D
Deleted member
Guest
Yep. That’s exactly why the rules say what they do, in a recognition that civility is totally impossible unless that behaviour is explicitly banned.
- Status
Yep. That’s exactly why the rules say what they do, in a recognition that civility is totally impossible unless that behaviour is explicitly banned.
Can someone please provide a summary of what has occured? I try to be civil here, but this is insane if some of the stuff I have seen glancing at the thread is true.
And yes, there are some out there who hate us.
And yes, there are some out there who hate us.
On paper that eliminates 90% of the problems...I worry over, on paper. In practice, lets hope that percentage remains consistent!
You banned Shane and Lord earlier this thread for engaging light friendly banter. I also see MelancholicMechanicus has been banned.
And his conduct with me has always been shall we say..very emotional and zealous. Simply put, I've seen a lot from a lot of mods who on SB I was convinced were part of the problem but here have been exemplary (@Spartan303 has happily made me recant every bad I've had of him ever) and I've seen after the fact a lot from a lot of mods here that I thought were bad...but upon having a semi decent conversation with them have been pleased to take it back @LordSunhawk being a good example.
But trigger happy banning to make a point..only serves to undermine the point that is trying to be made.
To be blunt, Ship and Invictus are often the source of thread drama and derails.
It's a pattern with them, and they are very much part of the issue with why this 'civility' enforcement thread exists.
Ship doesn't care to be civil, because he thinks acting like a 'no-fucks given punk' is 'cool', which often detracts from legit points he makes.
Invictus is a self-admitted far-right reactionary and Sith fanboy who spreads doomerism in nearly every post he makes, and thinks pessemism is the 'core' of conservatism. He fancies himself a 'crying prophet in the woods', 'dances' with White Nationalist rhetoric to the point he takes them seriously and thinks we should too, and hates 'mainstream' conservatism as 'Left-lite'.
It sounds like your judgment in regards to them is compromised by your dislike of them.
Invictus doesn't derail, so much as haggle. Which can lead to derails, but the onus is on the person who decides to barter with a Bedouin in that case.
To be fair Sanes entire posting history here is basically a joke. The guys derailed more threads with his "irony" and "light friendly banter" then anyone else here. Except that Kravoka guy who was also an intentional troll... And defended by Sane as well.
I'd say he needs to take a chill pill but he does it intentionally anyways just to provoke a reaction so it's not a matter of temperment. Kinda adjacent to this comic I feel.
Neither LI or Rakdos bothered me with their antics since they aren't trolling and actually sincere AFAIK and want an exchange of ideas and have been civil to me as far as I can see. Killing cops is bad optics specifically and their posting could be outputting or suffocating to others I suppose. But hopefully that can be moderated (see what I did there
) instead of having them ultimately banned for being too passionate about their issues.
@Shipmaster Sane got booted from this thread for trolling with a bad taste "joke" in a post with zero positive content and that could have easily been construed as a personal attack on another user and harassment of said user. If we thought he was being remotely serious, he probably would have been TOSed for that post.
As it was, his post was a Civility violation and wasn't even done with anything that could be construed as a justification. So he got booted from the thread because he proved incapable of remaining a civil participant in said thread.
In addition, his general behavior on the forum does not encourage the staff to view him with leniency.
@MelancholicMechanicus referred to the SB staff as "faggots". I direct you to rule 2a
"a) Racial, ethnic, religious and other slurs solely intended to demean a person for a group identity. A non-exhaustive set of examples includes “Nigger”, “Kike”, “Spic”, “Faggot”, “Slant”, etc."
You can take issue with the word at issue being on the same list as some of the other words, but for rules purposes they are all the same. And I would note that he hasn't appealed or otherwise publicly professed a serious issue with the week long politics temp ban that his actions earned him.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
easist way to solve this is act like your talking to people face to face in real life. Are you going to say somthing that's likely to get you puched in the face by an average joe? Are you prepared to get punched in the face by said joe? If your not willing to get puched, you may want to ask yourself is this quip or point worth saying and/or is there a better way I can get it across? crap posters I'm finding tend to play mayrtr/victum ALMOST as much as SJWs do.
Last edited:
MelancholicMechanicus
Thought Criminal
Friendly Reminder from the Boot. Rule 2a. Remember it. It's not hard.
I did not appeal because I didn't at first know how to react or wgat caused my infraction until I saw this thread.
Also, I didn't call the SB mods faggots. I called the CCP shill that. Said shill is known yo be friendly with mods and able to quickly summon them yo his aid when someone badmouth Glorious China hence why I reffered to him as a moderator pet, much like one would reffer to a student who kisses professor ass as a teacher's pet.
Something of a moot point, but I wanted to make it clear. The concept of no-no words in itself I find a bit problematic a stifling to discussion. It forces a artificial atmosphere instead of raw uncensored debate. I wod much rather see it as a "don't push your luck" rule instead so people can say anything they want but still be reprimanded if it's too much.
Calling someone a faggot? Low brow, but ok.
Spamming "Nigger" in all caps over 30 times in a post? Yeah no you kinda pushing it, infraction.
Also, I didn't call the SB mods faggots. I called the CCP shill that. Said shill is known yo be friendly with mods and able to quickly summon them yo his aid when someone badmouth Glorious China hence why I reffered to him as a moderator pet, much like one would reffer to a student who kisses professor ass as a teacher's pet.
Something of a moot point, but I wanted to make it clear. The concept of no-no words in itself I find a bit problematic a stifling to discussion. It forces a artificial atmosphere instead of raw uncensored debate. I wod much rather see it as a "don't push your luck" rule instead so people can say anything they want but still be reprimanded if it's too much.
