Opinion of recently banned poster: citizenZ

[Хahar 🤔]

I put him on ignore immediately so I didn't see many of his posts, but I'm surprised that it would be Naso. He seemed more articulate than I remember Naso being.

[John Dule]

[Joe Republic]

^ and on Thanksgiving.  What an utterly depressing way to spend one's twilight years, churning out essays on an obscure forum complaining about nothing, instead of spending quality time with his family.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Your comment agreeing with Ferguson97's personal attack on me (which was false in its entirety) was one of the lowest things anyone has ever done here.

[John Dule]

Your comment agreeing with Ferguson97's personal attack on me (which was false in its entirety) was one of the lowest things anyone has ever done here.

I wasn't agreeing with him, and at the time I wrote that I didn't even know what he'd said. All I said was that by observing your conduct since he made that remark, everyone can tell that he was on to something. You made this clear with your obsessive behavior, and I merely pointed it out.

[afleitch]

I'm curious what the last straw was (and why they jumped to a permaban instead of the normal temp bans first procedure, not that he didn't deserve it.)

User in question received a thread mute a while back and what the user posted was honestly the most vile series of posts I’ve seen by a user in my 46 months as moderator here so I was fine with escalating faster. Don’t expect this to be a norm going forward here either.

Is there any truth to the recent Reaganfan sock allegation?

Based on the location of the IP, I don’t doubt it.

He actually admitted it on another site.  I wouldn't post something like that if that weren't the case.

ReaganFan, for all his faults, was a more decent human being toward other posters here than Ferguson97, Hindsight was 2020, ProudModerate2, and a host of others I can think of.  He did not crassly attack people, he was generally respectful even with people he did not agree with.  His bigoted commentaries (which I don't know what they were, so I'll take people's word for them) earned him his ban, and they are a violation of the ToS.

Honestly, though:  Why should I think less highly of citizenZ/ReaganFan/The Voice of America (his various user names) than I do of Ferguson97 (who is fundamentally unsanctioned for his unhinged attacks), ProudModerate2 (who is an unsanctioned troll of me), Hindsight was 2020, Joe Republic (who has implied I'm going senile)?  ReaganFan has been more decent to people that hate him here than those people have been to others they disagree with.  

ReaganFan has never made the kind of personal attack on other posters that Ferguson97, Indy Texas, and MasterJedi have made on me, yet they're still here, and they're LAUDED by some of the people I just mentioned.  I'm not defending making a sock (that's something that gets you permabanned and he knew it, so . . .).  It seems though that being a scumbag toward your peers here counts for very little (at least if you're on the left).  That's my issue.  It really does gall me that Ferguson97 has anything to say about any other poster in light of his own personal attack against me (which, quite frankly, he has never apologized for, or even indicated was even a teensy bit over the top).  

It's not OK that Ferguson97 wins here.

You really are absolutely obsessed.

Ah, the moderator who referred to me as a ghoul.  (So much for personal attacks being against the ToS.)

He's the third poster to make a libelous personal attack against me, part of which used my family.  He received no sanction; he hasn't missed a day of this place.  That's not fair, not at all, but if I were to do the same to him, I'd be tempbanned for at least 30 days, and likely longer.  So you tell me why I should just blow this off?

I called you a ghoul because you derailed breaking news on the Uvalde shooting.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm curious what the last straw was (and why they jumped to a permaban instead of the normal temp bans first procedure, not that he didn't deserve it.)

User in question received a thread mute a while back and what the user posted was honestly the most vile series of posts I’ve seen by a user in my 46 months as moderator here so I was fine with escalating faster. Don’t expect this to be a norm going forward here either.

Is there any truth to the recent Reaganfan sock allegation?

Based on the location of the IP, I don’t doubt it.

He actually admitted it on another site.  I wouldn't post something like that if that weren't the case.

ReaganFan, for all his faults, was a more decent human being toward other posters here than Ferguson97, Hindsight was 2020, ProudModerate2, and a host of others I can think of.  He did not crassly attack people, he was generally respectful even with people he did not agree with.  His bigoted commentaries (which I don't know what they were, so I'll take people's word for them) earned him his ban, and they are a violation of the ToS.

