I know I already posted about this, but could #11 instead just be phrased, “If you don’t like this place, kindly leave?”
1 Like
Totally fair. I guess me pointing it out was hoping that someone would clarify some other purpose for the rule that I wasn’t understanding. But yeah if there’s nothing else to it then #11 standing really doesn’t matter so I’m cool with it.
Also, great job overall on this JT. I still consider myself a lurker, though I post more than I did on 22, but I’m happy to see this community thrive and I think this effort will pay off.
4 Likes
I don’t think there’s a downside to just starting the threads on the contentious rules and getting the discussions going, as for how to structure voting inside the thread I honestly don’t know. Let’s say the no porn rule was close, which side has to get to 70%? Maybe it should just be majority wins after x number of revisions?
Always thought Johnny might be a masochist. Listening to Dr Laura and now this.
2 Likes
I like your idea for Phase 2 posted above. I also think a single person (guess who) should be the “moderator” of each specific rule discussion thread.
I would imagine that a “final” vote would not allow a middle option. Either a yes/no vote on the revised rule. (Maybe it could possibly make sense to have another “final” vote if one additional bout of word-smithing could sway enough votes to change from a No result to a Yes result??) I am not advocating for it, but in a pure Yes/No world, a 50% threshold does make some sense (I think a higher threshold is appropriate, maybe 66%??).
The tricky part will be to fairly and impartially close off further discussion and craft a new revised rule for “final” vote. Of course, there will likely be a bunch of information in the thread from both the Yes and No initial voters, but also (more importantly) from the “Undecided” initial voters.
As you said once before, crafting a rule that perfectly threads the needle will be a challenge.
Where is the discussion thread for rule 1? My personal take is that if you are constantly getting attacked then post better. If I was running the site I would see the thin skinned people whining to mods and/or ignoring people because they cant handle the blowback from their own posts as more of a problem than warranted personal attacks. I mean wasn’t that the start of the banishment from our previous hellhole? People constantly whining in the atf forum about all the meanies? Why on earth would we want to encourage that kind of stuff here.
There’s a significant difference between celebrating someone’s death after the fact and saying things that can potentially influence others to bring about said person’s demise.
Right.
IMO it comes down to what I said above. Like if Trump passes away of natural causes, I don’t actually have a problem with people expressing whatever their emotions may be about that event in the past - whether that’s joy or sorrow, it can’t influence anything. There are also a number of statements people could make in the present tense about something that has not yet happened that may fall on the acceptable side of the line in my view, but I think we should err toward caution and just stay as far away from that stuff as possible. It also makes a difference who says it, what the context is, what their views are, etc… Two people could say the same thing, but if one is on the record as believing in political violence directed at an individual, and the other is on the record as a pacifist, it could be clear that one means it while one is joking and does not support it.
But I’d rather just settle on nobody saying it.
Another example is that there’s a big difference between someone saying like, “I hope that Big Mac clogs his arteries,” and “I hope he _______,” where _____ is some sort of violent attempt on the person’s life by another individual. And in a past reference, someone making a comment about Dubya choking on a pretzel is pretty different from someone hoping POTUS chokes on a Big Mac and dies. Because of context.
Yeah, like I’m glad Hitler died when he did and I wish he had died sooner to save more lives, but I’m less inclined to take joy in his mortal suffering than, say, I might take joy in 45 getting locked up in Attica for tax fraud. One can be pleased with an outcome without taking joy in it… Now that said, if I was alive when Hitler died and was a German who hated him, saw him for what he was, etc, I’d have been thrilled and likely would have celebrated…
But, of course, that’s significantly different than our current circumstances as well.
I think it should be more than a simple majority but less than 70%, but it is also kind of tricky. Like let’s say >70% want some version of Rule X. However, it’s going to Phase 2 because < 70% want it as written - so a lot of people want discussion on it. Now some of those people want it to be more lenient, some want it to be more strongly worded, and it’s tough to get a 70% consensus on either version.
Do we scrap the whole thing, or do we reduce the threshold? It’s also tricky because some people who prefer the less strict version might prefer the stronger version to nothing, but if they know that a no vote on the stronger version means their version passes, then we just end up having a lot of strategic voting… and vice versa.
I guess the fair thing to do would be to let people vote line by line or something?
Also, it’ll be tough for me to check in much at all on this from now until Sunday night… Working all day tomorrow and family stuff most of the day Sunday. So I guess I’ll pop back in then.
I cannot be responsible for people who willingly misinterpret my words to justify illegal actions. Maybe we should be more willing to use emojis to symbolize that we actually don’t want people to do it or something like that. But really, I trust the reading abilities of people here to know how to take what I say in the right way.
And let’s be honest. Nobody here is a public figure. Things people say here aren’t going to turn an otherwise civil person into a murderous sociopath. You think way too highly of yourself if you believe that to be true.
We’re a tiny fish in a giant internet pond. Nothing we say is going to inspire action in others.
You say that like the Internet has never been used to radicalize people.
The key word is “here” as in this forum.
Nobody’s coming here for mass shooting advice. This isn’t 8chan.
Has anyone said they have a problem with this? Certainly not me. Drink lots and piss away.
Masters of war is banned here then…
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I’ll follow your casket
By the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand over your grave
'Til I’m sure that you’re dead
1 Like
I like Eddie Vedder alright, but…nah…
I think something like if your reported posts/all reported posts > certain ratio you eat a temp ban makes sense and wouldn’t result in a lot of mod work. Without seeing the stats though I have no idea what kind of a threshold would work.
I don’t think anything will work better than the current non-system and don’t like the idea of encouraging reporting posts.
So we have two problem posters we’re talking about now? We should talk about that imo. If the discussion doesn’t work out, it’ll be because too few people want them banned, in which case they should not be banned.
1 Like
Or this. I personally like it how it is and don’t see it as a problem. If we are going to move to a more structured system I would like to see it be some kind of formula that results in temp bans rather than mod discretion though.
I’m not trying to be an ass I promise. I know moderating this mess must be not that much fun. As always though it is going to be a fine line between too much and too little moderation. If we are going to moderate more then wouldn’t a system of self moderation (through some type of reporting ratio) be easier and better on the mods than making judgment calls? That’s all I’m trying to say.
If we actually rotated mods it would be less objectionable, imo, when some mods were over-active. Does no one else want to be a mod-for-a-month?
I totally support any changes that lead to progress with this. X posts flagged by Y people over Z time sounds fine, so does a ratio of some sort. I think my feelings on this relative topic are well known, so I’ll leave it there.
1 Like