Posted: Jan 05, 2019 1:28 pm
by Cito di Pense
Destroyer wrote:
Fallible wrote:Why do you say he needed to be?


To put him on guard as to what will and will not be tolerated on the forum.


It's not possible to spell out the difference between what you call "posting with conviction" and simply "posting the same stuff over and over (and over) again". It's also not possible to specify that such behavior is to be tolerated when a person has insufficient control over his or her behavior in public, since we can't diagnose it. Got any other hair-splitting (in)distinctions you'd like to see spelled out in glorious detail?

Destroyer wrote:
Fallible wrote:You start with the assumption that he was posting in good faith.

Yes, but the moment he oversteps by making unsubstantiated claims about facts, that's when moderation ought to put him in his place.


Making claims unsubstantiated by facts or persistent misunderstandings about what is a fact (hint, hint!) are not against any rules here. The membership is on hand to try to correct misunderstandings about facts, but it's not always possible to do so. That's why it's not against the rules to post unsubstantiated claims. Doing it repetitively about the same issue is not caused by misunderstanding, but by demanding agreement as to what the facts are. It's also not anyone's job (including that of moderation) here to deal responsibly or professionally with learning disabilities, should that be at issue.

Destroyer wrote:He needed to be officially warned but clearly was not


About what the fuck, exactly?