The guy wanted to be able to moderate in the background and went to efforts to block mod abuse comms - of course people are going to find ways to express dissent, and of course he's going to be incredibly triggered by it.
But his reaction to the pushback has been spectacular, no notes
There's a really good reason why the fediverse is designed with public mod logs, and I imagine the motivation for creating these tools for blocking/hiding/burying content on the frontend is to get around the accountability that public moderation logs enable.
I imagine that is also why some of the first communities AP blocked were mod abuse forums.
I thought Admiral Patrick """left""" lemmy more than a year ago?
I think a bit of a problem with the fediverse might be that the majority of instance admins are just barely competent enough with development that if they get upset with how other admins run their shit, they end up forking some piece of the project in order to put their thumb on the scale and bend the network to better fit their worldview.
This bullshit is starting to feel like a bit of a pattern.
It still amazes me that you don’t see how dangerous Balogun’s challenge was. Did you not see the dude’s ankle? Could have got broken
I don't think we're using 'dangerous' in the same way here. I'm saying there is no reasonable expectation that Balogun's play could have resulted in a serious injury, regardless of what injury almost did occur. Just because Muharemovic's ankle almost did get broken, doesn't mean that was due to any risky, aggressive, or malicious move made by Balogun to begin with. That the foul didn't even initially merit a yellowcard at the time points to the same conclusion.
When I was taught to be a referee (granted, that was 15 years ago), they urged us not to issue red cards unless the play itself was uniquely dangerous, where that if another player committed the same foul there would be the same high risk of injury. The two other remedies for keeping this type of play in-check are more reasonable and less likely to cause chaotic discontent from the bench, and sending the player off doesn't make anyone else on the field any safer.
Your job as referee isn't to doll out justice or retribution for harm committed on the field, it's to keep the players safe and the game fair to the extent reasonable.
Quansah didn’t even touch the guy with studs and won the ball.
That's not the point - he made a needlessly aggressive tackle against an attacker that wasn't an immediate threat on goal, and hit Gallardo midway up the shin with studs up. If someone else on the field made a similarly needless and dangerous tackle, the risk of serious injury would be just as high. It could have just as easily been a yellow card, but what made the tackle worse was that it was done without any apparent strategic advantage over staying on his feet, which made it seem like he did it in part because there was a risk of harm.
If the ref didn't take action, it was likely that the two would continue escalating their challenges until someone did get injured
Either way, Belgium's hammered the USA even with Balogun. Tis a lol.
No question - they shouldn't have even made it that far
A red can be given for serious foul play.
The ref is intentionally given leeway to make whatever calls necessary to keep control over the game (which is why the reversal is so damaging to the tournament broadly). He had every right to send Balogun off, I just dont think it's was a good one.
Quansah got a red card for England despite playing for and winning the ball
A bunch of reasons why this comparison is bullshit:
Quansah went into a sliding tackle against a player in control of the play, not after a 50/50 challenge
despite there not being intent, sliding tackles are held to higher scrutiny because they're dangerous even when done correctly
The tackle was unnecessarily aggressive. Quansah could have stayed on his feet and defended without risking a tackle
You obviously don't know enough about "soccer". You been listening to your presidents definitions?
They shouldn't have fucked with the ruling at all, but lmao at "dangerous"
It could only possibly be considered dangerous if you thought he intentionally stepped on Muharemović's ankle. Straight reds are typically reserved for aggressive plays that are either clearly malicious or willfully reckless.
Balogun was playing the ball without looking where he was stepping - at worst it should have been a yellow. Careless? Definitely. Dangerous? Lmao, I guess taking a reaching step is dangerous now
But thats really not the problem anymore - the league overriding the decision reaks of corruption and does a disservice to everyone involved, including the USA team.
It's easy because our current geopolitical reality has been contrived by western hegemony.
Plenty of criticism to go around but there's little question that our current reality is mostly a direct result of the decay of western capitalist democracy.
Im not suggesting you delete one, just letting you know how it's coming across.
Lemmy is a pretty small place still - a politically charged and loaded question is going to get a lot of attention, and posting the same one twice is going to come across like you're fishing for controversy.
Thinking back to an old Darknet Diaries episode where he talks with a former IDF intelligence officer about how many IDF veterans go on to found US based tech firms and how they sometimes use those connections to aid in their clandestine operations
If anyone remembers what episode that was I would love to go back and listen to it again
It is such a liberal thing to take a byproduct of capitalist exploitation and turn it into its own political expression
Michigan is certainly not a deep blue state
Legendary crash out, 10/10 fantastic finale
The guy wanted to be able to moderate in the background and went to efforts to block mod abuse comms - of course people are going to find ways to express dissent, and of course he's going to be incredibly triggered by it.
