ICWYDT!!!
5 Likes
Yeah, I get it. Being an anti-authoritarian community that has huge swaths of people who understandably donāt want to be involved in the details even among well-meaning people who care (and especially not in the slap fights) is almost a contradiction and also obvious, but I think we can thread this needle with RFCs that solicit opinions and work from interested people while only bugging the community at large with banner announcements of real votes.
3 Likes
Sorry. Iām camping. Thereās reception most of the time, but I canāt get much foruming done.
1 Like
Donāt apologise! Enjoy your camping.
3 Likes
Agree have fun. Everyone could use a little break in all this.
1 Like
You donāt democratically vote on objective reality.
Is this the same āhereā where a number of posters have repeatedly stated how other forums have solved the problems of how to deal with ātrollsā and inappropriate words and what not?
point me where to start
Iām probably the average user in that I havenāt configured any settings, and popular threads from lots of the subforums pop to the top of my general feedā¦ We should probably just change the settings so that ATF threads donāt pop to the top of users feeds unless they actively select that setting. I think that would solve a lot of problems with shitty ATF threads bumping quality content down.
1 Like
Just generally still very annoyed weāre settling obvious stuff with what has to be low dozens by now of polls. Weāre acting like the solution to this situation is to be flatter and ask for ever more input on matters of governance from the community, even though itās already failing because weāre doing too much of that.
I wish the people who constantly advocate for ever more watered down rules enforcement would just admit that the site they want has no rules. I also wish they would stop pretending like the reason they didnāt want rules was anything other than they see trolling people on this site as a god given right that cannot be abridged. Except micro, heās just an idealist the trolls are exploiting. Thatās not a compliment, heās literally too stupid to know heās being used.
Totally ready to get temp banned a second time for 100% good faith posting. Letās do it.
This whole situation just reeks of losing money on every sale and telling investors that youāll make it up with volume.
2 Likes
But thatās wrong.
Yeah when it comes to the few I want banned itās really not. All they actually do here is fuck with people. Everyone who is against banning them either enjoys watching them fuck with people (which makes you a shitty person IMO sorry) or has some ideology based reason for wanting it to be without moderation (thatās micro and micro alone).
Gatekeeping, multiple threads, and multiple polls can certainly be frustrating, annoying, slow, and inefficient. But it seems to be the way the forum has chosen to proceed. And, permit me to say, people on āboth sidesā appear to be on board.
Sure, everybody wants what they want right away. Thatās a given. But, alas, not everybody wants the same things so processes need to be established/followed to facilitate identifying and striving for community goals. Polls, though a pain, are the main way that community views are expressed around here.
And, regarding trolling, I have not seen trolling be a significant factor in these discussions. As far as I can tell, with minimal exceptions, everybody has been posting in good faith and trying to reach some sort of consensus. For that I am very happy despite my occasional piques of annoyance and frustration with our current process.
8 Likes
Why do you alone realise this, iyo?
I am kind of against site-wide blanket bans. What I think is a good idea is banning people on a case-by-case basis. For instance, one poster can be a terrific poster in one set of threads and a horrific one in another. Like churchill for instance, IMO, is a bad poster in the covid thread. If it ever got out of control, you could just ban them from a thread or set of threads.
I have seen this a lot. I hate one posterās sports posting, but he is good to read in politics general. Site wide bans should be reserved for people who have shown consistent abuse and disrespect to the forum and its community or are causing such a disruption that we are losing content.
1 Like
What mod has second most bans enacted on this site and by far the most per time as a mod?
3 Likes
This is a terrible argument. Literally the same structure as āI could use some global warming right about nowā¦ā after a snowstorm.
Iām mad at you for the structure of the site and you know that. The structure of the site is causing 2-3 specific posters to have the power to significantly impact the overall quality level of the content posted here, and that is being made even worse by the same structure that enables them forcing the whole forum to square up and have straight up parliamentary debates about moderation.
You know why Iām mad. Stop posting bullshit arguments that have nothing to do with why Iām mad. Nobody here is dumb enough to fall for it. Jalfrezi, watevs, and churchill still post here despite pretty significantly degrading the overall quality of the site. Thatās on the people who think an actually enforced no personal attacks rule would ruin the site or something.
Just because I donāt agree with the Stalinist ideas that you want, but were too afraid to enact doesnāt mean I donāt agree with not enforcing personal attacks. I think I abstained on that vote. Iām ambivalent about it. If itās what the majority wants, Iām fine with it. And itās something Iāve done.
