Dragon Rider (drag) @ dragonfucker @lemmy.nz

Drag rides dragons and also "rides" dragons. drag/dragself person-independe

---

Read more

Posts

38

Comments

1,677

Joined

10 mo. ago

It says game in the title. It's obviously for kids. Just like Ender's Game, the children's picture book about committing genocide.

As any cautious parent could tell you, these are helpful when the toddler starts sticking things in places where they don't belong. Such as metal cutlery. In the power sockets.

Good. Next step: write an email to your representative saying you're sick of these protesters and you want the government to do whatever they say so they'll go away.

If you want the protesters gone, vote for the party that will give in to their demands. You seem like a practical sort who only cares about results. Give them what they want and they'll go away.

Anyone from the SGC?

Good. Car is noisy and annoying.

Maybe nobody should extract it.

Ruthlessness is good, and responsible ruthlessness requires following through on your own intentions and the rules you created for yourself.

It's like how Batman doesn't kill. He decided that was the line and he sticks to it, even if it's hard. Because he knows giving in would be worse.

Good. Moderators need limits on their powers. You should need to make the cage bigger in order to deal with the edge cases. And when you make the cage bigger, the community should have an opportunity to question that. That's anarchy. That's responsibility.

It's better to have an unmoderated community full of trolls than a community with tyrant mods. That's the same philosophy as "it's better that a hundred guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned". Obviously a community with good mods is best, but if mods can't follow their own rules, they shouldn't follow no rules.

He uses his children as human shields

And responsible ruthlessness is only possible with robust rules.

"be nice" is a broad rule set. You need rule sets with clear expectations. If your rules are clear, then you won't feel guilty for banning someone, and they don't have a good excuse when they appeal. If you choose vague rules, people will submit perfectly good appeals which you have to turn down, and you'll waste everyone's time.

A ruleset is a machine. Video games are machines made out of rules, and so are board games. Board games just run on brains instead of microchips. A legal code is exactly the same, just more important. Make a good machine and moderation won't even require your conscious mind. You can breeze through it according to the process without expending any mental energy.

Spend mental energy judging every situation individually, and you'll either burn out or become a tyrant. Break your rules, and you either break your community or break yourself.

If people can get away with harming the community without breaking the rules, then just change the rules.

If you can't think of any reasonable rules that would ban their behaviour, maybe they aren't doing anything wrong and it's just that you personally don't like it.

Drag thought it would be redundant to include that one, since it just restates a more specific part of what you already said. Plus drag would have to go edit the image again to include it for no extra information, and give everyone more to read. Drag is thankful however that you did send that message, and drag has posted it elsewhere when other users argued the 196 ban was for "promoting suicide", which didn't happen, and as you say here, wasn't part of the decision.

But thank you anyway for the extra context and direct confirmation.

That was done by flamingos-cant, at feddit.uk. If you want to call them a mod in the context of 196's rules, that's not a literal lie, but it's definitely deception. flamingos-cant isn't a 196 mod and their opinions have as little impact on 196's rules as yours do.

Thank you. There's still another falsehood in your comment, though. You said "Some mods have called that encouraging suicide by cop.", but as far as drag knows, only Ada has said that. Ada isn't a mod, she's an admin. She has no say in 196's rules, so her opinion isn't relevant to whether 196 allows nazi-punching. She decided not to ban drag from the instance for that comment, and drag doesn't think she'd be happy to hear you're harassing drag over it.

Drag is willing to have a discussion if you're willing to stay factually accurate. But let's keep this on topic to the Nazi punching issue. If you want to talk about Ada's opinions, let's do that in private messages to avoid disrupting this thread any more.

We are having a discussion about whether society allows people to say to punch nazis. Drag shared a relevant piece of information about a community on this platform that bans the behaviour. Drag predicted the same old people would come onto this thread to spread lies about drag, and put drag's response to them in spoilers. What do you know, you and spujb came to harass drag just as expected. If you wanted to "gotcha" drag, you could have just not replied, and drag would have looked the fool. But now everyone can see that just as expected, you couldn't resist coming to start an argument that has nothing to do with punching nazis.

This user did say "punch nazis", and here's the proof:

If you want to decide why drag is banned from 196, then apply to be a mod of 196.

You are formally requested to leave drag alone. The next time you reply to drag to spread lies about this, drag will report you for harassment and speak with the Blahaj and .cafe admins.

Saying to punch Nazis is against the rules on the new 196.

Armed revolution by the workers