22 May 22
@divegeester saidRead my lips: there is no conspiracy to gang-thumb your posts, and there was no conspiracy to gang-alert your posts before you had that function emasculated to suit your vanity. Not in the Ghost Chamber, anyway. You flatter yourself if you think anyone in the Ghost Chamber gives you so much as a half of a first thought, much less a second one.
Oh dear, bitterness again.
You really should write to Russ using the Feedback function; it’s quite flash actually.
🙂
@moonbus saidI think you are a reasonable and thoughtful poster and we've had a few reasonable chats in private to prove it. That's why I am totally baffled by your support for this anonymous thumbs silliness.
At least give me credit for having a sensible reason for opposing the dismantling of this feature.
@moonbus saidYou seem absolutely determined to attribute our disagreement to some sort of character deficiency on my part rather than to the difference between our perceptions of this issue. Suzianne has been trying the same thing throwing around mental health diagnoses etc.
Two men's vanity is turning this web site's forums into their personal echo chamber.
@moonbus saidI haven’t claimed that there is a conspiracy and you asserting I have is simply a way for you to introduce your little “vanity” barb once again and driving it home with “flattering yourself” and a sort of roundhouse kick with “no one gives you a thought”
Read my lips: there is no conspiracy to gang-thumb your posts, and there was no conspiracy to gang-alert your posts before you had that function emasculated to suit your vanity. Not in the Ghost Chamber, anyway. You flatter yourself if you think anyone in the Ghost Chamber gives you so much as a half of a first thought, much less a second one.
To use the debating vernacular, you created a “stawman” of my position in order to attack it because you’re pissed off with me.
I’m pleased to see that my standing up to you trying to silence discussion on the topic of “thumbs” has sufficiently ruffled your feathers to bring this tendency to the foreground of our recent exchanges.
By the way you have never been mentioned in my club either so you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Hurts doesn’t it … no! … oh well there you go, now you know 😉
@moonbus saidThe alerts were being abused. A poster was able to alert the same post 10 times for 10 different reasons. Threads were getting deleted out of convenience after deluges of spurious alerts. Reform of the feature made this site better. Alerts were and still are a device for limiting and eliminating free speech.
Dive lobbied (successfully) to get the alert function emasculated so he would see fewer alerts
22 May 22
@fmf saidNever mind the truth, go with the Moonianne narrative as it’s more fun!
The alerts were being abused. A poster was able to alert the same post 10 times for 10 different reasons. Threads were getting deleted out of convenience after deluges of spurious alerts. Reform of the feature made this site better. Alerts were and still are a device for limiting and eliminating free speech.
22 May 22
@fmf saidDo you have evidence that the same poster was alerting the same post ten times? The moderators have the final call on whether a post is removed, not the aggrieved poster.
The alerts were being abused. A poster was able to alert the same post 10 times for 10 different reasons. Threads were getting deleted out of convenience after deluges of spurious alerts. Reform of the feature made this site better. Alerts were and still are a device for limiting and eliminating free speech.
22 May 22
@moonbus saidI'd say that the fact that this loophole was closed [now you can only alert a post once] is fairly good evidence that it was being abused in this way.
Do you have evidence that the same poster was alerting the same post ten times?
There was - for example - a post in which I defended my wife against some pretty stinky things Duchess64 was claiming about her. I didn't say anything stinky in return; there was no point. I never 'replied in kind' with Duchess64.
Less than 60 seconds later it [the post about my wife not being a "disreputable woman"] had been alerted 10 times [by the next day, awash with stupendous numbers of alerts, the whole thread was deleted].
I think this too is fairly good evidence that the alerts feature was being abused in the way I have described. It wasn't the only incidence of this kind of thing.
@moonbus saidOf course, they do. But alerting a post has, as its intention [on the part of the "he aggrieved poster"], the curtailing of free speech.
The moderators have the final call on whether a post is removed, not the aggrieved poster.
I was certainly trying to curtail Executioner Brand's use of his free speech when I alerted his posts a few weeks ago.
That was a pretty dire case and once I'd used my three alerts I sent feedback to the website instead [just once was enough]. The three-alert limit was not a problem.
My motivation and action to curtail Executioner Brand's free speech was unaffected by the fact that "the moderators have the final call".
@moonbus saidWhy are you asking FMF, I’m the one who raised the “conspiracy” theory to Russ.
Do you have evidence that the same poster was alerting the same post ten times?
No one is under any compunction to provide you with anything, why do you feel so entitled?
Hey, maybe it’s your vanity!
@moonbus saidthe alert function emasculated so he would see fewer alerts
Dive lobbied (successfully) to get the alert function emasculated so he would see fewer alerts, and now you're trying to emasculate the thumbs feature for the same reason.
Do you believe that everyone should have an unlimited number of anonymous attempts to curtail each other's freedom of speech every day?
If so, do you think it would make the site better?