Evil is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to win. As long as good keeps fighting with one hand tied behind its back, evil will keep gaining ground.
No, I decided that your statement was something a horrible tyrant would say. There's a difference. I'm guessing you're actually pretty decent, but wanted to address what I felt was a horrible statement that only an insane person would utter.
Your example is pretty vague, and I can't say for certain that the user in question was in the wrong, but it at least sounds like you did the right thing.
Initially it sounded like you were banhammering people without them knowing what they did wrong, but at least in this example, you warned the user first, so it seems as though you did right. If it was always like that, my apologies for misinterpreting what you said.
"don’t be afraid to ban somebody just because they didn’t explicitly violate a rule"
And
"Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn't break any rules"
Use different words but end up in the same place.
So how is it grossly misrepresenting anything?
Perhaps you can give an example of when someone didn't break any rules and you felt justified banning them and why, and maybe I'll sympathize a little.
Oh I'm sure you have a way to justify your corrupt authoritarianism. I don't care what your reasoning is. If you ban people without them breaking rules, then the only actual rule is "don't upset the power tripping bastards", which I strongly disagree with.
I know that I judge people for wearing them.
Evil is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to win. As long as good keeps fighting with one hand tied behind its back, evil will keep gaining ground.
Argh, can't downvote this one because the statement is true even though it doesn't apply to the situation being discussed.
Entrances to gated communities
Please point to the down voted "moderate" comments.
No, I decided that your statement was something a horrible tyrant would say. There's a difference. I'm guessing you're actually pretty decent, but wanted to address what I felt was a horrible statement that only an insane person would utter.
Your example is pretty vague, and I can't say for certain that the user in question was in the wrong, but it at least sounds like you did the right thing.
Initially it sounded like you were banhammering people without them knowing what they did wrong, but at least in this example, you warned the user first, so it seems as though you did right. If it was always like that, my apologies for misinterpreting what you said.
Have a good one.
::shrugs:: we both agree that the other is the problem. Have fun with your power tripping.
The statements
"don’t be afraid to ban somebody just because they didn’t explicitly violate a rule"
And
"Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn't break any rules"
Use different words but end up in the same place.
So how is it grossly misrepresenting anything?
Perhaps you can give an example of when someone didn't break any rules and you felt justified banning them and why, and maybe I'll sympathize a little.
I mean, I think you sound ridiculous... So agree to disagree there.
Reply to edit:
Nope. Just don't like petty authoritarians.
Oh, it's hyperbolic, but it gets the point across.
Oh I'm sure you have a way to justify your corrupt authoritarianism. I don't care what your reasoning is. If you ban people without them breaking rules, then the only actual rule is "don't upset the power tripping bastards", which I strongly disagree with.
How is this upvoted so much? This is fucking insane.
"Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn't break any rules"
Wonderful strawman that doesn't address his point.
To whom?
Just finished chopping a bunch wood. I don't get it /s
So community notes can address more instances of misinformation, that part is true.
But if the community provides misinformation as the "note" then it can actually spread and legitimize misinformation.
So superior is definitely the wrong word for it. Perhaps more efficient? But also more likely to reinforce echo chambers.
Superior would be implementing community notes and then having those checked by centralized fact checkers.
God forbid people have fun.
So they removed fact checking, and someone lied? Oh my, what a surprise.
Last time we had a major protest in the city of Chicago, 24 people died. That's a little more than "the slightest consequence or inconvenience"
Luigi's protest was way more efficient. Only one person has died.