deleted by creator

You’re not being encouraged to have drawn out discussions with trolls. WE (mods) are encouraged to not insta-ban or knee-jerk remove content just because it might lie within a grey area of what we consider trolling, like other instances do from time to time. If someone is blatantly trolling, which is usually obvious- we remove the content, but if not and it’s just an unpopular opinion/conspiracy theory, the idea is that it should remain and be debated with facts and shut down via discourse rather than a heavy hand.

Also… This is not an all encompassing be-all-end-all rule. It’s nuanced. VERY nuanced. Again, no one is forcing you to have to deal with nonsense. You also have the option to not react to people you believe is trolling in bad faith, and report them if you feel they are brewing the rules.

Hope this clears some of it up.

Well said and agreed.

Essentially, the policy is to distance .world from other instances that have a more…. Locked down/strict approach. Or in other words, the purpose of the change is to not have .world’s moderation resemble the oppressive methods of moderation of some of the other popular instances.

Its intention is to stop heavy-handed moderation, and instead create discussion and debate. To not have mods knee-jerk remove/ban content that could have been left to remain and debated. The problem is, it was confusing in its delivery.

But don’t let this get in the way of whatever grudge you’re holding.

Agreed.

This shows you clearly don’t understand what was implied by what was said. “Flat earth” is a placeholder term to imply “random nonsense conspiracy theory.” Nothing more.

The idea is that instead of instant removal/ban, we are encouraged to debate and draw out through discussion, the reason why it’s bullshit.

I’ll agree that the change suggested is a bit confusing in it’s wording, but simultaneously, it was also misinterpreted by knee-jerk reactionaries to mean what they needed it to mean to result in the outrage they crave.

As I understand, It was a move intended to inspire discussion rather than having overreaching moderators knee-jerk remove posts/comments. It just wasn’t worded properly.

Does it need confirmation again? When was this ever legitimately disputed?

This is where we are now: fall in line with status quo, or burn.

They can’t get the independent and free-thinking side of America to support them, so now they will leverage health and safety to force them into submission.

This isn’t a court of law. I don’t need to prove to you the reasons this person should be banned. Besides…. others have already posted the damn evidence.

I told you they harassed other users. I am not going to share private messages with you. Their comment history is public as is their modlog. I suggest you look into it yourself.

AGAIN- if you disagree, and you have the authority to do so, then allow them access to your instance. I don’t really care.

I am simply illustrating reasons why the should be banned- along with all the other people here.

I dunno what they’ve done on other accounts,

I do know. That’s is why I can say this. I’m a moderator for a popular community on .world and remember very well the trouble they caused a few months back.

There is tons of evidence throughout the comments on this post of others who have had to deal with them. You can either think that this many people, across multiple instances are randomly conspiring against an innocent person chosen at random, or you can think that maybe you don’t have enough information to suggest we exonerate the troll…

As I said, if you run your own instance, you’re clearly free to do as you wish, but having had to deal with them- and the drama they caused, I stand firmly with anyone choosing to remove them from theirs.

Very astute response!

They were directly PM’ing people and being aggressively antagonistic. This is what ultimately got them banned. Then they ban evaded, and created communities to troll.

I suppose it should go without saying but I’ll say it anyway- they stirred up drama during the election and specifically targeted democratic voting, claiming to be in support of third parties-

Only to come out of the other end as a conservative propagandist. This is the definition of bad-faith trolling and is absolutely grounds for being banned.

If you run an instance, you’re free to protect them all you wish. But elsewhere, they should be banned.

Sorry, but experiencing loss is a necessary part of loving and being loved. It may be that I’m getting older, or it may be that I’ve lost a LOT of loved ones, but I look at it this way:

Picture everyone you know- as a light in your life. Some of them will be brighter, and some, dimmer. Some will start dim and then brighten with time, some remain constant, and some, sadly will fade away with time.

And when the lights of these loved ones slowly begin to flicker and then fade out one by one as you age- rather than scream out at the darkness, instead, remember how lucky you were then, and are now- to have had their light in your life at all.

Love can’t exist without loss. Never deny yourself one just to spite the existence of the other. Doing so flies in the face of one of life’s most precious gifts…

Care to explain how hoping something is loved is mean?

Captured alive for the first time? Are they usually dead when they’re captured?

Poor little thing. Hope it was loved by something.

There’s clearly more to this story. The simple fact that his username is “Conservative” indicates that he is one of those people that make their political ideology a major part of their identity.

This man is probably an insufferable ass.