Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 282  Next >
1

2





3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 05:38:54 PM »
Saddam, don't hotlink from Twitter - the image won't show up to anyone that doesn't already have it cached in their browser. Reupload it somewhere before linking.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 05:25:06 PM »

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 02:24:35 PM »
Sorry, I forgot about my all-time favourite of these:


6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 02:05:02 PM »
Here are a handful to get started:








7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:59:47 PM »
I've recently added myself to a few all-caps political fb groups. We're talking stuff like "BLOOMBERG FOR PURPOSE" (formerly "BLOOMBERG FOR PRESIDENT 2020") and "TRUMP SUPPORTERS UK".

In case you're not familiar, these groups can often produce some amazing content (unless they get overrun by trolls, at which point it becomes a bit boring). I will use this thread to post occasional highlights, basically creating a dump of terrible political memes.

Please feel free to join me, but bear in mind that for this thread to be successful, we should follow a couple of guidelines:
  • Don't just post stuff you disagree with. If it's not a picture of Trump and Raegan hugging it out while Jesus is injecting himself with marijuana in the background, you're doing it wrong.
  • Don't discuss the merit behind the pictures. Most of them will include terrible hot takes which aren't worthy of serious consideration.

8
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 19, 2020, 04:36:31 PM »
Deal with the subject matter.
The subject matter has been dealt with. Every member of staff reviewed the issue individually, and the agreement reached was that the rules were executed properly, within a reasonable use of moderator discretion. You are perfectly entitled to dislike this, but ultimately, the site is run by its owners, not by you.

You claim to represent "the community" - I'll defer you to garygreen's comment in this thread. You represent nobody but yourself, and nobody is buying your holier-than-thou attitude. Roundy has made some interesting points about the letter vs. spirit of the rules, and I'll see if we can tighten the phrasing in some occasions. In the meantime, your "do as I say or else I'll keep shitting all over the forum" attitude has run its course.

You made yourself perfectly clear yesterday. You don't give a damn about this site or its users. What you care about is starting trouble and "winning", even if it comes at the cost of wrecking the place. We are not going to waste any more time on you or your concern-trolling.

Thread locked.

9
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 19, 2020, 04:30:14 PM »
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, I know you actually don't. How you actually feel is something you already described for all of us.

Now, please stop trolling S&C.

10
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 19, 2020, 04:26:36 PM »
Now, I'd like to direct you to item 4 of the manifesto
Quote from: manifesto item 4
In all decisions, you shall defer to the rules as written rather than relying on your personal judgment.
You might want continue reading.

Thork, last night you openly admitted that this is nothing but another one of your trolling stunts. Deleting the post doesn't change that. Please take a break to clean up your underwear and come back when you're done dealing with whatever personal crap sent you on this mission.

11
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 18, 2020, 03:14:51 PM »
Ok. Well I disagree. If you feel the rule in question doesn't accurately reflect how it's carried out, you should change the wording of the rule. The rule as it's written clearly states when behavior is considered harassment, and it isn't what you've laid out here. Change the wording of the rule to reflect how you implement it if that's the issue.
I appreciate that point. I don't think it currently doesn't accurately reflect it, but you clearly disagree, and the rules should be as clear to all as possible. In the case that the ban is upheld, I'd be curious if you could make specific suggestions to change the phrasing. I will also try to come up with some suggestions of my own.

12
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 18, 2020, 02:38:38 PM »
Thork is right about this though. You can't call a single transgression harassment, that's not what harassment is, it implies a pattern of behavior.
It's not a single transgression, that's the crux of the issue.

We've had an entire thread harassing Tom, which specifically featured RonJ as one of the most prolific contributors. Tom asked people to stop. They didn't stop. The thread got locked, and everyone involved was told to cool it. Yeah, junker didn't slap everyone with an individual PM warning - I don't think he should need to. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone had any doubts about the situation.

Fast-forward a few months, a handful of people try to resume this behaviour. I point out that we'd agreed this would stop. Most people stop. RonJ immediately chooses to double down. How many more times should we have to ask him before we can conclude that he was blatantly not interested in behaving?

