I would like to apply for mod. What are the pre requisites outside of reciting every Taylor swift lyric?

has embedding clips from X been disabled?

2 minutes ago, KatyPrismSpirit said:

has embedding clips from X been disabled?

No

3 hours ago, MartyK said:

I would like to apply for mod. What are the pre requisites outside of reciting every Taylor swift lyric?

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Night Howler

1 minute ago, Night Howler said:

Why was this thread locked?

The final post explains why.

the way it's been countlessly explained all wedding talk needs to go in the wedding thread but yall purposefully make threads related to the wedding knowing it's going to get merged or closed so you can complain about it being merged or closed and act as if it's some mod bias.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Bussea

20 minutes ago, Bussea said:

the way it's been countlessly explained all wedding talk needs to go in the wedding thread but yall purposefully make threads related to the wedding knowing it's going to get merged or closed so you can complain about it being merged or closed and act as if some mod bias.

I see the campaign for being a mod started. You're doing great sweaty keep it up and since you are a Godmila stan according to @Rogue , you have my full support

7 minutes ago, FailSafe said:

I see the campaign for being a mod started. You're doing great sweaty keep it up and since you are a Godmila stan according to @Rogue , you have my full support

campaign ads will be dropping soon

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Bussea

"Please contain all discussion related to new developments, including front page news stories from major outlets containing totally different narratives to the ones previously around this topic to the 40th page of a thread that won't receive an updated title and that is already full of swiffers ready to shut down the conversation and spam report you all so that it's not seen or engaged with. Thank you"

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Sheep

Why was I warned for this gif?

It's not flamebait. If anything, it's praise.

How is it any different than posting this:

? Same innuendo.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Ribbit

3 hours ago, Sheep said:

"Please contain all discussion related to new developments, including front page news stories from major outlets containing totally different narratives to the ones previously around this topic to the 40th page of a thread that won't receive an updated title and that is already full of swiffers ready to shut down the conversation and spam report you all so that it's not seen or engaged with. Thank you"

DailyMail is not a trustworthy outlet, and a description of how the wedding occurred certainly fits the megathread and does not warrant its own thread. The thread title is not worth updating for this.

3 hours ago, Ribbit said:

Why was I warned for this gif?

It's not flamebait. If anything, it's praise.

How is it any different than posting this:

? Same innuendo.

Associating a pop star with a dictator from a totalitarian regime is offensive and warnable.

4 minutes ago, Legend E said:

Associating a pop star with a dictator from a totalitarian regime is offensive and warnable.

Pls if we wanna be technical, nowhere was she compared to. She's just the sun in the gif.

11 minutes ago, Ribbit said:

Pls if we wanna be technical, nowhere was she compared to. She's just the sun in the gif.

Just take the L

The way no one actually knows anything about North Korea should be warnable

3 hours ago, Legend E said:

DailyMail is not a trustworthy outlet

DailyMail has credible celebrity sources and has a certain reputation because their editorial content as well as their political reporting are fox news'd. They are considered plenty reliable when just straightly reporting facts from sources, they're one of the largest newspapers in the world. Prince Harry just lost a lawsuit against them literally yesterday over their celebrity news reporting, which was. Their reporting is sensationalized but they don't just fabricate sources.

3 hours ago, Legend E said:

description of how the wedding occurred certainly fits the megathread and does not warrant its own thread. The thread title is not worth updating for this

A megathread for a current story that doesn't evolve with the story is a containment procedure and not a serious attempt at fostering balanced discussion, but you already knew that.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Sheep

13 minutes ago, Sheep said:

DailyMail has credible celebrity sources and has a certain reputation because their editorial content as well as their political reporting are fox news'd. They are considered plenty reliable when just straightly reporting facts from sources, they're one of the largest newspapers in the world. Prince Harry just lost a lawsuit against them literally yesterday over their celebrity news reporting.

A megathread for a current story that doesn't evolve with the story is a containment procedure and not a serious attempt at fostering balanced discussion, but you already knew that.

DM has low ratings for credibility on multiple fact checkers. This also applies to sensationalist articles written on pop stars, which have been used on ATRL before. A lot of times, these articles are written for clicks.

That is beyond the point, though. We think a balanced discussion can take place in the dedicated thread for the wedding - that is what it’s there for. I do not think that knowing or not whether Taylor had a raffle or funfetti cake needs its own separate thread.

On the other hand, and probably on a slightly personal note, I am very tired of baseless accusations and I do not really appreciate this “tone”. That’s just a personal comment/wish and it can remain meaningless to you or whoever decides to drag the team. But we are working a lot to keep this forum running as it is nowadays. There is always room for improvement, but I think the feedback should be realistic.

lastly, there is no need to flood the forum with countless threads about this wedding. If you want to discuss her choices, you can do it in the megathread, it’s as simple as that. But, I repeat it, we would have handled this situation similarly if it were about another pop star and not Taylor.

5 minutes ago, Legend E said:

This also applies to sensationalist articles written on pop stars, which have been used on ATRL before. A lot of times, these articles are written for clicks.

Yes, they love to regurgitate the news with a sensationalized, conservative slant. This isn't old news, this was an exclusive source they were reporting on. They're not PageSix. They don't fabricate sources or details, they spin them.

6 minutes ago, Legend E said:

That is beyond the point, though. We think a balanced discussion can take place in the dedicated thread for the wedding - that is what it's there for. I do not think that knowing or not whether Taylor had a raffle or funfetti cake needs its own separate thread.

I genuinely personally believe that a new, credible source with a totally different perspective on an event warrants a new thread. It wasn't an article about what flavor of cake was ate at the wedding. I also sincerely believe that if the new perspective on the event was positive but contained a similar amount of new specific details, that the threads would not have been merged.

9 minutes ago, Legend E said:

On the other hand, and probably on a slightly personal note, I am very tired of baseless accusations and I do not really appreciate this "tone". That's just a personal comment/wish and it can remain meaningless to you or whoever decides to drag the team. But we are working a lot to keep this forum running as it is nowadays. There is always room for improvement, but I think the feedback should be realistic.

I've been pretty measured and consistent in my feedback on the swifties problem on this website for months now? The tone of my post wasn't to be rude, it was to point out how silly the underlying logic was, to me. Feedback is part of this thread. Sorry for adding the "you already knew that" to my second post, but I genuinely believe there's some doublespeak going on here that I wanted to cut through.

It should really tell you something that rabid swifties with long, documented histories of openly pushing the mod team to censor discussions about Taylor Swift are the people liking your replies to me on this page. People are finger pointing and witchhunting you guys and I empathize with that, but the way the response from all of you across the board has been to pretend that there isn't any issue with the way Swifties brigade discussions and weaponize forum rules against any negative opinions of their fav, pretending to be doing it in the interest of fairness and being more adjusted than other posters, only to turn around and share Lady GaGa double penetration gifs on discord with each other is nauseating. There's such a performative element to the response to this whole debacle. There's always going to be lashings against the popular base on ATRL and it's something I've witnessed since I started reading the website as a kid, but this is genuinely something different. I haven't personally faced any censorship of my distaste for Taylor Swift/her fans, but I have seen examples of it happening to others.

It's really baffling to me how such a large group of users are feeling the same frustration, and crazily pointing fingers at any and everybody trying to figure out what the issue is, and instead of acknowledging that there might be an underlying problem and looking for it, the response was to blame it on the tradition of people not being on board with new moderation. The first wave of this discourse happened before any of them were made moderators, back when one of the users who WAS made into a moderator, suggested that horrible and swiftly backtracked into just a suggestion rule about implying Taylor or her fans might be republicans. This has been an ongoing issue and it's not the fault of any one moderator or even one faction within the group of moderators. It is a fanbase acting in poor faith across the entire internet like Barbz and BTS army, that on this specific website, isn't being properly scrutinized for their intentions the way similarly behaving fanbases are.

It's just so cultish. You already know from interacting with me on discord that I take issue with the cult-like behavior in my own bases too, so if you're going to respond, please don't try to paint this as something it isn't. I would rlly be writing these same essays if Mariano was suggesting rules about how you can't mock republican family members of pop stars and the lot of them were shutting down anti-Gaga threads by means other than just disagreeing like a normal person.

13 minutes ago, Legend E said:

lastly, there is no need to flood the forum with countless threads about this wedding. If you want to discuss her choices, you can do it in the megathread, it's as simple as that. But, I repeat it, we would have handled this situation similarly if it were about another pop star and not Taylor.

I actually don't have many replies in any of the wedding threads, I just think trying to openly skew the discussion about the event is in extremely poor taste.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Sheep

8 minutes ago, Sheep said:

It is a fanbase acting in poor faith across the entire internet like Barbz and BTS army, that on this specific website, isn't being properly scrutinized for their intentions the way similarly behaving fanbases are.

now clock it

If something negative is posted about Taylor, the source is bad

and if the source isn't bad, then it's skewed

then if there's evidence, then the point it's making is unfair

if there's a precedent for similar unfair discussion about other pop girls, suddenly they were all against it the entire time

Then if people start bringing receipts of those same users being for the "unfair" discussions against other pop girls, we move the goalpost and start trolling

This cycle has been repeated in like every topic that isn't strictly positive about Taylor for months now. People are frustrated. There's literally multiple users who were excusing somebody being affiliated with concentration camps and making a mockery out of a human rights crisis instead of just pointing out how far removed from those actions Taylor Swift's wedding was, and that's just the most recent and topical example of the late stage of this cycle. They're such a large base that it's genuinely an issue when this behavior goes unchecked for so long, honest discussion is being written off as trolling or delusional hatred then shut out. The back and forth between fanbases is central to ATRL and stan culture as a whole, this is toxic.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Sheep

15 minutes ago, Sheep said:

Yes, they love to regurgitate the news with a sensationalized, conservative slant. This isn't old news, this was an exclusive source they were reporting on. They're not PageSix. They don't fabricate sources or details, they spin them.

I genuinely personally believe that a new, credible source with a totally different perspective on an event warrants a new thread. It wasn't an article about what flavor of cake was ate at the wedding.

I've been pretty measured and consistent in my feedback on the swifties problem on this website for months now? The tone of my post wasn't to be rude, it was to point out how silly the underlying logic was, to me. Feedback is part of this thread. Sorry for adding the "you already knew that" to my second post, but I genuinely believe there's some doublespeak going on here that I wanted to cut through.

It should really tell you something that rabid swifties with long, documented histories of openly pushing the mod team to censor discussions about Taylor Swift are the people liking your replies to me on this page. People are finger pointing and witchhunting you guys and I empathize with that, but the way the response from all of you across the board has been to pretend that there isn't any issue with the way Swifties brigade discussions and weaponize forum rules against any negative opinions of their fav, pretending to be doing it in the interest of fairness and being more adjusted than other posters, only to turn around and share Lady GaGa double penetration gifs on discord with each other is nauseating. There's such a performative element to the response to this whole debacle. There's always going to be lashings against the popular base on ATRL and it's something I've witnessed since I started reading the website as a kid, but this is genuinely something different. I haven't personally faced any censorship of my distaste for Taylor Swift/her fans, but I have seen examples of it happening to others.

It's really baffling to me how such a large group of users are feeling the same frustration, and crazily pointing fingers at any and everybody trying to figure out what the issue is, and instead of acknowledging that there might be an underlying problem and looking for it, the response was to blame it on the tradition of people not being on board with new moderation. The first wave of this discourse happened before any of them were made moderators, back when one of the users who WAS made into a moderator, suggested that horrible and swiftly backtracked into just a suggestion rule about implying Taylor or her fans might be republicans. This has been an ongoing issue and it's not the fault of any one moderator or even one faction within the group of moderators. It is a fanbase acting in poor faith across the entire internet like Barbz and BTS army, that on this specific website, isn't being properly scrutinized for their intentions the way similarly behaving fanbases are.

It's just so cultish. You already know from interacting with me on discord that I take issue with the cult-like behavior in my own bases too, so if you're going to respond, please don't try to paint this as something it isn't.

I actually don't have many replies in any of the wedding threads, I just think trying to openly skew the discussion about the event is in extremely poor taste.

The last thing I want to mention is that we cannot control how certain fanbases react to news. We do not want to censor any discussion. I have never said that anyone should stop discussing the DM article, I have just kindly redirected everyone to the megathread. Once again, that is to keep the forum neat. If there is a megathread about an event, there is no need for every article to be threaded. As a counterexample, Taylor inviting the ICE contractor warrants its own thread, is an open thread and is the most popular thread of the week. This is actual shocking news, not something about the organization of the event which can easily go in the megathread. The ICE thread being open also proves we are not trying to hide anything about this wedding and we are not protecting Taylor or her fanbase.

If you have any actual examples of the censorship, it would be nice to see them here. But calling Swifties (or any other base) MAGAs is warnable and is not censorship.

Regarding the way some members of the Swifties act, I repeat that you do not know what was warned and what wasn’t.

5 minutes ago, Legend E said:

Once again, that is to keep the forum neat.

and I sincerely believe this is not the case. It is not about wanting to see Taylor wacked either. Other than popping in to disagree with the way some people downplay the harm of hateful ideologies, my only engagement with that topic as a whole was to say I don't care and think it's good that swifties mostly respected her privacy and seem to not care much either. For me, it really is just finding the brazen skewing of the conversation as distasteful.

6 minutes ago, Legend E said:

This is actual shocking news, not something about the organization of the event which can easily go in the megathread. The ICE thread being open also proves we are not trying to hide anything about this wedding and we are not protecting Taylor or her fanbase.

The ICE thread was merged and locked before being allowed to be its own thread. You are blatantly lying here. The kneejerk reaction to censor it is proof of the problem that you're pretending doesn't exist.

7 minutes ago, Legend E said:

If you have any actual examples of the censorship, it would be nice to see them here. But calling Swifties (or any other base) MAGAs is warnable and is not censorship.

We are literally in the middle of a disagreement on what constitutes censorship. I can't offer "actual" examples to somebody who is going to find a way to deny them.

8 minutes ago, Legend E said:

Regarding the way some members of the Swifties act, I repeat that you do not know what was warned and what wasn't.

I do know that the worst offenders only seem to get crazier and more bold over time because it's been allowed to slide. One of them was literally laughing about how the backlash always blows over after their recent meltdown. Slaps on the wrist are only an effective measure when the user in question knows it's time to back off instead of wait for them to expire before being crazy again.

The gaslighting in this reply is just making it worse.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Sheep

I have formed an exploratory committee to determine whether I will be running for an unprecedented infinite term as ATRL’s leader. Not only do I vow to never take any AIPAC money, or money from polluting billionaires with disgustingly out of touch public weddings, but I can declare that this as a campaign promise…

link to the nolan wells thread?