|
On April 04 2011 13:07 Harem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 13:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 04 2011 12:56 Harem wrote:Do you realize how big those LR threads are? The MLG thread from today was over 900 pages. It is very easy to miss stuff while going through these threads if post is not reported. If you see something that you think was missed then report post or PM mod if you don't have access to report posts yet. In addition, the poster already has an awful history of just shitting/trashing on people. (doesn't even ever back himself up so they are just trashy one-liners) While I agree that the top one was definitely offensive, I'm just wondering why this one was singled out. Because it was reported? Please understand that it's very likely while these LR threads to be going on for there to be many, many open reports. For example, there was 18 open reports at one time today. This makes it very hard to catch all the shit that goes on in LR threads with how fast they move while also dealing with however many reports are open at the time. It's also why we encourage the use of report/PMs as there are more eyes that can catch what is missed. Hmm, I guess it's the best that can be done with all the resources available and all.
I still don't really agree with the Day[9] guy. I'm not quite sure how he could have phrased that more civilized at all.
|
I think I've had one topic closed for being really bad (which was a long time ago). Never been banned or warned but still feels like walking on egg-shells when I post. I tend to lurk more than post because of that.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
I'm never worried about being banned because I contribute to discussions in a positive manner following the forum guidelines. 90% of posters don't even need to worry as long as they do their best to be constructive and helpful to the community-- so don't fret. If you find yourself worried about being banned, maybe you should consider refining your posts and contributions rather than being bothered by it-- TL staff has to wade through a lot of chaff to keep this place clean, so give them a break.
|
On April 04 2011 12:31 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 12:21 Jotoco wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I have never being warned, don't troll, lurk the community for some good 6+ years, and yet Friday I got temp banned. I didn't really understand why, sent a PM and never got an answer. I think I will refrain myself from posting entirely, mostly because I think the mods are innefective in some ways. I feel like Fan Clubs are rarely, if ever, moderated. Idra's, for example, should be renamed "Idra's HATE club". I liked to post there, but I haven't in some time because it is all hate there. I feel like the strategy section could be improved a lot, still. With closing threads. I myself was responsible for one closed thread, but never again posted a thread because I understood that it should be for higher level people. And rarely comment, unless I have something to say on topic, although sometimes I fall for some troll-bait threads, but who doesn't? I feel like this is going to be one of my last posts here, maybe I will announce my games casting in the near future, since I'm setting this up and I think it would be good for the community to have a portuguese language caster and all, but the fear of posting is now deeply engraved into my skull. As a matter of fact I'm thinking right now if complaining about being banned is something that warrants another ban, or critizing in any way the staff is a bannable offense. But I don't think I care anymore if I get banned, specially since I was banned without ever receiving a warning in the first place... And I'm just saying, theres some good people out there that get banned for a long duration for crap like this. people get exciting about a game. they post about it. they want to talk about it. and they get banned for it. where the hell can u go to do that? im looking at tl, and then another site, but theres not another one with a big community. so thats where it ends. On April 04 2011 12:21 Jotoco wrote:
EDIT: Just some other note, I think that there are FAR more cases of NOT banned when needed than BANNED when not needed. My case I think was unwarranted, the other poster above even agreed it was, but I will not complain anymore Are you sure it has nothing to do with you calling selects play "bullshit" and claiming he lost your respect after a pretty awesome build? This in the middle of the MLG day 1 thread where the mods were already pissed as hell at all the QQing. Also its just a two day ban, get over it, if you really post as well as you claim (and in your post history I found mostly one liners), then you'll never have to worry about the mods "injustly" banning you again. Bottom line, good constructive criticizing of the mods and/or debate with them will not get you banned. Martyr posts like yours where "I got banned *once* in six years and this causes me to feel terror at posting and I may never post again" might. Generally I've found the mods to be approachable, you can just shoot them a PM and they are more than willing to talk it out with you, assuming they aren't insanely occupied (like say in the middle of the MLG Dallas day2 LR thread) EDIT: in reply to your edit, there is this lovely report button you have access to that can be used to summon a mod to get people who are posting stupid shit banned, its really handy, next time you see a post you think needs to be banned then click it and explain why the post is stupid. A mod will be on it before you can blink Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 12:27 Lokian wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I got banned for this post:
"I'm glad MC took the title in this fashion. It will open Blizzard's eye on how to balance the game..."
