Oh god, Orange man creates his own social media....

Post Reply New Topic

It looks as if the point is to spread doubt against the mods and discord among the members.

It is important to doubt mods and call BS when they are biased, exercise double standards, use their positions to enforce their personal beliefs. They are only humans, like the rest of us. Otherwise this place will turn unto echo chamber of their personal beliefs similar to "Incel", "Qanon", etc. cesspools.

Agreed. However, while I do not like some of the moves the mods have made against me, I have yet to see any of our mods engage in the type of behavior you and Brictoria have described.

I would say the reason you don't see it is your internalized belief "arguing with admins with get you banned" and fear of being banned. Your self-serving bias will not let you admit you see injustice, it will mean admitting you are a coward for not calling BS. The same reason majority of people living under dictators express support of their leaders, they really believe it.

The thing is, I can't even have this discussion with you here without expecting that one of the mods would show up, delete my posts as "off-topic" and give me a warning. It is acceptable to bring up soviet newspapers, dictatorships, unrelated platforms, they would justify it as relevant, but god forbid to bring up any parallels with this place or question their own double standards of truth and democracy.

WrongPlanet.net is not a democracy.
It's also not a state.
It's a community - not a massive one - on a privately-owned site.

And this is somehow justifies dishonesty and double standards on your behalf? You got me banned under made up accusations less than 24 hours after I accidentally stepped on your toes in another thread. Coincidence? I think not! I believe I'm right and you are wrong, but we can't have this discussion. How is that different from what Stalin did?

Do you want reasons for your most recent ban discussed in public?

No, thank you, I don't want a public show trial. What I want is to be able to reason, not just see my post being deleted because what I'm doing doesn't comply with your ideas and beliefs and then be banned for trying to defend my opinion.

I have in the past, many times.
The double standards were oppressive and caused an enormous amount of discontent to the point many left the website altogether.
N.B. Virtually all who were driven away had a conservative-leaning political outlook.

There was a period of extreme lack of objectivity and obvious bias, hence the formation of the epic thread about wanting to fix the system.

At our age, our memory isn't the best.
Perhaps my being particularly affected by this period of unrest embedded the events more so in my mind.

Is The Wrong Planet a platform or a publisher?

You could ask for a PM.

I know what you're getting at, but that's a question best answered by Alex.

While you've gone to great lengths to create an interesting and imaginative hypothetical situation that happens to illustrate the point your making, please now demonstrate or highlight which parts of the publicly made text revealed personal information or otherwise implied personal details...



Please, tell us which parts of that were actually compromising, and how. If this text is so unethical on it's own, I'm surprised you had to invent such a hyperbolic absurdity to make your point, rather than simply using what was actually said to make your point.

And also, why would the gyno say that unless he was ASKED "hey doc, what are the signs of vaginal fungal infection again?" What other possible question could that be an answer to? Why would he just say that out of the blue? Why are your family, friends, AND gyno all together? The whole situation seems overly contrived simply to coerce it into a hypothetical situation that really works hard to makes your point.

So, where did the above quote ACTUALLY violate confidentiality, or imply confidential information by proxy, as your fantastical situation supposedly demonstrates? Cos if it DIDN'T actually violate confidentiality, then it didn't actually commit any wrongdoing, and what coulda mighta happened in an alternate universe doesn't really matter, since the rules WERE in fact complied with in this reality.

Don't just say "THAT is like THIS, and THIS is bad, so THAT is bad too." If "that" is in fact bad, show me how that is in fact bad. Not just associate badness by proxy.

Yes, it could be an infraction. Yes, your example demonstrated how something similar to it could be an infraction. Now show us how it (the actual text) WAS an infraction. Kay?

It's already public. I've quoted it again for you. Highlight the bad parts for us.

What I receive through PMs is "we deleted your post, stop it, you have been warned". Trying to reason just doesn't work. When they have no arguments against my points their reply is essentially ""TL:DR. End of discussion. We are the law, further posts will result in account suspension" or just stop replying.

He disclosed the fact this communication had place when she was talking to another person. It is up to her if she wants other to know she was talking to site administration accusing another user. There is a huge difference between speaking publicly and communicating privately. This situation is identical to a cop overhearing people saying "These drug dealers doing it openly and police just doesn't care" and replying for all to hear, including that drug dealer: "as I've already explained to you at the department when you tried to reported this drug dealer first time, we can't arrest him for the lack of evidence, he is selling gum, his buyers receive location of drug dozes through encrypted messaging app we can't track, we can't connect these transactions, but we asked him to move away from your house".

I feel like I opened a can of worms in the way back, bringing up the need to label satire, but I also feel the moderators have explained the difference in the situations well. If you have to follow a link to see the content that is being linked, you can also be expected to see the disclaimers the original site posted with it. If the content has been copied and pasted here, even though a link indicates it’s source, there is no reason to follow the link and readers cannot, as a result, be expected to see the satire disclaimers.

I’ll tell you what I see in the debate about pm information: Cornflake could have simply repeated his own words, changed a word or two, and it would have fit perfectly into the conversation currently underway. Only Brictoria would have known there had also been a private conversation. That is probably how I would have handled it, since I am hesitant to mention the existence of private conversations.

I don’t know how many people still on this site are aware, but I was a moderator for about two years. Our moderators are volunteers, and the job takes a significant investment of time. Some invest 50-60 hours a week into the job, and there is a lot of work involved stopping spam, etc that members never see. We can’t have a site worth visiting without their efforts, so while moderators are obviously human and will never be perfect, I feel nothing but gratitude towards them and actually feel terrible if anything I’ve posted or been involved in needs moderator attention; my personal goal is to reduce their workload, not add to it.

I’ve seen what I’ve felt were purely fickle decisions from a long ago team that is no longer involved here. I’m not seeing that now. In those days all bans were permanent, so the damage of a fickle decision was deep. I argued against the permanent ban policy. Sometime humans see situations differently as time moves on, and sometimes people learn. I think it is obvious this team doesn’t operate that way, or there would be no one here to mention a previous ban of theirs.

Brictoria, I see you as amazing at finding law and legal quotes, it’s a useful resource for us, and I appreciate your ability to read precisely, but I don’t think you are good at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other. Not many people are, so it isn’t something I expect from anyone, but I think you assume that you have that talent. I don’t think you do, I’m sorry, and I believe you are getting trapped over and over by these types of details, stubbornly clinging to your view. I don't know how to help you with this, I wish I did, but I hope you can learn to look more critically at your own way of linking situations and laws.

Since a lot of posters will ask what gives me the right to think I can say the above, I will note that I do have some official legal training, and part of my paid career job does deal with linking and distinguishing case law. I have professional feedback that says I am very good at it. I have also trained associates to work with the original law. I’m still only one opinion, of course.