Do we need a voting eligibility RFC?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
Davidâs posted enough that he gets a vote, but Mat said heâs done posting here so he doesnât
6 Likes
Iâd like to rescind my vote.
Glad to know someone is watching for shady votes.
Will now log in to my âRead and Voteâ account.
If someone saying âtheyâre done posting hereâ disqualifies them then a lot of the voters in this pole are disqualified, including Jbro. Perhaps Allinflynn can draw another diagram to demonstrate. What say you @mat?
Welcome to the forum ArizonaRonFromTucson!
3 Likes
Ffs I canât even make a lighthearted dumb joke here anymore without it being weaponized. Sorry I posted in this category; will try to avoid this mistake from now on.
11 Likes
I actually think that one might be legitimate, if itâs who I think it is.
Stop the Steal!
This only just occured to me now, so what Iâm about to ask isnât a loaded question. Itâs also not petty and trivial because imo it highlights an example of the little things that have snowballed to get us to where we are today.
Why didnât it occur to you to instead say to MrWookie what you said to me?
I mean, right? We were asked for examples, I started to provide some, and MrWookie interjected to dissemble some more, when nothing was directed towards him, and he had every opportunity to litigate things before this. And yet, you thought to try to condescend to and shame me. I think the solutions to the problems here lies somewhere in the answer to that question.
7 Likes
I guess the new mod honeymoon period is over. He condescended and shamed you by asking you to take the conversation to a different thread? Yeahok.gif.
No, no, I donât really think they do at all.
Edit: Yup, forcing mods to take a break is sure going to solve our forum problems. Rugby was clearly overdo for a moderation break here. Heâs been a mod for far too long and we need some new blood.
I sure hope Rugbyâs carcass is holding up ok.
Sarcastic quips like âI guess the new mod honeymoon period is overâ are part of this issue here. Youâre trying to construct a historical goalpost (made of straw, if we can combine two cliches) so you can then claim that this group has shifted their goalposts, because you arenât actually interested in resolving any of these issues. And to respond to your ninja edit, no one is claiming that forcing mods to take a break is going to solve our forum problems! Maybe some just think itâs a good idea and might improve things slightly? Youâre pretending like everything is binary, either âsolvedâ or ânot solvedâ so that you can feign indignation when there are still occasional flare-ups of tension after a rule like this is implemented, which there of course will be because this is the fucking internet.
As for the second part of your post, which is clearly intended to be dismissive and condescending, posts like this being so quick to shut down posters like 6ix is, like, an exact example of what 6ix is talking about with this statement.
I think 6ixâs point is that thereâs an inherent assumption by a lot of people here that his (and othersâ) posting is the action and that mod responses are just a natural reaction. Itâs implied in rugbyâs post, because (as 6ix points out) rugby is telling 6ix to âyou know, let it goâ but doesnât direct anything at other posters or at Wookie. Thereâs an implied legitimacy in everyone elseâs posts but no legitimacy given to 6ixâs complaints here, and when he makes statements like âI think the solutions to the problems lie somewhere in the answer to that questionâ heâs talking about this double standard in the treatment of posters.
The fact that your reaction to his post is to come at him with snarky bullshit like this just ends up being a reinforcing example of this cycle.
Anyways, 6ix my apologies if I misunderstood the meaning of your post. Iâm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just thought it was a very clear attempt at getting to a mutual understanding of the issue and am continuously frustrated to see the same people try to shut it down.
19 Likes
Proverbs 26:11 in effect.
4 Likes
No, thatâs not why. When you find yourself incredulous, you should stop to consider that your initial assumption might be wrong.
I know you donât think they do. I gathered you thought that because I read your previous sentences. Thatâs how reading carefully for comprehension works.
Back to the topic of this thread, which I started talking about but then got distracted, thereâs the obvious issue that Item 2 is discussed as if itâs a proxy for the perceived legitimacy of the concerns of the so-called Captains, so itâs becoming more of a âwhose side are you onâ 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 âthese guys think this will solve all of the issues but it wonât, so vote against itâ which seems to be folks staking out a position that they can later point to when, shocker, all of the issues arenât solved. As far as I can tell, no one actually holds the position that this modest proposal is a panacea, many just think itâs 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 wonât go into here, but I am willing to vote for a short break because I still think itâs 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 wonât 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 isnât always justified in real-world politics, but I think Iâd have to self-reflect a bit more on the consistency of that position, which is why itâs amusing.
5 Likes
Also, I want to correct this statement. I think that the implication of this statement is that rugby isnât 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 rugbyâs post focused on 6ix but not on the others and brought a bit of a condescending tone (âyou know, let it goâ) that dismissed the legitimacy of 6ixâs complaints without consideration of the bigger picture of the conversation. This treatment of 6ixâs posts as the action while others are the reaction is what leads to 6ix getting told to âlet it goâ 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 6ixâs ban.
3 Likes
No, you pretty much nailed it.
The only tiniest of tiny quibbles Iâd have is that in this specific case I wasnât even making formal or informal complaints. I was merely providing what was an objectively ridiculous example (to give you an idea, aside from whatâs already been mentioned itt, MrW banned me for a week because he apparently thought Iâd 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 âgimmicks shouldnât vote to pad the numbersâ problem?
Oh, right, the RFC that people said was totally unnecessary and didnât 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
Canât vote if banned
1 Like