For two weeks. I didn't check teamliquid after that. It's ridiculous that 100+ people get banned for a game final thread. It's suppose to be controversial. It's suppose to be hyped. If you look at any other sports, the same thing happen. People talk about the big match for weeks, and most of the time its controversial. It's part of game spirit, and to ban someone because of something so insignificant is absurd and degrades the community. A warning would have made more sense, or even 1 day ban was even okay. Its a fricken finals thread, what the hell. After the big day, the hype will be decrease and people will post more sensible.
This 80 of the 100 people will probably be less active on teamliquid more or less quit the entire thing. Good thing for teamliquid its practically the only website that gives quick news and actually have people posting in them. I have been just following gomTV and looking at playXP/fomos to try to decipher the korean, so its not so bad. This kind of regulation will always tell me to stay away from posting and not pay attention to anything related to teamliquid( i like jinro tho XD).
I do believe that was the finals thread with the huge red text on top saying "any balance whine will receive a two week ban"? I'm glad the mods did that, its a LIVE REPORT thread, you know the resource where us poor sods who dont have access to gom player at the time can try to follow along. Its ok to cheer for your player, its better to post what is actually happening, its shameful to post balance whine. For me its a pain to have to read through 50 pages of "ff so imba" and "nerf protoss, zerg UP" while trying to piece what the hell happened because I can't get gom player to work on my computer. I dont see how punishing balance whine "degrades the community" and Im honestly pissed at all you people who insist that they are leaving or dont care as much on account of a single stupid ban, which was well deserved.
by degrading i mean by having less people in the community potentially, random bans can become detrimental and not as beneficial as it can be when these 100+ mods all do their own thing. a simple post warrants half a month ban on a incredibly hyped thread. Who the hell reads all 100 pages of that kind of thread? It's just a place to post. Sounds more like a place to cheer and crap rather than anything discussion worthy. Forum-wise, this is a little awkward to accept. But whatev works I guess. no point in posting now. its not so much 'fear' but resentment.
i just want to go somehwere and talk about the game freely without random rules. why cant there be another teamliquid but less-religious-like? where guys can drink and post anything about the game and have fun. sigh
|
Some people like thick fingers? Maybe he was just honestly wondering?
This is more or less what I talk about when I say that people ban based on interpretation, you can't really know for sure if this is meant as an insult.
Maybe, but that is essentially punishing people for not taking into account that people have prejudices... it's banning people for giving other people the benefit of the doubt that they don't read stuff that wasn't meant.
The reason people like EvilTeletubby are moderators is because they have a good interpretation of things like this. They wouldn't have become a mod if they banned everyone for posting anything at all. Also, no matter what, prejudices are bad, and it's not questionable whether they should be allowed or not. And whenever you post, it should not have an insulting tone to it, which the post did.
I actually linked to the post below that, it just doesn't show well because it can't scroll down further.
Either way, the person needs to stop attacking someone without making a valid statement. The poster just put it there like quality doesn't matter.
Or the poster simply disagrees with that?
Maybe he just feels after he watched it that Day[9] doesn't respect his partners?
Like I said, attitude is in the eye of the beholder.
He disagreed with the fact that Day9 doesn't give respect to his partners. Like the Select banning, he's attacking a respected member of the community without any arguments. Like I said, the reasons mods are mods is because they have good reasoning
That's essentially what I'm saying above. The difference is that you think this is a good thing, whereas I think it's a bad thing.
I don't know, I think this social construct that people have everywhere that you need to give arguments when you disagree with the masses but not when you agree is a bit silly.
I am not saying that when agreeing with something, you don't need reasoning. That is just called spamming, and it reduces your credibility. I'm saying that when you say something derogatory and you don't back it up, that is worse.
Nonetheless, it's a reasonable position.
It's a reasonable position that is stated in a way as to cause an argument/disagree with something without facts at all.
Like I said, I agree that people should be banned for saying nonsense, I was just giving examples of people giving rather innocent remarks and opinions which aren't really popular and get banned for it.
