Aeolus451 said:
Common sense is subjective. "Well founded arguements" is subjective. On the flip side of that, you can't demand that a thread be locked because you disagree with the op or the posters in it when it doesn't break any rules. Because it is in your opinion that whatever was said isn't common sense. You're not talking about the obvious threads where everyone would agree on it. You're talking about the threads that are not breaking any rules but many people disagree with the op or other posters in the thread. 98% of the threads and posts are opinion unless they talk a bit about numbers that are based on guessimation. We're not a political forum where everyone tries to source everything to back it up their claims. So don't try playing the fact card. You're talking about broadening the net of mods so that they can moderate anyone or any thread in the murky area. Nope. What's bad or good is subjective in the murkiness. Do you really want mods going around closing threads and banning people for something that's not clearly defined in the rules but left entirely up to their opinion? With your own way of thinking, a mod could look at this thread and decide it's not well put enough together so he's just gonna close it. If you kept posting similar threads, he'd have grounds to ban you over it. I've seen this sort of thread posted every month or so about the same thing. Was double posting worth mentioning? No. People know that the site is buggy and shit happens. If 4, 5 and 6 were a good idea to go after in the way you want, they would have already done it considering how many times some have brought it up. They already have a system to deal with it but it takes them time to do. |
As for your first sentence, no it's not. Facts are still facts, even in Trump's America.
Nothing is murky about the things I said. Baits are obvious, nonsense is obvious and hit and run are obvious. It's made even easier because the majority of those threads are committed by the same people over and over again. I am talking exactly about the threads where the intent of the thread creator is very easily to see. It doesn't even matter if it's malicious intent or ignoirance. Ignorance does not shield from punishment.
I say that as someone who very well knows how to strategically avoid rules yet still breaking them. Mods are already going around and ban people out of their own whims. They banned me several times while I wasn't technically breaking any rules and they let people go who clearly violate the rules with certain threads.
Modding is in the end is a bit subjective but it also adheres to common sense, which despite your defiance is not subjective. Especially not when it's written down into rules. Rules are just rules and all it needs to change them is to just write them down.
Let me give you a few examples:
A thread claiming a console version of a game runs better than the PC version based on a single unverifiable instance
A thread claiming graphical superiority by making completely false assumptions and wrong FLOPS calculations
A thread claiming that Donald Trump did not lie when he clearly was
A thread predicting 150m Xbox One sales because Crackdown looks awesome
A thread saying everyone who is giving BOTW less than a 9/10 is a hater
None of those threads are up for debate because they're ludicrous in the first place. It's easy really. If your claims in a thread can be verifiably refuted within the first 3 posts it's obvious that the thread content isn't worth it and the thread should be closed. They go way beyond innocent predictions. They're pure nonsense and do not deserve a public platform on a site that pretends to be neutral.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
