whats up soylentils. any good meta discussion of soylent we care to have?
-- other than actual doxxing or CSAM etc don't flag posts here thx --
Reply to: Re:Now is your chance, Mr Angry
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, @04:39PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday October 20, @04:39PM (#1421503)
Sounds good.
So here we have janrinok spam modding non-spam that was invited by your journal for any meta discussion. He then makes the defense "If you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, people will think that you are a duck" and refuses to correct the abusive spam mods that are only allowed for a banned user. The OP was criticizing this pattern of abuse that I have stopped bringing up as the abuse became less frequent, giving janrinok a chance to change. I wanted to test out your journal's invitation for discussion. The results and janrinok's excuses speak for themselves.
I have considered volunteering before. What stops me is the lack of transparency for a variety of matters, and the fact that two vocal users started training to become editors then mysteriously stopped. Now janrinok says posts are not ideologically modded and that he can tell which comments are from a banned user, but in this case he knew it was not them.
Since you invited any discussion my OP broke no rules. If you cannot resolve these issues and restore trust, which has been broken for other named users as well, then the site will remain a turd that allows ideological bias while claiming otherwise. The hypocritical enforcement of rules where janrinok and others get to make personal attacks while putting their thumb on the scale of community moderation is another part of the problem The more paranoid concern is that the banned user was a setup specifically to allow such bias. I really hope the nerds round here are genuine and not some losers trying to manipulate society while surveilling people with the false promise of anonymous posting, part of the transparency mentioned before.
Good luck, hope you can make something worthwhile.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, @04:39PM
Sounds good.
So here we have janrinok spam modding non-spam that was invited by your journal for any meta discussion. He then makes the defense "If you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, people will think that you are a duck" and refuses to correct the abusive spam mods that are only allowed for a banned user. The OP was criticizing this pattern of abuse that I have stopped bringing up as the abuse became less frequent, giving janrinok a chance to change. I wanted to test out your journal's invitation for discussion. The results and janrinok's excuses speak for themselves.
I have considered volunteering before. What stops me is the lack of transparency for a variety of matters, and the fact that two vocal users started training to become editors then mysteriously stopped. Now janrinok says posts are not ideologically modded and that he can tell which comments are from a banned user, but in this case he knew it was not them.
Since you invited any discussion my OP broke no rules. If you cannot resolve these issues and restore trust, which has been broken for other named users as well, then the site will remain a turd that allows ideological bias while claiming otherwise. The hypocritical enforcement of rules where janrinok and others get to make personal attacks while putting their thumb on the scale of community moderation is another part of the problem The more paranoid concern is that the banned user was a setup specifically to allow such bias. I really hope the nerds round here are genuine and not some losers trying to manipulate society while surveilling people with the false promise of anonymous posting, part of the transparency mentioned before.
Good luck, hope you can make something worthwhile.