These people aren't "giving rather innocent remarks and opinions which aren't popular and getting banned for it" They are giving insulting remarks that are meant to cause some sort of disagreement and not giving any arguments behind it. You can look at your first post for example. You made remarks and opinions that are unpopular, but because you gave arguments behind it, you don't see a "mod edit" anywhere.
|
It's just a place to post. Sounds more like a place to cheer and crap rather than anything discussion worthy.
I think this is the key difference in interpretation. To many of us, TL is not "just a place to post". This place is as awesome as it is because the standards expected are relatively high, and they are enforced fairly most of the time. I'm not going to make up a statistic here, so I'll simply say that I rarely ever see bans I disagree with. I don't see what value 300+ page threads provide over 50+ page threads that have useful content. I think typing out "crap" doesn't help the forum at all - IRC would be a place for that if you want to have the feeling of being surrounded by others enjoying an awesome event, and it doesn't make it harder for people actually trying to follow the game, distracted by "OMG SO AWESOME" or "FORCEFIELD IMBA". I guess I'm trying to say that we expect and different things from TL.
On April 04 2011 13:15 Neo7 wrote:
I think I've had one topic closed for being really bad (which was a long time ago). Never been banned or warned but still feels like walking on egg-shells when I post. I tend to lurk more than post because of that.
That's actually a pretty good rule of thumb to follow - if you're not sure whether or not you should post something, it's best to hold onto it for the time being until you've accumulated more experience - and by that I mean seeing other posts, understanding what works and doesn't work here. And honestly, even if you do get a warning for something, that's not necessarily a bad thing either - you learn from the experience what *not* to do and that's pretty valuable.
|
I've found you can be critical of people, events and posters, and not get warned -- the key is to do it intelligently and (hopefully) articulately rather than say "OMG STFU FAG!" There will always be a little hostility in discourse, the key is to keep it relatively civil and not feel like you have to use language befitting a nitwit.
|
I don't have any fear of banning, cause I don't post rude or stupid shit on the board. Probably going to get a warning someday for not posting a completely coherent or well thoughtout post, but that is what happens to everyone I suppose. Can't be a paragon everytime we're posting. Just remember not to be a dick.
|
On April 04 2011 13:20 Latrommi wrote:Show nested quote +Some people like thick fingers? Maybe he was just honestly wondering?
This is more or less what I talk about when I say that people ban based on interpretation, you can't really know for sure if this is meant as an insult.
Maybe, but that is essentially punishing people for not taking into account that people have prejudices... it's banning people for giving other people the benefit of the doubt that they don't read stuff that wasn't meant. The reason people like EvilTeletubby are moderators is because they have a good interpretation of things like this. They wouldn't have become a mod if they banned everyone for posting anything at all. Also, no matter what, prejudices are bad, and it's not questionable whether they should be allowed or not. And whenever you post, it should not have an insulting tone to it, which the post did. How can you know he's 'good' at this? Like I said, it's subjective.
If something has an insulting tone is quite subjective.
I also doubt that people are that stupid, wouldn't be surprised if the true reason people keep posting stuff like this despite all the bans around it is because they don't really mean it in an insulting way and it gets interpreted it like that.'
I wouldn't really be insulted myself anyway if someone said that of my fingers.
Either way, the person needs to stop attacking someone without making a valid statement. The poster just put it there like quality doesn't matter.
Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point I was addressing, what I was addressing is that EvilT claimed that people aren't banned because they disagree or have unpopular opinions, but because of the attitude they bring it with.
There was no attitude in that post, it was an attack on a respected person, an unpopular opinion.
He disagreed with the fact that Day9 doesn't give respect to his partners. Like the Select banning, he's attacking a respected member of the community without any arguments. Like I said, the reasons mods are mods is because they have good reasoning Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point, I was providing examples to back up my claim that indeed some people are being banned for having controversial opinions, not necessarily the 'attitude' with which they bring them.
I am not saying that when agreeing with something, you don't need reasoning. That is just called spamming, and it reduces your credibility. I'm saying that when you say something derogatory and you don't back it up, that is worse.
In the majority of cases yes, but not if the masses also hold a derogatory opinion.
If you for instance call ReasoN a total dick for abusing, you won't be banned. Because that's a mainstream opinion in the community.
