Name-calling is now against Saidit Rules

submitted by thoughtcriminal from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

It wasn't against the rules to converse in the lower tiers as long as the conversation was already happening there.

This is misleading. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

It was definitely in place. They made exceptions for subs off /s/All (/s/OpieAndAnthony, Ice Poseidon 2, /s/Incels, etc.). And they didn't enforce it in general subs like they could have. Things won't change (as you're insisting for unnecessary drama), but it will be easier for admins.

And if it is being enforced, saidit's rule are stricter even than r*ddit in this regard.

IMO, one simple rule of four with minor issues is worth it, to maintain SaidIt civility, free-thinking, and truth-seeking.

I probably will leave if it stays in place, but I'd rather have a conversation about it first.

It's always been there. Let's have a conversation about your momma raising whiners. ;P

[–]thoughtcriminal[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Things won't change (as you're insisting for unnecessary drama), but it will be easier for admins.

So things won't change but things will change for the admins (since it will be easier). Which is it, both statements can't be true.

(as you're insisting for unnecessary drama)

ad hominem, don't assume my motivations or make baseless attacks on me. We're talking about saidit and its rules.

It's always been there.

This is misleading. Repeating it doesn't make it true. You stated yourself that the rule was unwritten and unenforced. So effectively and practically and for all intents and purposes, it didn't exist.

Let's have a conversation about your momma raising whiners

Mentioning my mother which is irrelevant to this discussion seems like it would constitute dragging down on the pyramid.

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

So things won't change but things will change for the admins (since it will be easier). Which is it, both statements can't be true.

Let me know when you notice a difference.

ad hominem, don't assume my motivations or make baseless attacks on me. We're talking about saidit and its rules.

They've been explained, many times, here, on the other post, and in chat. Repeatedly. Redundantly. Over and over. Again and again.

The horse is dead. It's in many pieces. Now you're just beating it into horse paste (not the good kind).

This is misleading. Repeating it doesn't make it true. You stated yourself that the rule was unwritten and unenforced. So effectively and practically and for all intents and purposes, it didn't exist.

I have 2 strikes, for name-calling, 1 objectively, 1 allegedly. You can't explain these without understanding that it is, and always has been a thing here.

Look at these discussions and links within, including coverage of this topic:

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8tvc/shalomeveryone_is_a_full_of_shit_enemy_of/

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8euo/saidit_survey_ban_usocks_and_uactuallynot_or_keep/

Mentioning my mother which is irrelevant to this discussion seems like it would constitute dragging down on the pyramid.

Maybe. Or maybe I'm just trying to make light of your repetitive tediousness which is dragging things downward. You see how problematic subjective content is - now imagine having to be admin over all this shit. They don't want to have to make the subjective calls that determine the fates of users. Clear objective rules are easier to regulate. You also see how this applies with wishy-washy bullshit lockdown mandates, etc.

My advice: quit bitching until there's something to bitch about. They've heard you. See how it goes. If it's worse, then raise hell.

[–]goobandit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

🐐