KombatWombat

I don't see why Ghyste should have been punished here. Their comments were critical of the actions of Cat, and encouraged skepticism for their motives. Ghyste had inflammatory wording, but that doesn't seem enough to warrant action. For the record I don't think posting a bunch should be something that needs correction even if it does dominate a community 's feed, but complaining about one person driving discussion by themselves is certainly reasonable. If a decent portion of those posts do end up having problems like misleading headlines or bad sources, then maybe action should be taken, but that should be up to mods to judge. I'm more concerned that it sounds like they regularly delete accounts as soon as people start calling them out and pick it back up on a fresh one, since that sounds like ban evasion or legitimate bot activity.

Off topic but you would add a second addendum with "PPS" which means post-postscript. "PSS" would be postscript script, which doesn't make sense.

64% of the eligible population voted last presidential election, down from the record 66% in the previous. And Trump won the popular vote. We need reform but turnout is less of a problem than it has been historically.

Well yeah, subjective honesty is useful in a lot of social interactions. But this isn't lying to your boss or teacher or whatever. This is lying to your therapist. They have very little authority over you and an official interest in your wellbeing. It might be a good idea to lie if you are actually a suicide risk and don't want to get institutionalized or if you are actively planning a crime which isn't covered by confidentiality. But otherwise, you're hurting yourself by not letting them effectively work on your problems.

Yes, you shut them down. That doesn't require you to dehumanize them. Someone inciting violence against a minority group for example would also be banned I'm sure. The paradox of tolerance is simply solved by limiting the freedom of the intolerant. There are plenty of ways to do that without pretending the offender isn't human. Honestly, resorting to that line of thinking is very much what Nazis do.

And the replies explained that to them. It sounds like they were actually about even on upvotes to downvotes, but it was enough for an automod to act. They got unbanned after a real mod intervened. It is a frustrating experience, but one that's going to vary by instance and community. They mentioned in an edit that they might give it another shot.

The other post did have some legitimate complaints about lack of content, most activity being tech bros, far-left politics, and shitpost, cumbersome ui, bad moderation, and elitist users. All of these I agree with even if I think they were exaggerated considerably. But they have all gotten better over time or can be much mitigated with some effort on the user's part.

Club Penguin Rewritten, Toontown Rewritten, and The Legend of Pirates Online (based on Pirates of the Caribbean Online) are resurrected fan-made versions of games shut down by Disney. The former was also shut down by Disney, but the others are still going. I think the difference is that the Club Penguin revival included ads while the other two were never monetized at all.

It seems like Overwatch news always gets very downvoted. Is it just because people dislike Blizzard's mishandling of the game? That's hardly reason to shoot the messenger for major updates. OP hasn't endorsed anything, they just shared the news neutrally.

Chess is an old game, and stalemate wasn't always considered a draw. At other times, creating a stalemate may have been considered a win or loss or partial win, or it may have been illegal altogether. But the modern draw makes sense if you keep in mind a few things. First, the victory condition is putting the opponent's king in checkmate (or accepting their concession). Second, exposing your king to an attack during your move is not just a blunder, it is actually an illegal move, to the point that you can't even do it as a pass through while castling. So stalemate is a unique outcome where neither player achieves their victory condition, yet the game cannot continue, since the player who must move next has no legal moves available.

In a practical sense, stalemate offers a means of giving a player in an inferior position a means of escaping a loss by punishing the dominant player for not being able to capitalize on their lead. It helps prevent someone from being able to brute force a win by making safe moves that do little to actually progress the game, like advancing all their pawns until the game is trivial. It's much less interesting to have the end game strategy be more about not losing one's lead rather than extending it.

So a win requires being more than slightly ahead of an opponent. It's worth pointing out that most high level chess games end in a draw where neither player has a sufficient lead to force a checkmate. There are other rules in modern chess that also force a draw to make sure the game is more about getting a win than just avoiding a loss. Otherwise there would be plenty of ways someone could stall forever to try to get their opponent to concede, and that's not very interesting.

Personally, I would consider making a public post about something on social media as an open invitation to talk about it in comments. It doesn't excuse being rude or anything, but if it was about an issue in my life that I was comfortable sharing, I would expect others to appreciate giving and receiving perspective if they didn't specify otherwise.

Not sure who would be demanding anything in this scenario. People choose to comment or not, including the OP. Everyone is communicating only as much as they feel comfortable doing, unless there's context I'm missing.

I think you give him too much credit. He just says what comes to his mind.