you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You're the fucking mod, i've seen you remove gc comments for crossing the imaginary line of plausible deniability. You can scroll back in the moderation log and theres plenty of removed comments from gc users, BY YOU. The fucking gall to ask for proof when you know for a fact im right is amazing beyond words. Or did you not know the moderation log was public?

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, I know the log is public.

There is nothing odd about asking for proof in a debate sub.

So, you recognize that I've deleted comments from GC users. Great! Though, I'm confused about how exactly this is proof I'm toxic against QT users. Shouldn't this proove the contrary?

Anyways, are you up to join the mod team and fix the supposedly umbalanced moderation? Yes or not?

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Sure, I'd absolutely love to. I'll gladly moderate a debate sub with only one side, sounds like a piece of cake.

And so we're clear, never doing anything other than forcing comment edits after the fact is the problem. There's literally no reason for gc users not to be inflammatory, because they know they won't be punished in the slightest AND their overwhelmingly one-sided court of opinion will love them for it. Imagine how a qt user feels in that environment, I'm sure they're so glad that after having been slurred in some way the person in question was politely asked to edit their comment and nothing else.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ok, if you think being a mod is so easy, let's see how you fare. To be clear, since you have no posting history before this post and we cannot take your word for it, we'll watch over you and we'll remove you if you abuse the position. Do you accept this?

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, absolutely, I'll even recuse myself from this thread and not take any action against an unnamed user's direct and intentional rule-breaking since it could be construed that I did it spitefully. You could, though, enforce the rules as an unbiased third party. Prove you actually care about gc rule-breaking.