>>26932>Stop making things up>Pask made the commitment himself to stop posting in /meta/.The announcement "Pask has agreed to stop posting on /meta/." uses the word "agree" which implied it was a proposal from another that they accepted. If I'm wrong, then sure, I'm wrong, we can't see your meetings and rely on the little communication we get to try and figure out how this place works.
I'm not 'making things up', I'm reading what was written. And if that's a miscommunication and I'm wrong, then I retract that accusation, and replace it with:
>Speaking of hyperfixation, aren't you the mod who made literally a hundred replies to the dev resignation thread and then agreed not post on /meta/ but did anyway?
>or else don’t get upset when we don’t listen to you.Ignoring people because they gave feedback you think is false is an atrocious attitude. What the fuck.
>>26938Hey, I just didn't expect to see someone else so smug and defensive replying. Take it as a complement, or something.
>What's it [that] you what I want and don't want?Basic steps towards a decent user experience.
And that doesn't sound like much, but even super basic suggestions from other mods were ignored within a week, and complaints about posts deleted for no reason either ignored or mocked with shitposts.
Look at this blatant arrogance:
>If the Dev couldn't accomplish your goals, what chance do you have?Like someone said earlier, it's not even your fault. You blatantly don't give a fuck about the users, the site rules or the other staff's suggestions. If anything, you're doing the best you can to either get the other staff off their asses or to expose them as frauds. Sure, it's killing the site. And if the site is run by other mods who let you do it, then unfortunately the sooner it dies, the better.
>Why is it that people should be allowed to slander me endlessly but when they get just the tiniest pushback, it's a big deal.Because the slander is accusations of malpractice against an authority. Someone who has their posts deleted for no clear reason is bound to start accusing the people who deleted them. And when it's the same few names each time, with no sign of improvement over multiple years, it's going to become personal criticism sooner or later.
>Why did he stop replying? All I wanted was to have a civilized talk.You can't look at your posts in that thread and seriously tell me you were attempting civilized talk with anyone.
>k>my name only appeared once>jar jar>didn't read lolIn fact, this post I'm replying to, despite not being "a serious reply", is more civil than anything you wrote there.
>Like calling people cops is not a good idea in this milieuI'll agree. I get they were trying to make a comparison to authority but it's still in poor taste.
>step the fuck up>What this means is work to improve the site … without asking for things in return<If the Dev couldn't accomplish your goals, what chance do you have?A wonderful dilemma you've given us. Improve the site or don't try.
Our obvious, repeated complaint is mods are just deleting whatever they want.
So, the limited capacity to improve that aspect of the site is… complaining on /meta/ about it and hoping the mod team will finally listen. Because volunteering for the site obviously isn't an effective way forward if feedback here isn't.
Either that or incite users to split the site, and even I don't want that to happen. The site is dying fast enough already.