Honestly, though:  Why should I think less highly of citizenZ/ReaganFan/The Voice of America (his various user names) than I do of Ferguson97 (who is fundamentally unsanctioned for his unhinged attacks), ProudModerate2 (who is an unsanctioned troll of me), Hindsight was 2020, Joe Republic (who has implied I'm going senile)?  ReaganFan has been more decent to people that hate him here than those people have been to others they disagree with.  

ReaganFan has never made the kind of personal attack on other posters that Ferguson97, Indy Texas, and MasterJedi have made on me, yet they're still here, and they're LAUDED by some of the people I just mentioned.  I'm not defending making a sock (that's something that gets you permabanned and he knew it, so . . .).  It seems though that being a scumbag toward your peers here counts for very little (at least if you're on the left).  That's my issue.  It really does gall me that Ferguson97 has anything to say about any other poster in light of his own personal attack against me (which, quite frankly, he has never apologized for, or even indicated was even a teensy bit over the top).  

It's not OK that Ferguson97 wins here.

You really are absolutely obsessed.

Ah, the moderator who referred to me as a ghoul.  (So much for personal attacks being against the ToS.)

He's the third poster to make a libelous personal attack against me, part of which used my family.  He received no sanction; he hasn't missed a day of this place.  That's not fair, not at all, but if I were to do the same to him, I'd be tempbanned for at least 30 days, and likely longer.  So you tell me why I should just blow this off?

I called you a ghoul because you derailed breaking news on the Uvalde shooting.

I was responding to the multiple posters using the thread to call for depriving law abiding gun owners of their 2nd Amendment rights, an issue brought up by the poster who started the thread.  It was a thread that embodied the spirit of not letting a crisis go to waste, as well as a well-established tradition here where the sorrow for the families of victims is in direct proportion to the ability of the crime to be used as narrative for other causes.  Forgive my cynicism, but the selective outrage and grief here over mass shooting victims here is telling.  

As is the selective tolerance for libelous personal attacks.  My issue here is the double standard.  Ferguson was, effectively, unsanctioned.  Please tell me why I should be OK with that?

[afleitch]

He was not 'unsanctioned'. You know this. You can't demand that posters be sanctioned in accordance with your desired outcome and continually spamming threads about it.

If you are of the nature that you can't let this go, then perhaps think whether you should take a break from a place if it is causing you stress or anxiety.

[Edu]

lmao, posts made by Fuzzy look like they have been made with a template. How much whining and complaining about other posters can you do? does he never get bored?

blahblahblahFergusonProudmoderateblahblahblahBLMblahblahblahGrandmuftiblahblahblah

[Fuzzy Bear]

He was not 'unsanctioned'. You know this. You can't demand that posters be sanctioned in accordance with your desired outcome and continually spamming threads about it.

If you are of the nature that you can't let this go, then perhaps think whether you should take a break from a place if it is causing you stress or anxiety.

He was muted for 30 days from USGD.  He has been free to post on the entire forum unchecked, so he is ACTUALLY unsanctioned.  It is comparable to tell a kid "No TV for a month!", then sending to his room while he gets to keep all of his devices?

If I made a similar comment about Ferguson97, what sanction would you have in mind for me?

[Joe Republic]

It's Thanksgiving, Fuzzy.  Take a break, ffs

[Associate Justice PiT]

I was responding to the multiple posters using the thread to call for depriving law abiding gun owners of their 2nd Amendment rights, an issue brought up by the poster who started the thread.  It was a thread that embodied the spirit of not letting a crisis go to waste, as well as a well-established tradition here where the sorrow for the families of victims is in direct proportion to the ability of the crime to be used as narrative for other causes.  Forgive my cynicism, but the selective outrage and grief here over mass shooting victims here is telling.  

     This is honestly why I generally ignore threads about breaking news on Atlas. As Shaw immortally said, "never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it". Those threads are just cesspools of kids trying to one up each other with insane hot takes fed by the emotions of the moment. Don't let them drag you into the muck with them. They will forget all about it with the next news story that pops up anyway.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Also, Joe is right: take the day off. I like you Fuzzy, but this isn't the day for Atlas drama.

