Close

Complete Captcha

• 5 years - 332 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 1097 Goods vs 443 No Goods

1. Economist
   fe0a
   

   Take a look at the deletions list more often. The bot has deleted a dozen “latest research”-subforum threads over the past month. No one cared about the papers discussed, so no one complained, but the deletions were there.

   That’s not to mention the bot indiscriminately deleting any on-topic post containing a certain very common word stem found in, say, Hamilton or Varian’s popular books or Kahneman’s most widely cited paper.

   Kirk should invest a lot more time cleaning up the bot’s filter list if he wants to implement the IP ban in this fashion.

   I have been making economics posts here for years. Maybe 1 or 2 have been wrongfully deleted by the bot.

   I’m all in favor of increased moderations and IP bans, but laugh at the idea of Kirk handling everything through the same bot that deletes one in ten on-topic posts seemingly at random.
   

   5 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   d8c1
   

   lol kirk got c.u.c.k.e.d by the HRM cabal

   5 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 4 Vlad !

3. Economist
   24eb
   

   lol kirk got c.u.c.k.e.d by the HRM cabal

   No.

   EJMR has become mainstream, which means that we are going to have more of a say through EJMR and we get a seat at the table thanks to EJMR.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 3 Vlad !

4. Economist
   61b9
   

   You're clearly an undergrad. That argument of yours was destroyed decades ago. It's even in Wikipedia:
   "The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance"
   And even those that do not agree with Popper, believe that there's a limit to what you can tolerate. Rawls: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger"

   You are freaking stupid.

   You can disagree with the other poster on what constitutes sexism. I do. There is sexist speech. Saying "every female economist is worse than every make economist" is sexist and untrue.

   But god damn it, you are a freaking moron. Your post is not an answer to his point.

   Also, if anything, the argument about being intolerant to the intolerant would work more against the idiotic authoritarians who want to ban whatever speech they dislike (as in, the biggest threat to a tolerant society) than against the idiotic sexists.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   440d
   

   Obligatory reminder that some posts are being deleted for being critical of the moderation policy even when they do not trip the banned words filter. If I had to guess a pattern behind it, I'd say that the best criticisms are being selectively deleted, but it seems pretty random.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   743c
   

   Kirk is couathor of Wolfers

   5 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   8aa6
   

   Kirk is couathor of Wolfers

   did they get into a fight?

   5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   ce9e
   

   This popper guy is a moron.

   It is not sexist to say or to write that one hates women. It is sexist to take an ACTION that denies a right or privilege to a woman or women based on their sex. Sexism cannot exist in free speech. It is simply free speech. Kirk is literally too dim to understand this fact.

   You're clearly an undergrad. That argument of yours was destroyed decades ago. It's even in Wikipedia:
   "The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance"
   And even those that do not agree with Popper, believe that there's a limit to what you can tolerate. Rawls: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger"
   Furthermore, please understand that EJMR reason of being is not to protect your right to free speech. It exists to make money for its owner, and he/she is free to introduce any code of conduct that leads to higher profits.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   ce9e
   

   sorry bro, but I'm an old timer and I'm pretty sure you went to McGill. You're also definitely a reg monkey and you work in finance. At least admit that you're canadian.

   I know who you are. You're a finance reg monkey who did his UG in Montreal.

   There are three things wrong with what you wrote. With what you wrote and I only corrected that so you don't go antognizoing the poor fellow your thinking of.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    8718
    

    AM I ON THE BAD WORDS LIST?

    --HENYR RAWLINS

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    6ed8
    

    I just find it hilarious that one of the banned words is the name of the country with the highest fertility in the world.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    aa6d
    

    Apparently we're not allowed to discuss anything without using euphemisms anymore. I liked this policy early on, but the list of banned words is insanely long and the moderation has clearly veered into banning of entire topics of legitimate debate. I'm out.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 2 Vlad !

13. Economist
    8718
    

    Apparently we're not allowed to discuss anything without using euphemisms anymore. I liked this policy early on, but the list of banned words is insanely long and the moderation has clearly veered into banning of entire topics of legitimate debate. I'm out.

    KORK this is important. Need to communicate with your forum users!!!!

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    8718
    

    K00000000RK

    5 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    46ce
    

    It seems new moderation is doing ok, right? Amount of sexist/racist posts fell significantly while content quality didn't fall much.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    33cf
    

    It seems new moderation is doing ok, right? Amount of sexist/racist posts fell significantly while content quality didn't fall much.

    The indignant tattletales are stronger nowadays.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    3436
    

    Yes... it’s almost like this was something obvious to do from the very beginning.

    It seems new moderation is doing ok, right? Amount of sexist/racist posts fell significantly while content quality didn't fall much.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

18. Economist
    8718
    

    Yes... it’s almost like this was something obvious to do from the very beginning.

    It seems new moderation is doing ok, right? Amount of sexist/racist posts fell significantly while content quality didn't fall much.
    

    In fairness K0RK gonna K0RK

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    20d9
    

    Even though it is now very rare to see something sexist or racist on EJMR

    No true. There are tremendous anti-Asian posts out there.

    4 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    efa2
    

    Even though it is now very rare to see something sexist or racist on EJMR

    No true. There are tremendous anti-Asian posts out there.

    Just taking our cue from DC.

    4 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »