Since I can't jump back into TheProvense's second thread about bans, I'm heading back here to Vol. 1
original post :
TheProvense
Look, regarding Sam Alvarez4, I'm telling you right now—she has zero special treatment on this site. Not from any mod, and she definitely doesn't have my protection..
The easiest fix would be to just say, 'look, if they won't play fair, just ignore them,' but we all know that's never going to happen..
I've laid out the facts, and the fact that most users on Politiik / svijet isti just ignore her pretty much proves my point. So, here it is:
(a) failing to provide links for claims made
(b) being totally condescending, dismissive, and aggressive toward anyone who disagrees with her—whether they're challenging her personally or questioning her sources
Hey, I don't have a problem with people being intense, provided everyone else gets the same freedom to talk like that, which I've shown plenty of times myself. But it’s super sketchy when the crackdown only seems to hit one side. Personally, I don't recall seeing Sam Alvarez get even a single warning card in all these years (not that I was keeping a formal log or anything)
original post :
TheProvense
You just love to troll and twist things to fit your narrative, let's not pretend otherwise. This whole thread is a perfect example—you're acting like me handing out today's warning for missing links is some big win for you, like, "oh wow, look at those results!" It's funny how you frame it that way, probably because you think I'm just being a nuisance with all my warnings and little cards over people forgetting to cite their sources..
No, TheProvense, I actually DID forget to include the link for that last quote, which is why I got my fourth card. And yeah, the card was fair, I already said that.
But that doesn't change the main issue with Sam Alvarez. She doesn't get penalized for not citing where her info comes from. For instance, AFTER I got banned:
original post :
Sam Alvarez original post : Quote: Tyler Johnson11 said:Check this post
Not a single link for those claims??
Just spreading lies and misinformation. Pure propaganda! How else am I supposed to put it?
Why is this being allowed?
right here for example.
So, providing a link to a claim is basically just linking to a Twitter account. That's like me giving you a link to an article on CNN and saying, "here's the proof that the earth is flat." Is that a link? And she only started actually providing stuff after I went on this massive rant.
Of course, there was no warning card issued.
original post :
TheProvense
Look, when it comes to deleting posts, that’s just standard moderator stuff. It’s totally normal intervention, nothing shady, conspiratorial, or "against the rules" of the site...
I didn't say they were, but it's pretty telling that those posts vanished right after I flagged them in this thread (or via the report button). The catch is, you can't tell if someone has been reported through the flag system, so I was just waiting to see how things played out here.
I can't even tell if Sam Alvarez4's quoted posts have disappeared:
- maybe Sam Alvarez4 just decided to delete them herself after an hour or two (but only after I quoted them here, which is a fact)
1. maybe she saw me quoting them in this thread, realized they were actually wrong, and wiped them herself
2. maybe someone whispered in her ear to delete them, so she did
3. maybe a moderator stepped in and deleted them instead of her, unrelated to this specific thread
4. maybe a moderator nuked them because of this thread, just to protect her from getting banned or questioned about why she hasn't been banned yet.
Only that last one—option number 4—is debatable, man. The reality is the posts were still within the window where the original poster is allowed to edit or delete their own stuff, at least that's what I know. I have no way of knowing who hit the delete button, but there are logs on the server, so it could be checked.
I still think that despite her long history here, Sam Alvarez4 isn't getting any bans, which really speaks to the moderation policy over at Politiik / svijet isti. You guys prove me wrong—show me that she actually *has* been banned. In this whole exchange, she hasn't been penalized at all, even though she clearly broke the rules as I see them.
So, either I'm totally misreading the rulebook—in which case, please explain it to me—or the mods are playing favorites. The only thing that's certain is that Sam Alvarez4 has zero strikes, while I've got one.
Since according to KLCCLK's standards, irony and trolling are punishable offenses, I’m going to drop some of Sam Alvarez4's posts where the irony is blatant, and—surprise, surprise—she didn't get banned for them. Let's try to make the rules consistent, shall we?
Now I just have to wait for the window to close where a user can manually edit or kill their own posts.