It’s not him alone.
How come you and he alone realise this?
It’s not us alone.
Who numbers among your ranks? Show yourselves!
You know man, I don’t want to pass judgement on any specific posters because few of them have I had enough interaction with to know the history of this and thats with individuals. But therein lies the problem that for forum regulars trolling across different threads with a lot of history, for casual readers it is difficult to differentiate between trolling and a fair airing of grievances.
That said, I can certainly say that I dislike prolonged back and forth of personal attacks and the same shitstorm in every thread. Do you think that personal attacks should be allowed? Do you think that edgelording (read baiting someone else into personal attacks) should be allowed? Do you think a poster should be allowed to take a position strictly for the purpose of pissing other people off, whether or not they believe this position? This shouldn’t be a complicated choice so I’m not really sure what kind of response you are looking for here.
2 Likes
I was against banning personal attacks, and I still think my suggestion of “they get to do it once, you get to do it back once and that’s it for that thread” is superior to outright banning. If personal attacks are prohibited then baiting them should be prohibited also, but making that an issue just leads to endless litigation of who was and wasn’t doing that that time etc. Of course people should be allowed to play devil’s advocate.
But we’re not talking about any of that, we’re talking about:
I feel like I am notionally described there. There’s no-one I want perma’d and I’m certainly advocating for significant democratisation of the site. I don’t typically enjoy watching people fight and I don’t believe I’m exploiting micro or abetting his exploitation by others. I’m legitimately interested in how many people are operating on the assumption that those are my (and many others’) motivations.
6 Likes
A complete ban on personal attacks that is absolutely enforced would be untenable. Imagine the NFL if every instance of holding by the offensive line was called.
You’re missing the point and making my arguments for me. All 3 of the hypotheticals I laid out are the same. Perhaps you feel targeted by Bored’s anger with the situation so you are unable to evaluate the argument I am making on its merits. To be clear, devil’s advocate has nothing to do with the 3rd, the 3rd is a classic troll technique of going into a thread and showing ones penis for no purpose other than to piss someone off. It’s not to take a contrarian position or to test the logical limits of an argument, its PURELY to piss someone off.
The whole point is this, at some point, the moderators who are on the site and engaging with the users are going to have to make some judgment calls about who is arguing in good faith and who is not. This is not a precise science. Sometimes one will feel that it is one or the other and an astute moderator will be right most of the time.
WRT to Bored’s specific actions and suggestions, he is pissed. End of story. He is suggesting extreme action because he feels that some people are not arguing in good faith and doing so at the cost of anyone who disagrees with them. They may not even realize they are doing this and believe that it is fair game. You may too believe its ok. That’s ok too. If you think trolling is ok in a politics forum, no worries but expect every thread to suck and be dominated by people who are there for no reason other than to argue with people for their entertainment.
This is also moving the goal posts so please don’t change my position if you don’t understand it.
I think that some but not all personal attacks should be allowed and that there be no strict line between what is and isn’t permitted. Empowering moderators who are allowed to use their own judgment are how we should decide what is and isn’t allowed.
I think that all rhetorical tools that are okay for Democrats to use against Republicans should be okay for posters to use against other posters. In general, I’d say no trolling, but it should maybe be tolerated if it should be permissible to do it to Ted Cruz.
I agree that there needs to be discretion and some things are across the line but some are not. But I don’t agree here. It is not a rhetorical tool if as poster doesn’t genuinely believe the argument they make and are only doing it to get their entertainment out of a poster that they dislike, accomplish a wholly unrelated goal or just make someone look bad. Sometime people will situationally believe logically inconsistent things. The goal is not to be the thought police or logic police, but if someone is making their entertain at the expense of others then that shouldn’t be tolerated imo.
That’s a big-ass post for a guy who’s just had his arguments made for him. I don’t think it’s me who’s missing the point. My (admittedly laconic) discussion with jman is centred around the specific parts of bored’s posts that I quoted. Bored’s stance generally, well I disagree but I don’t care; his views are minority and expressing them lost him a mod poll. It’s his idea that everyone who disagrees is some Jokerfied, bomb-throwing madman going sicko mode etc that I take issue with. If by “he’s pissed” you mean either that he doesn’t really mean that, or that he does but you don’t agree, that’s all I’m asking about.
2 Likes
Oh wow, guy who doesn’t understand the point someone was making complains that someone explains their position. Bored was arguing that Moderators should moderate. Let’s not let the plot get lost by either his anger or that I attempted to use words to explain this.
1 Like
If only there were other forums on the internet who moderated their users. Too bad we have to invent moderation from scratch.
While moderators should be allowed to use their own judgment to get rid of at least some trolling, I believe posters should be allowed to express sincerely-held opinions in a provocative manner that attracts engagement. I think that posters should be allowed to express sincerely-held opinions that are sincerely dumb in sincerely dumb ways. I think that certain mods maybe need to learn how to be more tolerant of stupidity.
If people want a curated forum with only good posting, then you’re asking for heavy-handed moderation. You might as well expand the mod team and require manual approval for all posts.
Or we could see if jmakin can add this plugin
And we can put misbehaving posters in some sort of babysitting mode where their posts have to be approved by mods before they go through.
1 Like
Jman and bored would be perma’d under their supposed standards. They just want people they don’t like punished and people they do protected. BS has been open about this.
10 Likes
It never worked at 2p2. Where does it work?
1 Like
"Bored was arguing that Moderators should moderate. "
No. He’s complaining about me because I tempbanned jman and Cuse at the same time I tempbanned jal and Marty. He wanted only jal and Marty banned (perma).
You notice he doesn’t complain about other mods who have hardly ever banned anyone?
Bullshit.
2 Likes
I’m not even going to really air grievances after I’m done modding. But I disagree. Any impartial modding that got jal and Marty would get jman, bored and others.
3 Likes