And Rule 2 clearly stipulates that the offender should have been asked by the person being harassed to stop. So the fact that Tom has whined about how everyone makes fun of him in the past should be moot. Unless Tom specifically asked RonJ to stop I don't see how a ban is fair per the very verbiage of the rule in question.
The consensus we reached previously is that the rule can be applied to groups of people, and they were all asked to stop before. I didn't want to immediately start throwing bans around, which is why I repeated the request for people to stop, and only acted when RonJ openly chose to test me. The exact letter of the rule is important, but it is not the be-all-end-all - the spirit of the rule in this case is to prefer hate mobs like the original Tom thread from forming again. Ron was perfectly aware of the fact that Tom doesn't wish to be harassed in this form (he was informed of that before, and reminded moments before he chose to lash out) - that should be all that matters here.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 18, 2020, 02:21:48 PM »
[...] Someone not taking you seriously because frankly you are a meme of a moderator at this point, is hardly breaking rule 2. It is an example of you losing control because you aren't respected because you act like a fool most of the time.

I also question the merit of trying to unban someone who will just come back to do more EJ crap, and who will likely get re-banned within days. It doesn't help make the forum better, and I can't help but suspect that you're just trying to make this a bit of a personal skirmish.
Because you are making up new rules, not respecting the current rules and you'll be using Tom's Law on the rest of us in no time. We want a line in the sand so that you respect the forum rules.
Oh, so it is a personal skirmish. Very well. I hope that's taken into account when staff review the suggestion.

I think I've said everything that I have to say on this subject. I'll back off and let you guys work it out between yourselves, unless anything that requires my comment comes up.

14
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 18, 2020, 02:06:41 PM »
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. He was told that Tom is not comfortable with that behaviour, and I recently reminded him of this. He doubled down. That follows every step of rule 2. Honestly, that's all there is to it.

I also question the merit of trying to unban someone who will just come back to do more EJ crap, and who will likely get re-banned within days. It doesn't help make the forum better, and I can't help but suspect that you're just trying to make this a bit of a personal skirmish.

15
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 18, 2020, 02:00:02 PM »
Not sure why Pete keeps going on about rule 2.
Because that's the rule RonJ was banned for breaking. I continue to dislike the consensus we've reached on how that rule works, but it is what's currently in place.

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 18, 2020, 01:47:14 PM »
I should clarify that the ban we're discussing is a 5-week one, not 2. This is his 5th ban in rapid succession, so the time stacked up pretty high.

I should also point out that he made his post immediately below me asking that these posts stop. He even quoted that request, so it seems reasonable to assume he read and understood it. To claim that he wasn't warned is disingenuous, in my view, and we have never previously required for warnings to take the format of a logged PM. If you feel this should change, that's worth discussing, but it shouldn't apply retroactively.

I view the AR point as moot, because the rule Ron broke applies in all boards. AR does not get special treatment with rule 2.

That's pretty much all I have to say about the matter. Over to staff.

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Thoughts on updating the FAQ
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:41:31 PM »
My two cents:
  • I agree that an EA-based celestial model is the most viable and most prolific within our society. It should be reflected as such, as long as there are no major objections from the regulars.
  • I am unconvinced that bi-polar models should be treated as equivalent to monopole models. Even outside of the FES, monopole models are hugely more popular. Bi-polar models should be given some representation, but I'm not convinced that they should be put on equal footing with monopoles.
  • I completely agree that the question of "if planets are round, why isn't the Earth?" could and should be expanded upon. Though I personally don't know the best way to go about it. Intuitively, it would make sense to me to point out that the Earth is quite unique regardless of its shape, for example in how it's the only known body to harbour intelligent life. Logically, one could use the same argument to question the existence of intelligent life: we've looked at all those planets and found none of it, so why should Earth be any different?

18
Had to get a new account
You could have just not deleted it in the first place.

Once the camera is above the clouds, look at the horizon. It should appear flat.

Once the camera reaches its full height, look at the horizon. It should appear curved.
Neither of those are necessarily correct, given that we've already established that your video is subject to very obvious barrel distortion.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:11:43 AM »
Are you sober now? Yesterday you were hanging around AR with piss stained pants shouting at the pigeons.
Thork, I'm going to ask you one last time: keep the personal attacks out of the upper.

It shows in the UK, we need a Trump win.
What a dire set of circumstances.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: September 17, 2020, 09:41:09 AM »
What a fantastic trade deal partner our overlords chose for us, eh, Thork? Are you missing the Bruxellois elite yet?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 282  Next >