It isn't as much derogatory as how unorthodox the position is, it just happens to be that there aren't many derogatory opinions which are mainstream, but they do exist, and in that case you are required to back up the fact for instance that you are sympathetic to ReasoN's abusing.
It's a reasonable position that is stated in a way as to cause an argument/disagree with something without facts at all.
Maybe, maybe not, but again, that wasn't the point, I was merely providing cases of people being banned without posting with 'attitude'.
These people aren't "giving rather innocent remarks and opinions which aren't popular and getting banned for it" They are giving insulting remarks that are meant to cause some sort of disagreement and not giving any arguments behind it.
Yes, they aren't giving any arguments behind it. But like I said, people are not getting banned for not giving any argument if they just state what every-one feels.
Which was the original point, people who post things by which the majority (and by extension the mods) disagree get considerably less leeway in how well constructed their posts have to be, this isn't their 'attitude' per se.
You can look at your first post for example. You made remarks and opinions that are unpopular, but because you gave arguments behind it, you don't see a "mod edit" anywhere. I know. =P, I often get the feeling that my neurosis to back everything up to pædantic extend often saves me.. =P
|
I worry about being banned cuz I'm just awful at posting.
Like really, I'm the worst.
|
I got warned once for saying "balls" to an OP that I thought was balls but I didn't know one word posts weren't allowed. I haven't had any issues since then even though I feel like I might sometimes when I express my rather strong opinions.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 13:30 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 04 2011 13:20 Latrommi wrote:Show nested quote +Some people like thick fingers? Maybe he was just honestly wondering?
This is more or less what I talk about when I say that people ban based on interpretation, you can't really know for sure if this is meant as an insult.
Maybe, but that is essentially punishing people for not taking into account that people have prejudices... it's banning people for giving other people the benefit of the doubt that they don't read stuff that wasn't meant. The reason people like EvilTeletubby are moderators is because they have a good interpretation of things like this. They wouldn't have become a mod if they banned everyone for posting anything at all. Also, no matter what, prejudices are bad, and it's not questionable whether they should be allowed or not. And whenever you post, it should not have an insulting tone to it, which the post did. How can you know he's 'good' at this? Like I said, it's subjective. If something has an insulting tone is quite subjective. I also doubt that people are that stupid, wouldn't be surprised if the true reason people keep posting stuff like this despite all the bans around it is because they don't really mean it in an insulting way and it gets interpreted it like that.' I wouldn't really be insulted myself anyway if someone said that of my fingers.
Either way, the person needs to stop attacking someone without making a valid statement. The poster just put it there like quality doesn't matter.
Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point I was addressing, what I was addressing is that EvilT claimed that people aren't banned because they disagree or have unpopular opinions, but because of the attitude they bring it with. There was no attitude in that post, it was an attack on a respected person, an unpopular opinion. He disagreed with the fact that Day9 doesn't give respect to his partners. Like the Select banning, he's attacking a respected member of the community without any arguments. Like I said, the reasons mods are mods is because they have good reasoning Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point, I was providing examples to back up my claim that indeed some people are being banned for having controversial opinions, not necessarily the 'attitude' with which they bring them.
I am not saying that when agreeing with something, you don't need reasoning. That is just called spamming, and it reduces your credibility. I'm saying that when you say something derogatory and you don't back it up, that is worse.
In the majority of cases yes, but not if the masses also hold a derogatory opinion. If you for instance call ReasoN a total dick for abusing, you won't be banned. Because that's a mainstream opinion in the community. It isn't as much derogatory as how unorthodox the position is, it just happens to be that there aren't many derogatory opinions which are mainstream, but they do exist, and in that case you are required to back up the fact for instance that you are sympathetic to ReasoN's abusing.
It's a reasonable position that is stated in a way as to cause an argument/disagree with something without facts at all.
Maybe, maybe not, but again, that wasn't the point, I was merely providing cases of people being banned without posting with 'attitude'.
These people aren't "giving rather innocent remarks and opinions which aren't popular and getting banned for it" They are giving insulting remarks that are meant to cause some sort of disagreement and not giving any arguments behind it.
