you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]redarmyshrike 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Actually, it's GC users who are disproportionately banned. I can't remember their usernames and there's no record of any of it in the moderation logs though.

See how I can make shit up too?

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

There is only a QT user who was temporary banned. All the permant bans have been mostly the same spammer who likes to pose as QT (but is not) and alt right users.

Per biology. Your mental gymnastics don't change fact. We don't have access to prior logs, doesn't mean I didn't watch them as they happened

[–]redarmyshrike 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

What do you even think this quote proves? Because it's not your point lol.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Neither of us can prove our claims, but there's a mod chatting here too who is actively confirming mine, despite being obviously biased in favor of gc posters. I don't know why that's making you so salty, but maybe chill.

[–]redarmyshrike 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know why that's making you so salty, but maybe chill

Lol what? Are you projecting or something?

A mod confirming the temporary banning of one QT poster (circling, who you agree should have been banned) is not confirming your claim that QT is "consistently banned" or that the moderation is biased.

I'm glad you agree your claim cannot be proven though, one comment ago you were calling it a fact.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

...yes. Fact isn't requiring of proof for it to remain fact. I'm eating dinner right now. I can't prove that to you, that doesn't change that I factually am eating dinner. The discussion isn't about whether I can prove that gc users aren't actively punished for rule breaking (which is objective fact, house misgendered the one qt mod in this very post and it's being ignored), it's that they aren't and that's the reason why you've got no opposition in your echo chamber, which is conjecture, but again considering the rule-breaking here being ignored, I'm feeling pretty confident im more right than not.