ThankQ for researching it. I hadn’t read it when I said I didn’t understand to whom you were referring (opus).
I stand by my statements, and will say it more plainly here, that ‘our side’ has comported itself in a manner that will likely not be endorsed and giving in to demands would appear to endorse that behavior. That’s not a nothing burger in my opinion. Your research makes me think this is where we are.
It’s possible it started with things like human error (mods not agreeing who/when what) or with staffing (not enough mods to go after content like Q), but where it went afterwards seems, in my opinion, to ensure things like implying FR’s administration is deriving sadistic satisfaction from watching the suffering of others will not be rewarded with acquiescence.
That brings up old frame of reference I haven’t thought of for awhile - the one where I’ve said that FR can’t afford to be perceived and targeted as 8ch was. Hence no 8ch links. Allowing Q criticism in the forum distances FR from the targeting that 8ch received. Normal people can’t say, with Q sequestered on the Q thread and criticism allowed in the forum, that FR is pushing the ‘dangerous conspiracy’ content that the Biden regime is warning the public about.
I don’t know what’s behind the FR stand on this issue but I believe those contesting it with donation withdrawal ‘warnings’ don’t know either. As I said I don’t believe a website of thousands can afford to make it’s admin accountable to satisfy the demands of explanation and compliance from users or groups of users.
At the end of the day, it’s JR’s house and he makes the rules. If the house rules, or application of the house rules, are objectionable, then guests typically leave the house rather than demanding the homeowner do as they wish. Saying “do this or I will withold support” is a struggle for control of the implementation of the house rules. Doesn’t make sense to me. The law of unintended consequences is at work.
I don’t want to remain in a house where the loudest ones who with the biggest collaboration strip the most funds from the website ‘win’ and determine rules and implementation. I’m serious when I say there are other people, with opposing views re trolls in addition to other issues with other opposing parties (e.g., profanity on FR) who can avail themselves of the ‘no donations for you!’ tactic to drive decision making.
I know I will not always agree with Jim or the admins and I still prefer FR to other sites. I don’t know that there are any sites that I will ever agree with admin rules or implementation 100%.
I ignore the troll and I post effectively. So I can’t understand focusing one troll or on a rule on a website like it’s the 1st Amendment right to free speech without our government interfering. The two are not the same. I also don’t get really upset about baseball ‘rules’ (bad calls).
As I said, 8ch Anons didn’t make trolling the line in the sand but instead coached each other to ignore them and get work done.
I suspect all it would take to disrupt FR big time is to put user groups in control of rule implementation. All trolls would have to do is provoke to their hearts content and get FR into a state of constant accountability and ‘post/user’ litigation and defense’ mode. Workload goes up when arbitration goes up and I don’t see the point here.
Wish I had read your whole post before replying. Oh well...