In the vast majority of cases, banning is too extreme. I completely applaud evspra for what he did. The guy deserves a medal as far as I'm concerned. The fact that he was pushed out is inexcusable. Even with all of that, I can admit that banning of all things GeorgeNews was probably a misstep on his part. But there are ways to engage with mods and state that cordially, rather than pushing them to quit.
With regard to George New, I think only those posts which attempt to decode Q messages and such using GN timestamps or content should be banned. Why? Because those posts ACTIVELY mislead people. If you are just stating an opinion, no matter distasteful it may be to me, you, or everyone else, banning is a bad, bad thing.
So I may not like the N word. But banning people for it is a slippery slope we should not head down. I may dislike George News now, but unless someone attempts to link a GN post to Q, or push a philosophy onto others that GN is relevant to Q or Trump, then a post has no reason to be banned.
Personal opinions, and posts which clearly express nothing more than a personal opinion, however distateful that opinion may be, should NEVER be banned. That is a canon that the entire GAW community should be able to get behind.
If not, then what are struggling for? Just let the deep state take over and tell us what we are allowed to believe, what we are allowed to say publicly, and how we are allowed to act. That seems to be what some people around here are pushing for when they praise the banning culture.
Banning is a serious thing. Treat it as the serious thing it is and I think we'll all be fine.
So you feel like it's acceptable to post off topic information here?
No bans were made of discussion of GN. The parameters you mentioned
"With regard to George New, I think only those posts which attempt to decode Q messages and such using GN timestamps or content should be banned."
is what was going to be banned. Posts that were going to "ACTIVELY mislead people."
Should shills ever be banned? Or should they be allowed to spam their "Personal opinions, and posts which clearly express nothing more than a personal opinion" to the detriment of the forum?
Obviously the posts need to be on topic. We don't people posting cooking recipes here. I'm sorry if that was not clear. But, in answer to your question, shills have as much right to express their opinions as everyone else. So long as they are making on topic posts, then yes. Shills should be allowed to state their opinions. If I get tired of seeing them, I can block them.
That is a good question. I think everyone will have a different tolerance. Which is why we need more education about how to use the "block" button. Possibly a curated list of blocked accounts that we can elect to subscribe to, as opposed to an outright ban. Similar to how SPAM filtering works.
In the vast majority of cases, banning is too extreme. I completely applaud evspra for what he did. The guy deserves a medal as far as I'm concerned. The fact that he was pushed out is inexcusable. Even with all of that, I can admit that banning of all things GeorgeNews was probably a misstep on his part. But there are ways to engage with mods and state that cordially, rather than pushing them to quit.
With regard to George New, I think only those posts which attempt to decode Q messages and such using GN timestamps or content should be banned. Why? Because those posts ACTIVELY mislead people. If you are just stating an opinion, no matter distasteful it may be to me, you, or everyone else, banning is a bad, bad thing.
So I may not like the N word. But banning people for it is a slippery slope we should not head down. I may dislike George News now, but unless someone attempts to link a GN post to Q, or push a philosophy onto others that GN is relevant to Q or Trump, then a post has no reason to be banned.
Personal opinions, and posts which clearly express nothing more than a personal opinion, however distateful that opinion may be, should NEVER be banned. That is a canon that the entire GAW community should be able to get behind.
If not, then what are struggling for? Just let the deep state take over and tell us what we are allowed to believe, what we are allowed to say publicly, and how we are allowed to act. That seems to be what some people around here are pushing for when they praise the banning culture.
Banning is a serious thing. Treat it as the serious thing it is and I think we'll all be fine.
So you feel like it's acceptable to post off topic information here?
No bans were made of discussion of GN. The parameters you mentioned
"With regard to George New, I think only those posts which attempt to decode Q messages and such using GN timestamps or content should be banned."
is what was going to be banned. Posts that were going to "ACTIVELY mislead people."
Should shills ever be banned? Or should they be allowed to spam their "Personal opinions, and posts which clearly express nothing more than a personal opinion" to the detriment of the forum?
Obviously the posts need to be on topic. We don't people posting cooking recipes here. I'm sorry if that was not clear. But, in answer to your question, shills have as much right to express their opinions as everyone else. So long as they are making on topic posts, then yes. Shills should be allowed to state their opinions. If I get tired of seeing them, I can block them.
What concentration of shills is acceptable for you?
That is a good question. I think everyone will have a different tolerance. Which is why we need more education about how to use the "block" button. Possibly a curated list of blocked accounts that we can elect to subscribe to, as opposed to an outright ban. Similar to how SPAM filtering works.