I appreciate the mods effort to lay down some basic rules. They have a difficult task. A couple years ago I was firmly in the more modding camp but have been turned around and now believe very light modding is best. I don’t think no modding works though as some things have to off limit (e.g, overt bigotry and accusing people of crimes without evidence). I am not sure how successful the new “no name calling” rule will prove to be but I hope it works.
That said, it has no chance of success if people use it as another chance to relitigate ancient beefs.
I think there needs to be a recognition of a few things, if this is going to work.
as many had said, we debate tough things here with deeply held beliefs and this will always lead to contentious debate. I believe in fighting it out and then hugging. CW and I did that in the cheating thread. I don’t really think there is a such a thing as shouting down someone on a forum. Sorry ggoreo. Just my opinion.
on that point I don’t think we want to place any limits on calling ideas bad or dumb. That is how rigorous debate proceeds.
you can do so without name calling, and by that I mean in the narrow sense of the term. E.g., you idiot, moron, ect
we need to be careful extending the use of name calling to cover any questioning of a persons ideas. Saying you believe someone is not arguing in good faith isn’t name calling by any normal use of the phrase.
something like calling someone a troll is more difficult. It is clearly name calling but if accept (which we must) that some people online are only trying to troll I don’t see how we can outlaw that line of debate. The difficultly comes from ascertaining the line between we strongly disagree and you are actually trolling. It gets used too much. I am absolutely guilty of this sometimes for sure. I will say I have only claimed two posters ever were truly here just to toll. I may be wrong but that is my opinion. No need to rehash those here. I will be very cognizant going forward to use the term only if I truly believe the person is actually trolling, ie, posting only to cause havoc and rile people up not to continue debate.
a few things I do to check myself in these cases might be useful. First, I often ask myself if I am agreeing with one side of a long standing fight exclusively or only disagreeing with one or a small number of posters all the time. If so, I seriously question my opinion as no one side is ever 100% right. If I am not finding something to agree with on both sides of most reasonable fights I am very likely making logic errors. Second, I check how often I am publicly admitting I made an error. If this is never, or rarely, happening I know I have lost the plot. Anyone engaged in honest debate should be commonly admitting error.
In the end, while I am not part of the long term fight that often fills this thread I am not innocent. I have been guilty often in the past of debating too hard and going over the line. I will try to minimize that as much as possible. I won’t always succeed and will accept any moderation when I fail.
Indeed I did but I believe I addressed that in my post. Some things have to be off limits and I think accusing people of cheating on a sort of poker forum is one of those.
For me it is. I am not one who has changed my username 10 times. I have kept the same one for 15 years and an pretty open on who I am. It is easily verifiable. For me, being called a cheater is a serious attack at my integrity and could have real world implications.
Anyway, that’s my opinion and the matter has been addressed. It’s over. Let’s stick to talking about the moderation rules here and not squirrel into what happened last night.
Why is it so suprising that a number of people were happy and excited to see me back posting and decided to join the fun, and now are/were subsequently defending my honor from slander and abuse? I’m objectively a fun and entertaining poster. Sure, they might only give me a genlteman’s 7/10 whilst I give myself a full 10/10, but it’s an objective fact that statement is true by any metric.
I would put is as unjustified (in the epistemological sense) allegations of cheating or other serious shenanigans directed at other posters are not allowed
Ironically the actual big insult I made in that thread is when I said I’m surprised Jman asked what I was alluding to. At that point I didn’t think they had the intellectual curiosity to even think to ask.
FWIW, I think that others on your side in the past two weeks have deserved bans way more than you did. Still not sure how calling someone a pedophile results in a lesser ban than calling someone a cheater, but here we are.
I’m a big fan of not making mods do heavy lifting, so it’s totally reasonable to get an accurate synopsis of the events in lieu of spending precious time reading it yourself, but, who on earth would think, “Hm, I know who’s up for this synopsis task: JMakin, Clovis, and Jman!”
Nobody is ‘conspiring’ against me and I never said anybody was conspiring against me. You just proved my point better than I could ever do myself if I scripted it lol how is this real.
I mean, you get that if there were betting lines a reasonable 3rd party advantage gambler might wager you’re a double agent Captain trying to make the Captains look good, you’re that ridiculous, right?
bruh it’s almost like he got excited and is now bitter and jealous that i’m not and wasn’t saying he was involved in some high-brow intricate conspiracy
ya sorry @j8i3h289dn3x7 i think that would be above your pay-grade my bad for getting your hopes up
