OT1H I could play the minority card here myself but by the logic you assert I could possibly be disqualified because Ashkenazi Jews “have white privilage”. Or we control the world depending on which kind of nonsense one subscribes to.
It’s hard not to read what you say here as some animals are more equal than others.
That act possesses such an impact because of physical presence.
Let’s go back a bit and establish the full context, starting with KarlS, who posited that popular posters are less likely to be banned for the same level of transgression as outsiders are:
[quote=“KarlS, post:22, topic:92209, full:true”]
Mostly I don’t flag much because when I do usually I get no reaction.
And frankly, I don’t have much confidence in the moderation more generally. Outsiders are banned swiftly if they push the right buttons, but established users become too big to fail. This isn’t limited to users with whom I disagree. Some of the users I like a lot all in all can be serious assholes and it will never be held against them because they are firmly in line with BB orthodoxy. Then there is the little menagerie of resident contrarians that is allowed to do things that would get newcomers banned. I assume that is supposed to pass for tolerance.
[/quote][emphasis added]
KarlS’s impression matches my impression of how some popular regulars can be bullies and not only get away with it, but be praised for it. @codinghorror cites a counter example, an unnamed long-time user banned for racism. Thinking of a user banned for reasons I never witnessed, I conditionally stated that the user that came to my mind wasn’t necessarily popular, and thus may not have had any protection of the kind KarlS alluded to.
Even if the user was popular, codinghorror can only find a single counter example of a permabanned long timer user, suggesting that KarlS may well be right. Your invocation of “Any of those “popular kids” spouting racist garbage?” is a false choice. There are other rule violations that may be ignored when popular users do them, because if a user is popular, I’d say they are less likely to be reported by those who can report.
Oh, it must’ve been for that.
Generally because new users breaking right into the shitposting is a better sign about their future history than someone who has a bad day.
And yes. People who post nastiness repeatedly don’t make the common users happy. This is the fruits of their posting and they can find another forum more suited to those topics. There’s plenty of alt right nerd-dom out there.
Most of us have a pretty easy time not layering Orwell into our discussions of ethics in social media moderation. YMMV.
Because new posters can’t have bad days? Benefit of the doubt only for existing posters?
I’m all for flagging racism and name calling on new posters, but it needs to be called out on an equal basis, bad day or not, regardless of whether the poster is new or old.
Are we talking about chromakey or someone else? Chromakey didn’t strike me as particularly unpopular. If anything, the opposite. He just wasn’t a regular.
New accounts should certainly be weighted to a higher degree of scrutiny for their first posts.
Also something the “Four legs good, two legs better!” elite would agree with - don’t question authority!
Feel free to question authority, but have some rationale for doing so first.
You’re leaping to conspiracies here, not skepticism.
Nahhh more like this old chestnut:
On your first day in jail, you gotta shank somebody. Everyone knows that! 
Ah, I was actually thinking of Shadak(sp), who, it seems from this thread, was banned for excessive sexism, not racism (I didn’t witness the incidents, and they, rightly, get purged pretty fast.) So I think my conditional “if” didn’t pan out.
Not really a conspiracy theory when I’ve seen people explicitly use flagging for viewpoint censorship. Nor is it a conspiracy theory to think that people are more likely give those they like a pass - and, in fact, doing so has been explicitly defended here in this thread on the basis that regulars may be having a “bad day” - and, in fact, the person advocating that was you! So, please, spare me the gas lighting.
Sexism is not a welcome characteristic to this community, nor is it going to charm the locals.
thanks for unwinding that, adding that context is much appreciated.
I still don’t agree that Regulars can be bullies and get away with it. I’d agree that Regulars are generally better at knowing where that line is, and their pushing back against bullies with verbiage generally has some more practiced limits to it.
I happen to find asserting one’s ignorance of a thing that one could ask about to be a form of bullying. But that’s me.
not really an argument, without evidence. The onus is not on me to want to be convinced, is it?
There is zero evidence of people using flagging for viewpoint censorship. Zero. Let’s just stop with that right now.
I do not act on flags, but I see them (standard disclaimer: for technical/diagnostic purposes only), and I can tell you that for a fact.
So you’re mad that persons who are liked are liked more than persons who are not liked?
This is not an issue that a technological solution exists to combat.
Exactly! but do question those who are your equals. You’re among them, just as soon as you see it.
They are, but more because we’re a small close-knit community, not because of any formal or even necessarily conscious process. I think that’s completely fair.