[Hindsight was 2020]

“Boy I wonder how my thread on citizenZ is going”
*opens thread*
0.o

Edit:
Also happy thanksgiving everyone

[Fuzzy Bear]

     Also, Joe is right: take the day off. I like you Fuzzy, but this isn't the day for Atlas drama.

I guess.

[Ferguson97]

This does not change my position that your sanction is inadequate for your action, but I'll own it when I'm wrong.

Yeah, you made that clear with your 7 pages worth of posts about it.

When are you going to stop complaining about it?

Not for a while.  You deserve having to deal with it.

You’re in your 60s, right? Do you think that this behavior is consistent with the maturity level of most people your age?

[GeorgiaModerate]

I must admit that when I opened this thread, I really wasn't expecting yet another Fuzzy grievance thread.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This does not change my position that your sanction is inadequate for your action, but I'll own it when I'm wrong.

Yeah, you made that clear with your 7 pages worth of posts about it.

When are you going to stop complaining about it?

Not for a while.  You deserve having to deal with it.

You’re in your 60s, right? Do you think that this behavior is consistent with the maturity level of most people your age?

Given that you are totally unapologetic for your libel the answer is a resounding "yes".

That's the reality; you're fundamentally unsanctioned and plainly unapologetic.  People in that position are not to be taken seriously in their critiques of others.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Log off Fuzzy.

[PSOL]

Awful

[Ferguson97]

This does not change my position that your sanction is inadequate for your action, but I'll own it when I'm wrong.

Yeah, you made that clear with your 7 pages worth of posts about it.

When are you going to stop complaining about it?

Not for a while.  You deserve having to deal with it.

You’re in your 60s, right? Do you think that this behavior is consistent with the maturity level of most people your age?

Given that you are totally unapologetic for your libel the answer is a resounding "yes".

Given that you’re framing a mean comment on an anonymous niche Internet forum (from a couple months ago, I might add) as “libel”, I’m going have to disagree.

[Badger]

This does not change my position that your sanction is inadequate for your action, but I'll own it when I'm wrong.

Yeah, you made that clear with your 7 pages worth of posts about it.

When are you going to stop complaining about it?

Not for a while.  You deserve having to deal with it.

You’re in your 60s, right? Do you think that this behavior is consistent with the maturity level of most people your age?

Given that you are totally unapologetic for your libel the answer is a resounding "yes".

Given that you’re framing a mean comment on an anonymous niche Internet forum (from a couple months ago, I might add) as “libel”, I’m going have to disagree.

Ferguson, trust me and just put fuzzy on ignore. He rarely if ever posts anything worth noting, and it will do wonders for your sanity.

[John Dule]

[Fuzzy Bear]

He was not 'unsanctioned'. You know this. You can't demand that posters be sanctioned in accordance with your desired outcome and continually spamming threads about it.

If you are of the nature that you can't let this go, then perhaps think whether you should take a break from a place if it is causing you stress or anxiety.

Shouldn't a "sanction" cause someone to be unable to participate in the normal activities of the Forum?  That's a serious question.

CitizenZ, were it not for the fact that he was a sock of a permabanned poster, arguably did not deserve a permaban, and he was permabanned before that fact came to light.  When you're barred from one forum, you get to do your thing in multiple others.  Nothing has stopped Ferguson97 from fully expressing himself.  And nothing has been required him; no contrition, no tacit admission that he was wrong, not even an admission that he broke rules and would not do so again.  He's got some kind of "black mark" that will be considered "next time".  Of course, when "next time" comes, those who wish to protect him (and I count you in that number) will make the argument that "It's been a long time!" since his last sanction, etc.

Fairness is a concept that requires something to compare it to.  The fairness of the actions of moderators here is determined by (A) comparing what a poster did to what is prohibited on teh ToS and (B) comparing the sanction the poster received to what sanctions other posters in comparable situations have received.  The treatment of CitizenZ was, arguably, right for the wrong reason. 

[T'Chenka]

CitizenZ, were it not for the fact that he was a sock of a permabanned poster, arguably did not deserve a permaban, and he was permabanned before that fact came to light.

Some of the homophobic and transphobic things he posted on the night of his ban were deeply bigoted... on par with the worst I've seen on this forum before. He deserved at a bare minimum a several month ban for that.