Hey all,
As discussed here, I am looking for 3 new moderators to help with this community.
Please review this post and vote for the candidate you would like to see help on this community.
In no particular order, the candidates are:
- @[email protected]
- @[email protected]
- @[email protected]
- @[email protected]
- @[email protected]
- @[email protected]
- @[email protected]
I invite you to review users post history when deciding on voting.
This thread will be open for 72 hours (until Friday June 23rd, 8PM ET) at which point voting will stop. Any votes after this time will not be counted. I will try to lock this thread after that time so people do not accidentally continue voting.
Everyone gets 1 vote, including the users being considered. The top 3 will be given mod powers of this community to help with organization of discussions and votes.
Please vote by calling the persons name. For example, if I you wanted to vote for TheDude you would reply with: TheDude
That wasn’t my argument at all.
My entire argument on burggit was that I found it hypocritical for the admins there to be banning gore-related content because they personally found it unsavory, while still allowing Loli-content which many others find equally unsavory and many who have asked them to tone it down.
Your link is broken, this is the link to my Burggit account (Be warned, Burggit has Loli porn and content similar to it)
Controversy isn’t a selling point of moderation in most cases, true. However, the prime function of Agora is to encourage diverse debate, even when that means challenging views you disagree with. Having a bias in moderation will cause nothing but a multitude of issues down the line.
As for “flamewarring” – I don’t insult other members or tell them they’re wrong, despite often being the crux of insults and ridicule myself. I believe I’ve proven that I can handle being challenged, something that most other candidates have not shown yet (with the exception of Imaq and Bit, of course)
You can also only vote once.
Your vote will be thrown out if you don’t narrow it down, I recommend @[email protected]
Your argument was that an unsavoury instance was against hosting your personal flavour of unsavoury content; hence you felt the need to browbeat instead of simply finding a better instance.
This appears to be your main method of “engagement” in discussion: incessantly hammer on your point, making persistent bad-faith invitations to “debate,” then when you rile up the user to the point of them flaming you, you claim that you’re remaining civil. It’s called sealioning, it’s a common enough trolling phenomenon that there exists an often cited web-comic about it..
Co-existing in a space isn’t an open invitation for you to repeatedly argue the same point past a persons point of comfort, for the sake of your personal definition of “debate”. When it’s clear the debate has run its course and the person is clearly being emotionally effected, if you persist then you’re acting in bad faith.
Your interpretation falls apart when I have found a better instance; sh.itjust.works
Nor am I sealioning, that isn’t even what sealioning is. Sealioning constantly asks for sources, feigning ignorance when produced with a counterpoint and dismissing a user’s points.
I make a deliberate attempt to not sealion, by often asking the other user if they’d like to continue the discussion, if they’re comfortable, asking about common interests or things we can agree upon and conceding and agreeing with their points without questioning them as a person – All of this is public information you can check.
I have been proven wrong many times, and I admit when I am. Most who I have a lengthy discussion with tend to come to a certain agreement or mutual understanding.
spoiler
“Where is the evidence for that opinion?”
“But doesn’t [x] really mean [y]?”
“What about [other issue]—how do you explain that?”
“What’s wrong with a polite question?”
“I’m just trying to engage in civil debate.”
This series of questions may seem like a well-intentioned search for answers. It’s not—it’s a simplified example of a rhetorical strategy called sealioning. Sealioning is an intentional, combative performance of cluelessness. Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target’s patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the “sea lion” may seem innocent, they’re intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.:::
Amy Johnson, The Multiple Harms of Sea Lions
You’re sealioning in this very thread; you’re just feigning ignorance and exploiting the fact that a term originating from a webcomic isn’t well defined. Here you are incessantly replying in multiple comment chains, asking asinine rhetorical questions, insisting you just want an open discussion, and making sure to explicitly mention how civil you have remained. The only point of contention is that you’re asking rhetorical questions instead of asking for evidence.
It’s abundantly clear what you’re doing. I’ve given my points, you’ve countered. It’s in a public forum that others can access and make their own judgment. My standard for engaging discussion doesn’t include chasing comment chains and rebutting throwaway remarks only to have them slightly rephrased or framed in a flimsy example. I will not engage with you after this comment.
Asinine rhetorical questions? bruh, I’m defending myself from your insults and falsehoods. And yeah, I’m responding to comment chains, so what? I want to hear what people say; I’m a candidate. I’m already learning a lot.
Truthfully, I think you’re sealioning, at least according to your moving definitions, which you’ve already changed.
You only have 6 comments on Agora in the past day, all of which contain you attacking others.
You’re calling me a troll.
You’ve called other people trolls in this very thread,
You’re telling others they’re arguing in bad-faith,
And you’ve also listed your information incorrectly twice, both my burggit account and Bit’s comment chain. I like the Bit thread a lot since you make claims about Bit despite not knowing what the deleted comments contained.
But hey, let’s read through this paper anywho!
What a nice broad definition, this can include everything – convenient! But condescending and denying people the ability to question you? Sounds familiar, perhaps the very same that calls others trolls, bad-faith actors and sealions whenever they disagreed with you.
Oh, and uhhhh… This is really embarrassing, but you’re also sealioning by your very own paper, oops.
Like you listing my burggit account (having to find my separate account that I’ve never linked before), you listing deleted comments from a large comment chain.
(Honestly this is a stupid definition. Using the search function is sealioning? Fuck off with that, Amy Johnson.)
my take? Sealioning is just a narcissist person’s argument to get out of one or deny anyone shooting them down. As you said yourself:
Ah, the irony~
I’m actually going to have to agree with you there as I’ve personally flip flopped on this issue a few times, but I look at it like some gore is acceptable, whereas a lot more Japanese anime porn tends to hit the creepy-crawlies mark