Should 'excessive hyperbole' as a moderation option exist?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is a device to boost the reported post count of conservative posters.  It will not be used fairly.  I'm willing to bet that, to date, far more Republicans/conservatives have been so cited than Democrats/liberals, and this is a product of the world view the majority share here.

It is built-in bias.  It is a tool to make bias OK.  But if it stands as a reason to infract, rest assured that I will report such posts every time I see them.  If it's an infraction for me, it ought to be an infraction for thee.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No it shouldn't exist.

Frankly the only reason it ever existed in the first place was because back in 2012 or whenever we needed a category that could actually apply to Libertas. We all agreed his posts were worthy of infractions, but there wasn't a clear label to apply to them. Most of his posts existed in a weird gray area that simultaneously was almost-but-not-quite an attempt at trolling, and almost-but-not-quite a personal attack. So we split the difference and used his penchant for exaggeration as the basis for this new type of infraction

Honestly since Libertas was first banned probably 90% of "excessive hyperbole" incidents were just occasions where moderators really wanted to infract a post of someone they hated but couldn't find any legitimate reason to do so


honestly if someone is trolling, just call it trolling. If it's a personal attack, call it a personal attack. If it's not either thing then there's no justification to ban someone for being hyperbolic (especially when it's selectively applied by biased moderators)

This.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, it’s a valid way to moderate the forum, getting rid of it allows for the extremists to voice their reprehensible, extremist views in extraordinarily offensive ways. A way to enforce civility and restraint must remain.

your views are not more valid just because plugging them into a quiz puts you at the center of the political compass

Hard to believe, but I heartily concur here.

Agreement is possible when one places principles before personalities.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Honestly since Libertas was first banned probably 90% of "excessive hyperbole" incidents were just occasions where moderators really wanted to infract a post of someone they hated but couldn't find any legitimate reason to do so


honestly if someone is trolling, just call it trolling. If it's a personal attack, call it a personal attack. If it's not either thing then there's no justification to ban someone for being hyperbolic (especially when it's selectively applied by biased moderators)

Some people are preoccupied with pushing their own biases, rather than promoting fairness.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So, as someone who has actually had a post moderated for "excessive hyperbole," I support this rule staying in place. My post deserved to be infracted, and if posts of that nature remained on the forum, the forum would be a much worse place.

Does it not set off alarm bells when people openly admit that it's a category set up to ban one particular poster? 

There's an inherent unfairness in a rule that's, in fact, aimed at one person.  Indeed, that's grounds for grievances (and even lawsuits) when imposed in the workplace.  "This isn't the workplace!" isn't an argument that makes such rule-making any less unfair than it it is now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know, but Haley/Ryan should definitely be moderated for his use of the R-NC avatar, tricking me into reading his posts by making me think I'm about to enjoy another long-winded historical treatment by Yankee.

I've been having the exact same problem, and had considered voicing my concerns. You are far more polite than I would have been, so thank you.

I don't know, but Haley/Ryan should definitely be moderated for his use of the R-NC avatar, tricking me into reading his posts by making me think I'm about to enjoy another long-winded historical treatment by Yankee.

Well you could just read his username.

That's not how any of this works.

Avatars is how we distinguish people here, and by using a R-NC avatar Haley/Ryan is deceiving us and casting mud on an esteemed member of the community.

So on what date did you advise Badger that his blue avatar was deceiving?

[Fuzzy Bear]

This question can be easily dodged by permabanning bad posters.

Ban the bad posters (you know who I am talking about) and 90% of the posts in question will disappear.

Who are the "bad posters"?  Some say that I am.  There is a significant contingent here that desire this forum to be an Echo Chamber, much like a CNN panel.  This category, and related categories "derailing" are being used to increase the infraction rate of people that many here (like myself) that some wish would just go away.  It is already being used unfairly, and it is unfair in principle.

My message to Brave New Atlas management is this:  Just go ahead and ban people.  That's what you really want to do.  Satisfy the desires of your heart!  Ban the Neanderthals, even if they haven't violated the ToS in a decade.  Do it because you can.  But if this is going to be a discussion forum, let there be open discussion on the application of the principle of fairness here. 

This isn't ridiculous.  This is a POLITICS forum.  Lots of people here have dreams of holding public office.  A few already have, and others have run for office.  Many here (myself included) have held party office.  How fair people are here is an indication of how fair they'd be if they were ever elected to something of consequence.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don’t believe that being a communist alone is grounds for execution. What I believe you are referring to is my saying that the actions of Pinochet in the 80s were justified due to their crisis circumstances, which I believe they were. Even then though, yes, I do hold communists of all stripes in contempt. Communism is an ideology built upon theft, evil, and base ludditism (labor theory of value). My general stance on “acceptance” is that I consider near all non fascist/communist ideologies open for debate, but that I consider those two ideologies to be so fundamentally evil as to be unworthy of respect.

What is inherently evil about communism?

That's the funny part, because communism, as envisioned in the Marx's writings, is hardly "inherently evil", unlike Nazism or the idea of owning other people. Marx didn't himself really advocate revolution, believing the communist society will evolve naturally when capitalism reaches its' peak. His ideas are something that can be disagreed with, but can't be objectionably described as "inherently evil", and many of his observations broadened our horizons on the field of economics and social studies and retains. You can easily meet people ideologically far from communism that respects him as a great economist and political philosopher.

As of the "communist" countries that we've subsequently seen emerging, they were essentially a perversion of Marx's findings. For example, many viewed treated Lenin's "revolution" as a total folly, since establishing communism in a country primarily made up of peasants and of little level of industrialization directly contradicted Marx (not to mention the "October Revolution" was not a revolution to begin with, but a classical coup d'etat).

Furthermore, there's no such thing as one "unified" variant of communism. It has a number of currents, some coming closer to democratic socialism, even social democracy, and some that degenerated into pretty terrible movements.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

All animals are equal.

But some are more equal than others.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don’t believe that being a communist alone is grounds for execution. What I believe you are referring to is my saying that the actions of Pinochet in the 80s were justified due to their crisis circumstances, which I believe they were. Even then though, yes, I do hold communists of all stripes in contempt. Communism is an ideology built upon theft, evil, and base ludditism (labor theory of value). My general stance on “acceptance” is that I consider near all non fascist/communist ideologies open for debate, but that I consider those two ideologies to be so fundamentally evil as to be unworthy of respect.

What is inherently evil about communism?

That's the funny part, because communism, as envisioned in the Marx's writings, is hardly "inherently evil", unlike Nazism or the idea of owning other people. Marx didn't himself really advocate revolution, believing the communist society will evolve naturally when capitalism reaches its' peak. His ideas are something that can be disagreed with, but can't be objectionably described as "inherently evil", and many of his observations broadened our horizons on the field of economics and social studies and retains. You can easily meet people ideologically far from communism that respects him as a great economist and political philosopher.

As of the "communist" countries that we've subsequently seen emerging, they were essentially a perversion of Marx's findings. For example, many viewed treated Lenin's "revolution" as a total folly, since establishing communism in a country primarily made up of peasants and of little level of industrialization directly contradicted Marx (not to mention the "October Revolution" was not a revolution to begin with, but a classical coup d'etat).

Furthermore, there's no such thing as one "unified" variant of communism. It has a number of currents, some coming closer to democratic socialism, even social democracy, and some that degenerated into pretty terrible movements.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

All animals are equal.

But some are more equal than others.

Are you actually trying to argue with someone who lives in a post-communist nation by misappropriating Orwell?

If you say so, Boomer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

When it's used against me in an utterly ridiculous way, I take it to heart that the option was created as a tool to target certain posters.