Banning and other aberrant behavior by MNL moderators

[jlv]

People should not be banned for complaining about Tesla.

Who was banned for that?

[jlv]

Yay! **** u
(Moderator Edited)

I reported this message and hoped it would removed, not edited to "****". I don't think such an insult is appropriate conduct in the forum.

[EVDRIVER]

People should not be banned for complaining about Tesla.

Who was banned for that?

No one will ever be banned for complaining about anything, that would include everyone.

[EVDRIVER]

I totally agree. Where is the bad language and name calling. Sounds like our moderators are Tesla fan boys. Let Ed say what he wants. If you don't like what he has to say don't read it, but don't censor what we as subscribers might want to hear.
This whole episode sounds very Trumpian to me. ...

There are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of pages of Ed saying what he wants. That's hardly censorship. The problem was one of decorum and situational awareness. No matter the intrinsic value of an opinion, excessively dominating the conversation is bothersome. Personally I think such problems are dealt with easily enough by the "friend/foe" feature ( Ed was NOT on my foe list, fwiw), but I respect the right of moderators to make such decisions after repeated requests failed to register.

This is correct but there are other issues as well which I will not get into. ED is not banned on this site and ED will not be banned for his opinions on Tesla or other subjects, that I can assure you. If anyone was banned purely for their opinions no mater how extreme I would be the first to reinstate them, this includes Ed. I personally have never banned a forum member ever except for spam bots and I have reinstated members for being banned for having conflicting opinions, this type of banning is not appropriate. Many members are correct, Ed has contributed to this forum constructively for many years as have others, hopefully he will choose to continue in a constructive manner. I'm confident ED has not left the building.

[jlv]

People should not be banned for complaining about Tesla.

Who was banned for that?

No one will ever be banned for complaining about anything, that would include everyone.

I was hoping dm33 would answer, because he is writing states someone was banned or blocked from the site.

[WetEV]

it is the Tesla trolling I want to see stopped.

So how long before you try to get me banned as well?

I'm just happy with my Leaf, and get tired of the Tesla owning trolls bashing the Leaf for flaws real and imagined.

[GRA]

Yay! **** u
(Moderator Edited)

I reported this message and hoped it would removed, not edited to "****". I don't think such an insult is appropriate conduct in the forum.

Indeed. I've reported a fair number of such posts invariably made by just a few members, with no mod action taken AFAICT, nor did they ever get back to me as the report function says they will. I've always thought that replacing letters with grammatical symbols was silly, as everyone just mentally replaces the letters - it's not as if anyone doesn't know what the words are, so who's being fooled? It's the adult equivalent of a child thinking that if they close their eyes it makes them invisible. Would it be acceptable to write "Intercourse you", when the meaning and intent is the same, or would I*^$#$&@+e Y&u be OK? Or is it that full words are out, but abbreviations and acronyms are acceptable, like FU or perhaps FOAD? ISTR seeing both used by posters in this forum to Ed with nary a reaction from mods. Is there anyone here who's unable to interpret their meaning? This is silly.

The issue is the ad hominem attack, not the specific way it's expressed, and let's not pretend that there aren't occasions where profanity/obscenity has legitimate uses, whether quoting or merely to express the full flavor of an opinion.

Re banning and blocking, Ed was certainly stopped from posting his opinion re what he claims (with no statistical data to back it up, as he himself admits is both lacking and necessary) is a high level of injury to Tesla occupants in accidents. I chided him about starting such a thread based on no evidence beyond anecdotal accounts, and IMO EVDRIVER accurately described Ed's motivation for doing so as "agenda biased". But that doesn't justify locking that thread, as Ed was just stating his opinion (unsupported though it was), which EVDRIVER says is not being censored. What was being done by locking that thread, if not that? Odds are Ed would have been the only person posting to it, at least until there was some actual evidence supporting his claim, and people could have ignored it or not as they chose.

[cwerdna]

I totally agree. Where is the bad language and name calling. Sounds like our moderators are Tesla fan boys. Let Ed say what he wants. If you don't like what he has to say don't read it, but don't censor what we as subscribers might want to hear.
This whole episode sounds very Trumpian to me.

Ed is over the top and silly, but he doesn’t throw around insults or flame people (as far as I have seen). He just wails hysterically about Tesla and makes overly grim predictions about their future as a company. How is he in trouble, while others who direct personal insults at those who disagree with them are not?

I haven't read all of Ed's posts but I agree for the most part with jonathanfields4ever and downeykp.

I personally do ignore certain posts by Ed on a few topics and have to take his (and another person's) negativity about Tesla with a grain of salt. I haven't seen anything from Ed in the past year or more that warrants banning.

Some of the people doing the complaining seem to fit the profile at https://www.gamesradar.com/psychology-f ... fessional/.

[edatoakrun]

...ED is not banned on this site and ED will not be banned for his opinions on Tesla or other subjects, that I can assure you...

I was subsequently banned from MNL, evidently for posting factual statements and expressing my opinions.

... Ed was certainly stopped from posting his opinion re what he claims (with no statistical data to back it up, as he himself admits is...lacking...) is a high level of injury to Tesla occupants in accidents....

Two lies. The statistically high driver death rate for Tesla's is clearly cited and explained in my posts.

The rest of your post requires no response.

...Some of the people doing the complaining seem to fit the profile at https://www.gamesradar.com/psychology-f ... fessional/.

What leads to the development of TeslA-holes and other sufferers who display the same deviant behavior?

What compels the worshipful devotion of the deluded faction to obvious frauds and second-rate con men, whether they be named Donald or Elon?

Actually, I think I may have learned the answer to that question from MNL, and may get around to posting it here.

If, I'm not banned again first...

Since no MNL moderator or administrator had the balls to post any notice of my banning last time (AFAIK) I'll post here ~every week from now on.

So If you don't see my future ~weekly posts, It means I've been banned again.

[GRA]

... Ed was certainly stopped from posting his opinion re what he claims (with no statistical data to back it up, as he himself admits is...lacking...) is a high level of injury to Tesla occupants in accidents....

Two lies. The statistically high driver death rate for Tesla's is clearly cited and explained in my posts.

Lies? From that topic, posted by yourself:

The main problem limiting analysis is there don't seem to be any high-integrity sources for comparing Tesla vehicle fatality rates to other cars with similar characteristics, basically both huge and expensive, that you can simply refer to...yet.

I chided you for relying on anecdotal accounts rather than the kind of high-integrity statistical data needed, which you stated wasn't available.