But his reaction to the pushback has been spectacular, no notes
There's a really good reason why the fediverse is designed with public mod logs, and I imagine the motivation for creating these tools for blocking/hiding/burying content on the frontend is to get around the accountability that public moderation logs enable.
I imagine that is also why some of the first communities AP blocked were mod abuse forums.
As ever, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
That's the job of the fucking instance admins, you dimwitted moron.
What a self-aggrandizing piece of shit. He should have left when he said he was going to a year ago.
I thought Admiral Patrick """left""" lemmy more than a year ago?
I think a bit of a problem with the fediverse might be that the majority of instance admins are just barely competent enough with development that if they get upset with how other admins run their shit, they end up forking some piece of the project in order to put their thumb on the scale and bend the network to better fit their worldview.
This bullshit is starting to feel like a bit of a pattern.
The misuse of this meme is far more upsetting than the political message
I don't think we're using 'dangerous' in the same way here. I'm saying there is no reasonable expectation that Balogun's play could have resulted in a serious injury, regardless of what injury almost did occur. Just because Muharemovic's ankle almost did get broken, doesn't mean that was due to any risky, aggressive, or malicious move made by Balogun to begin with. That the foul didn't even initially merit a yellowcard at the time points to the same conclusion.
When I was taught to be a referee (granted, that was 15 years ago), they urged us not to issue red cards unless the play itself was uniquely dangerous, where that if another player committed the same foul there would be the same high risk of injury. The two other remedies for keeping this type of play in-check are more reasonable and less likely to cause chaotic discontent from the bench, and sending the player off doesn't make anyone else on the field any safer.
Your job as referee isn't to doll out justice or retribution for harm committed on the field, it's to keep the players safe and the game fair to the extent reasonable.
That's not the point - he made a needlessly aggressive tackle against an attacker that wasn't an immediate threat on goal, and hit Gallardo midway up the shin with studs up. If someone else on the field made a similarly needless and dangerous tackle, the risk of serious injury would be just as high. It could have just as easily been a yellow card, but what made the tackle worse was that it was done without any apparent strategic advantage over staying on his feet, which made it seem like he did it in part because there was a risk of harm.
If the ref didn't take action, it was likely that the two would continue escalating their challenges until someone did get injured
No question - they shouldn't have even made it that far
The ref is intentionally given leeway to make whatever calls necessary to keep control over the game (which is why the reversal is so damaging to the tournament broadly). He had every right to send Balogun off, I just dont think it's was a good one.
A bunch of reasons why this comparison is bullshit:
I love how catty this is
They shouldn't have fucked with the ruling at all, but lmao at "dangerous"
It could only possibly be considered dangerous if you thought he intentionally stepped on Muharemović's ankle. Straight reds are typically reserved for aggressive plays that are either clearly malicious or willfully reckless.
Balogun was playing the ball without looking where he was stepping - at worst it should have been a yellow. Careless? Definitely. Dangerous? Lmao, I guess taking a reaching step is dangerous now
But thats really not the problem anymore - the league overriding the decision reaks of corruption and does a disservice to everyone involved, including the USA team.
Yea, honestly I think 'insurgent' is complementary in this context
How many firewall hardware manufacturers have had these kinds of vulnerabilities? Feels like a couple times a year I hear about another one.
As ever, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism
My home server runs on a potato and cant keep up with 4k transcodes
PHM is already available to stream/"purchase" on prime or appleTV, AFAIK
Do they mean as a part of a streaming subscription?
All I know is that webdl versions of it have been available to torrent for like a month
It's easy because our current geopolitical reality has been contrived by western hegemony.
Plenty of criticism to go around but there's little question that our current reality is mostly a direct result of the decay of western capitalist democracy.
Im not suggesting you delete one, just letting you know how it's coming across.
Lemmy is a pretty small place still - a politically charged and loaded question is going to get a lot of attention, and posting the same one twice is going to come across like you're fishing for controversy.
Answered your other post on this topic, but I'm getting the sense this isn't a good faith question anymore
Have you seen how much bullshit "The West" has been responsible for lately?
I dont think it's strange at all for there to be a strong undercurrent of anti-western sentiment.
Thinking back to an old Darknet Diaries episode where he talks with a former IDF intelligence officer about how many IDF veterans go on to found US based tech firms and how they sometimes use those connections to aid in their clandestine operations
If anyone remembers what episode that was I would love to go back and listen to it again
edit: found it, it was episode 28