A quick note on the return2ozma ban:
You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
he was posting stories from reputable sources.
And ONLY certain stories that fit a narrative. How is this part being ignored?
Oh… I get it. You also support that narrative.
no one shouldbe compelled to spread a story that supports a point of view with which they disagree. so long as his posts were, in themselves, in compliance with the rules, there should have been no problem.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? This was all explained already. They were spamming the community with agenda-based news. No one suggested they share news they disagree with.
And if you check the mod logs, not ALL of what they shared was legitimate.
They were rightfully banned. And I’d prefer it permanent, but it’s still a step in the right direction. Not arguing this with you further.
you know what, fair point. of course, that's sort of what mods are for, and i think that the power to decide which sources are legitimate is itself the power to propagandize.
Look at that… a bad-faith argument! Who could have exp-
I could have.
i thought you were done.
Blocked.
why would you lie about something like this?
Because they want the attention
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
Blocked.
somehow, i think you were lying the first 3 times
Blocked.
each of their posts was in compliance with the rules
I’m not sorry you’re upset by this. I’m not going to argue it further. The right thing was done, and you’re mad. That’s not my problem.
the wrong thing was done. i'm not mad. i just know what injustice is.
The right thing was done.
repeating it doesn't make it true.
Blocked.
thank god
Blocked
i thought you were done.
i thought you were done already. is it this time for real?
So you’re admittedly trolling? You know, most people know exactly what to do when someone tells them they’re not arguing with them any further.
The onus is on you to be mature enough to back off. But I see you subscribe to schoolyard rules of-
“I don’t care if you are done arguing! I have to have the last word!”
Block you now.
i'm not. i thought you were done.
Blocked.
how many times have you actually blocked me though?
if you say you are going to walk away, you should just keep your word.
Blocked
oh, thank god.