Calling someone a faggot? Low brow, but ok.
Spamming "Nigger" in all caps over 30 times in a post? Yeah no you kinda pushing it, infraction.
I mean, you give your hot takes to the left of me, those two give their hot takes to the right of me, and hit each other with their hot takes arguing what to the right of me actually is.
Invictus is tollerable in small dose, same as you Bacle. Shane is pretty consistently entertaining and I always find him to be a much appreciated part of any discussion to help liven up the conversation and keep things going.
There's no thread if someone doesn't strongly disagree with what people say. Shane often is the one who can come in and say something that is both 1) interesting, and 2) Strongly disagreeble to someone which will trigger a response.
I mean, if we had 3 people like Shane calling people cucks for trusting the police that could be tiring, but it would be equally tiring if too many people cried over over racial sensitivity in every thread.
Variety is the spice of life.
Certified_Heterosexual
The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
After having read this entire thread, I have to say that I'm extremely worried at the precedent being set. This exact type of rule has in every case among our sister forums been the thin end of the wedge towards eventually purging non-Leftist users. I don't think the mods are doing this consciously or on purpose, but the precedent in other areas of the Internet is far too overwhelmingly damning for me to ignore.
And on top of that, now we find out that the mods are doing this in an attempt to appeal to the exact people 90% of us came to the Sietch to escape from?... well, it speaks for itself really.
I'm made extremely uncomfortable by what this site is becoming, will inevitably become, in light of this decision. It has become clear that The Sietch is no longer a place where Rightists will be welcome in the future, and I feel compelled to deactivate this account for my own safety. I would also like to publicly ask @Zoe or another admin to delete all my posts on this site, barring this one—just so there is no confusion about why precisely my posts have vanished.
This isn't a decision I'm making lightly, but out of pure self-preservation. As more and more SB/SV-adjacent users are attracted by the mod staff's marketing campaign, The Sietch will become a gradually more hostile, unwelcome, and in fact legitimately dangerous place to be, and I consider it of paramount importance to get out in front of it now, before it's too late.
I really hate to do this—I really liked this forum, I really thought The Sietch was going to be different than the other sites. But here we are falling for the exact same trap as they did. The simple fact is that recent decisions, however they may have been intended to come off, have made it so posting on The Sietch is now flagrantly dangerous for anyone who considers themself Rightist or conservative—and if not necessarily now, then in the not-so-distant future. It's only a matter of time now until the Leftist entryism begins in force, and I'd just as soon not be here when it does.
Bye, everyone.
"Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
—Conquest's Second Law of Politics
And on top of that, now we find out that the mods are doing this in an attempt to appeal to the exact people 90% of us came to the Sietch to escape from?... well, it speaks for itself really.
I'm made extremely uncomfortable by what this site is becoming, will inevitably become, in light of this decision. It has become clear that The Sietch is no longer a place where Rightists will be welcome in the future, and I feel compelled to deactivate this account for my own safety. I would also like to publicly ask @Zoe or another admin to delete all my posts on this site, barring this one—just so there is no confusion about why precisely my posts have vanished.
This isn't a decision I'm making lightly, but out of pure self-preservation. As more and more SB/SV-adjacent users are attracted by the mod staff's marketing campaign, The Sietch will become a gradually more hostile, unwelcome, and in fact legitimately dangerous place to be, and I consider it of paramount importance to get out in front of it now, before it's too late.
I really hate to do this—I really liked this forum, I really thought The Sietch was going to be different than the other sites. But here we are falling for the exact same trap as they did. The simple fact is that recent decisions, however they may have been intended to come off, have made it so posting on The Sietch is now flagrantly dangerous for anyone who considers themself Rightist or conservative—and if not necessarily now, then in the not-so-distant future. It's only a matter of time now until the Leftist entryism begins in force, and I'd just as soon not be here when it does.
Bye, everyone.
"Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
—Conquest's Second Law of Politics
A Venetian coffee house sounds snooty and European and supremely gay. Not a fun time in the slightest.
Your bad blood and bias is showing. It was utterly harmless and funny.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
This organisation is explicitly right-wing. It's also explicitly civil.
Eh, let me tell you, Europeans are depressing not as gay as I would prefer. They keeping pinging my gaydar but not being actual hits.
As for the civility rules, this seems like a measured step in the right direction. Not too ban happy, as I have faith in the mods, and we'll see what happens here. Hopefully new people can be pulled in from the adjacent forums to post here as well.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
I'll miss you
a dude just got booted for saying “Hitler guy is right.” Which is harmless. It’s a bad direction. It’s not going to pull anyone, it’s going to cut down on activity and the user base, it’s a terrible idea, and it’s not going to go well.
This right here is something we do not want to see. It is perfectly possible to make all of the points you just made without having to resort to 2a violations. At this point you are just saying them to be edgy and say them, it proves nothing, it adds nothing, it gives no value or improvement in any way, and does nothing to illustrate a point, make a point, or advance any sort of civil discussion.
Jager, I have a PM from another member here that specifically mentions you and Invictus in the title as being people who are tiresome doomspergers.
And that is not the only PM people have opened with me related to the Far-Right being annoying, tiresome, and unappealing to deal with.
You really do not get how much you, Invictus, and others in the far-right drive away moderates and others from this forum, and make people not want to post or simply put you on Ignore.
Part of the reason this place is having PR issues is because people like you don't seem to get how few people want to be in places with a large amount of Far-Right folks dominating the discourse.
Edited for accuracy, due to misremembering a conversation.
Last edited:
- Status