Proverbs 26:11 in effect.
4 Likes
No, that’s not why. When you find yourself incredulous, you should stop to consider that your initial assumption might be wrong.
I know you don’t think they do. I gathered you thought that because I read your previous sentences. That’s how reading carefully for comprehension works.
Back to the topic of this thread, which I started talking about but then got distracted, there’s the obvious issue that Item 2 is discussed as if it’s a proxy for the perceived legitimacy of the concerns of the so-called Captains, so it’s becoming more of a “whose side are you on” question than an actual referendum on the quality of the idea itself. I think you can see this in some of the strawmen that are being built around it, things like “these guys think this will solve all of the issues but it won’t, so vote against it” which seems to be folks staking out a position that they can later point to when, shocker, all of the issues aren’t solved. As far as I can tell, no one actually holds the position that this modest proposal is a panacea, many just think it’s a good idea.
The parallels to political incrementalism are amusing because Item 2 probably feels like incrementalism to a lot of people who are voting for it, myself included (because I think longer breaks would be better for a few reasons, which I won’t go into here, but I am willing to vote for a short break because I still think it’s a good idea). I think the factionization of the vote has led to folks that would describe themselves as political incrementalists voting against what could be an incremental improvement (and trying to tear it down because it won’t solve everything), while folks that, in political discussions, might argue against incrementalism are instead defending the rule as an incremental improvement.
As someone in the latter camp I obviously feel that incrementalism is justified now but isn’t always justified in real-world politics, but I think I’d have to self-reflect a bit more on the consistency of that position, which is why it’s amusing.
5 Likes
Also, I want to correct this statement. I think that the implication of this statement is that rugby isn’t calling out other posters at all, and that is demonstrably false. He has done it in this very thread. I was speaking of the particular exchange between 6ix and Wookie, which other posters chimed in on, in which rugby’s post focused on 6ix but not on the others and brought a bit of a condescending tone (“you know, let it go”) that dismissed the legitimacy of 6ix’s complaints without consideration of the bigger picture of the conversation. This treatment of 6ix’s posts as the action while others are the reaction is what leads to 6ix getting told to “let it go” while others may not get that same treatment, because 6ix is viewed as being the cause of this discussion without consideration that it is the result of a different action, in this case 6ix’s ban.
3 Likes
No, you pretty much nailed it.
The only tiniest of tiny quibbles I’d have is that in this specific case I wasn’t even making formal or informal complaints. I was merely providing what was an objectively ridiculous example (to give you an idea, aside from what’s already been mentioned itt, MrW banned me for a week because he apparently thought I’d been banned even longer before, somehow confusing me for somebody else) when asked for some.
Thank you.
4 Likes
Gosh, I wonder what could help solve this “gimmicks shouldn’t vote to pad the numbers” problem?
Oh, right, the RFC that people said was totally unnecessary and didn’t bother to actually debate or attempt to nail down language for.
3 Likes
There was a discussion of gimmicks voting in polls in that thread?
2 Likes
Can’t vote if banned
1 Like
That’s a fair point. I’d be against banning all gimmicks though. Maybe just ban the ones that aren’t funny.
1 Like
7 Likes
There was a discussion of gimmicks voting in polls when the RFC process was instituted. We chose to make RFC polls public so that the forum could audit the results.
1 Like
Agreed. Most people like to claim we don’t need more rules, we just need better/fairer enforcement of the current broad rules we have. But then we seem to always devolve into stupid arguments because we don’t have rule (e.g. who can vote, what is a “personal attack”) that are unanswerable since it’s just based on everyone’s personal opinion of what is the right answer.
1 Like
No idea why we would need a rfc to ban gimmicks from voting in polls. That’s just basic forum common law, totally uncontroversial.
Please don’t do this. I know you are intentionally nitpicking.
You know the thread was about banning gimmicks in general, at least ones that are made to circumvent bans. One consequence of doing so would be to prevent the very thing that is happening now. I even literally JUST said the same thing to meb.
2 Likes
I would consider requiring a certain trust level for suffrage and locking gimmicks at a lower trust level.
1 Like
Read has never posted so how would it have been banned? You can ban it and j man reading right now for voting in a poll as a gimmick, no one will object in the slightest. Again, basic forum common law.
4 Likes
Ban them and see if anyone makes a thing of it.
4 Likes
Agree with Keeed. It would not be controversial.
What happened to the other RFC anyway? Did someone shut it down somehow?
2 Likes