Yes, they aren't giving any arguments behind it. But like I said, people are not getting banned for not giving any argument if they just state what every-one feels. Which was the original point, people who post things by which the majority (and by extension the mods) disagree get considerably less leeway in how well constructed their posts have to be, this isn't their 'attitude' per se. You can look at your first post for example. You made remarks and opinions that are unpopular, but because you gave arguments behind it, you don't see a "mod edit" anywhere. I know. =P, I often get the feeling that my neurosis to back everything up to pædantic extend often saves me.. =P
You seem to focus on a few points, if I'm correct
1. Things are subjective, such as knowing if ET is "good" at what he does
2. People are banned even if they don't post with "additude"
3. If people post something that is against the masses, they get unfairly banned.
1. ET was chosen to be a moderator. If he didn't have a good judgement on what is good and bad, he wouldn't have been chosen. You say that being "good" or bad at something is subjective. I agree, but the power to choose where the line is drawn is put with the moderators. Some are liberal, some are not, but they have the power to choose which is which. If the moderators were not banning comments like that, this whole site would be something like you see on 4chan's /b/. It would be chaos where no respect was given. The moderators may choose to be strict or liberal. And by looking at the state of TL right now, you can see that they do indeed have "good judgement"
2. I have to disagree with your examples here. Those posters did show additude. On April 03 2011 04:01 Veasel wrote:
The stream sucks. I wanna see games not retarded Wheat(spelling?) speaking shit all day. GAMES MOOOAR GAMES FFS
He is showing an additude towards hating Wheat. Also, you cannot brush off the fact that they are attacking a respected member of the community. If you look at the TL.net 10 Commandments thread, you can clearly see this in the 6th point.+ Show Spoiler +This also means you should think twice before calling that guy with 5000+ posts a jackass. If the guy?s been with us that long, chances are YOU?RE the one being an idiot. Some battles are just not worth fighting ? just move on.
3. The fact that if you disagree with the masses, you are "bad" is commonly known. If you make a post saying something derogatory and not anything else, you are definitely doing something wrong. However, if you actually explain why it is bad, then you may get listened to. Once again, your first post is an example. You said something not completely agreeable with, but still backed it up, which is the reason you haven't gotten banned for it. Once again, the 9th point in the TL.net 10 Commandments states that "Thou shall contribute to the site". They aren't contributing anything but hate.
|
On April 04 2011 14:00 Latrommi wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 13:30 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 04 2011 13:20 Latrommi wrote:Show nested quote +Some people like thick fingers? Maybe he was just honestly wondering?
This is more or less what I talk about when I say that people ban based on interpretation, you can't really know for sure if this is meant as an insult.
Maybe, but that is essentially punishing people for not taking into account that people have prejudices... it's banning people for giving other people the benefit of the doubt that they don't read stuff that wasn't meant. The reason people like EvilTeletubby are moderators is because they have a good interpretation of things like this. They wouldn't have become a mod if they banned everyone for posting anything at all. Also, no matter what, prejudices are bad, and it's not questionable whether they should be allowed or not. And whenever you post, it should not have an insulting tone to it, which the post did. How can you know he's 'good' at this? Like I said, it's subjective. If something has an insulting tone is quite subjective. I also doubt that people are that stupid, wouldn't be surprised if the true reason people keep posting stuff like this despite all the bans around it is because they don't really mean it in an insulting way and it gets interpreted it like that.' I wouldn't really be insulted myself anyway if someone said that of my fingers.
Either way, the person needs to stop attacking someone without making a valid statement. The poster just put it there like quality doesn't matter.
Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point I was addressing, what I was addressing is that EvilT claimed that people aren't banned because they disagree or have unpopular opinions, but because of the attitude they bring it with. There was no attitude in that post, it was an attack on a respected person, an unpopular opinion. He disagreed with the fact that Day9 doesn't give respect to his partners. Like the Select banning, he's attacking a respected member of the community without any arguments. Like I said, the reasons mods are mods is because they have good reasoning Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point, I was providing examples to back up my claim that indeed some people are being banned for having controversial opinions, not necessarily the 'attitude' with which they bring them.
I am not saying that when agreeing with something, you don't need reasoning. That is just called spamming, and it reduces your credibility. I'm saying that when you say something derogatory and you don't back it up, that is worse.
