another's posts' hence they wouldn't be able to respond to, or refute one another's comments, claim's or outright lies.
No. The mutuality to which I referenced doesn't necessarily suggest that both members "chose." Only that it affects them both. And if member A mutes member B, and member A starts spreading lies about member B, then it would be incumbent upon members C through Z to choose whether they subscribe to these lies. And it should be noted that members A and B will still be able to see the posts of members C through Z, provided that the latter has not muted the former.
that the person a member has chosen to block shouldn't be able to view the comments of the person they have chosen to ignore and block.
But the member who was blocked should be able to view the comments of the member who blocked them? Why?
It'll eventually be put into play because this whole board is a popularity contest. And those that are popular wanted because they don't want to have to engage with anybody beneath them. Basically you're going to groups of people only able to see people that they agree with posts is what's eventually going to happen. And I can tell you right now after I was told that there was an RO option and I used it they completely changed how the RO works so the RO is pretty pointless at this point. Probably because they intend to institute this proposal which basically will let the mods be lazier and even more inactive than they are now. Remember complains hey so and so said this their response will be they have that person on block don't worry about it. So not only will the comments being made get worse you'll have little clicks of people interacting with only with each other. Which is fine I'm here to basically like I said drop my opinion like I'm taking a shit and walk away. This board is a joke and it's never going to get bigger than the amount of people that post here now so it really doesn't matter if the board gets worse because it's never going to be better. So institute the proposal I'm fine with it, don't institute your proposal I'm fine with it, don't have a RO it honestly doesn't matter the mods just pick and choose who they want to ban and when they want too ban them. I've had Whiteflame tell me that posts are in violation of the rules but he'll do nothing about it cuz they're aimed at me.
-->
@Stephen
there is currently a very complicated process used by the mods that is some sort of "mutual restraining order"Then why are you even suggesting blind posting if that in your opinion is enough?
the enforcement and maintenance of the current "mutual restraining order" is inconsistent and consumes a disproportionate amount of mod resources
@the Witch
And those that are popular wanted because they don't want to have to engage with anybody beneath them.
You have that the wrong way around as usual Witch.
It is the likes of you that does not want to be shown up for your own hypocrisy and double standards. In my case, it is YOU that has me on block.
I have have no reason to have you on block and am ready to engage with anyone, so tell me, who is it that "don't want to engage with anybody[they feel is] beneath them"? YOU!!!! fkn hypocrite!!!!
You have been caught out for your double standards and hypocrisy once again. And the exact reason you advocate blind posting so the person YOU have on block cannot call you out.
I should be able to block posts that are talking about me being a pedophile and my children having broomsticks between their legs but alas I can't do that. I also can't get them deleted even though I was told they're in violation. But it's okay like I said all I do now is come here drop my opinion like I'm taking a shit and leave. Whatever happens happens, whatever they institute as policy is policy. My statements were correct and it's in black and white that I was not 100% false. And yet people are still saying that what's in black and white isn't actually there. Again I don't care I don't give a shit. Pass whatever you want do, say whatever you want the mods aren't going to do anything. This place is always going to be a shit heap with only 40 to 50 active members, only literally like four of which are female and there's a reason for all that. Fuck, the asshole that ran for weeks to be president can't even be bothered to come fill his role. This place is a fucking joke.
-->
@3RU7AL
"mutual restraining order"
That word again "mutual". I was approached not so long back and it was proposed that I agree "mutually" to an RO with the Witch. Are you saying that I didn't really have a choice?
#Mutual Agreement
To mutually agree to something is to jointly agree to something or when two or more people reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both.
This didn't stop the Witch posting comments in reply to my comments, no, she simply didn't tag me as the recipient of her reply. Sly doesn't cover it. She is doing the same on this thread only again she is not tagging me.
RM is another sly fkr. He has me on block but unblocks me to respond to me only to block me immediately after. Here is his most recent example of his sly cowardly practice just minutes ago.
He wouldn't be able to do that if he couldn't see my posts while HE has ME on block. He is the one that has taken offence and blocked me, so in my opinion he shouldn't be able to see my posts while I have ever right to see and read his considering I haven't take any offence and do not have him on block.
In my follow up post I ask him yet again to stop his cowardly practice, but he doesn't.
-->
@Stephen
That word again "mutual". I was approached not so long back and it was proposed that I agree "mutually" to an RO with the Witch. Are you saying that I didn't really have a choice?#Mutual AgreementTo mutually agree to something is to jointly agree to something or when two or more people reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both.
Not "mutually-agreed" restraining order; just "mutual restraining order," in that it affects both the parties it concerns.
-->
@Athias
Not "mutually-agreed" restraining order; just "mutual restraining order," in that it affects both the parties it concerns.
FFS! I was asked by moderation if I would agree to a RO with the Witch. And I did.
I have made my point and given my opinion and explained my opinion more than once. I have nothing more to add to this conversation. There is no point in me going around in circles.
@ the Witch.
All I do now is come here drop my opinion like I'm taking a shit.
Have you ever done otherwise? You just hate being called out for your own hypocrisy and double standards don't you, Witch. Is it any wonder you don't want others to see your posts.😂
This place is a fucking joke.
You could always leave instead of just dropping in to take a shite. You are here after all, of your own free will!
ROs are for 30 days it's not my fault some people too retarded to understand how they work. If the mods are whining to people about how much work they have to put in the RO's it's complete and utter bullshit. Once the RO is established over the course of the 30 days the parties are obliged to let the mods know if somebody violates. The mods do fucking nothing.
-->
@Stephen
I was asked by moderation if I would agree to a RO with the Witch. And I did.
this is an example of excessive use of mod resources