In the majority of cases yes, but not if the masses also hold a derogatory opinion. If you for instance call ReasoN a total dick for abusing, you won't be banned. Because that's a mainstream opinion in the community. It isn't as much derogatory as how unorthodox the position is, it just happens to be that there aren't many derogatory opinions which are mainstream, but they do exist, and in that case you are required to back up the fact for instance that you are sympathetic to ReasoN's abusing.
It's a reasonable position that is stated in a way as to cause an argument/disagree with something without facts at all.
Maybe, maybe not, but again, that wasn't the point, I was merely providing cases of people being banned without posting with 'attitude'.
These people aren't "giving rather innocent remarks and opinions which aren't popular and getting banned for it" They are giving insulting remarks that are meant to cause some sort of disagreement and not giving any arguments behind it.
Yes, they aren't giving any arguments behind it. But like I said, people are not getting banned for not giving any argument if they just state what every-one feels. Which was the original point, people who post things by which the majority (and by extension the mods) disagree get considerably less leeway in how well constructed their posts have to be, this isn't their 'attitude' per se. You can look at your first post for example. You made remarks and opinions that are unpopular, but because you gave arguments behind it, you don't see a "mod edit" anywhere. I know. =P, I often get the feeling that my neurosis to back everything up to pædantic extend often saves me.. =P You seem to focus on a few points, if I'm correct 1. Things are subjective, such as knowing if ET is "good" at what he does 2. People are banned even if they don't post with "additude" 3. If people post something that is against the masses, they get unfairly banned.
Yes / yes / and not per se, more that they get less leeway and are expected to have more intellectual baggage to back it up.
1. ET was chosen to be a moderator. If he didn't have a good judgement on what is good and bad, he wouldn't have been chosen. Bush was chosen to be a president, if he didn't have a...
You have to see that that argument won't fly? Bad leaders were chosen at any time. And good/bad is still subjective.
You say that being "good" or bad at something is subjective. I agree, but the power to choose where the line is drawn is put with the moderators. Some are liberal, some are not, but they have the power to choose which is which. Then surely they can't all be good if they have a different opinion on where to draw the line?
If the moderators were not banning comments like that, this whole site would be something like you see on 4chan's /b/. It would be chaos where no respect was given. The moderators may choose to be strict or liberal. And by looking at the state of TL right now, you can see that they do indeed have "good judgement" Wouldn't say so, on a lot of sites people have a lot more leeway to criticize 'respected members of some community' and it doesn't run into /b/ at all.
2. I have to disagree with your examples here. Those posters did show additude. Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 04:01 Veasel wrote:
The stream sucks. I wanna see games not retarded Wheat(spelling?) speaking shit all day. GAMES MOOOAR GAMES FFS He is showing an additude towards hating Wheat. Also, you cannot brush off the fact that they are attacking a respected member of the community. If you look at the TL.net 10 Commandments thread, you can clearly see this in the 6th point. + Show Spoiler +This also means you should think twice before calling that guy with 5000+ posts a jackass. If the guy?s been with us that long, chances are YOU?RE the one being an idiot. Some battles are just not worth fighting ? just move on.
And again, the Day[9] comment, I ask you, how could he have phrased it in a more civilized way? I don't see the attitude in it, and if you do, please point out how he could have phrased his opinion more politely without changing his fundamental opinion that Day[9] doesn't respect is co-casters.
3. The fact that if you disagree with the masses, you are "bad" is commonly known. If you make a post saying something derogatory and not anything else, you are definitely doing something wrong. However, if you actually explain why it is bad, then you may get listened to. Once again, your first post is an example. You said something not completely agreeable with, but still backed it up, which is the reason you haven't gotten banned for it. Once again, the 9th point in the TL.net 10 Commandments states that "Thou shall contribute to the site". They aren't contributing anything but hate. I don't deny this is true. But EvilT said it wasn't and that people were not banned for their unorthodox opinions, but for their attitude. This is something I don't agree with, people are in a lot of cases just phrasing unorthodox opinions in a very polite and civilized way and get banned for 'ignorance'.
I mean, even if he should back it up (which is besides the issue here), it has nothing to do with ignorance, it's a personal opinion. It's like calling someone who's not a fan of Tom Cruise's acting ignorant.
|
I remember the good ol days Rek would just come on pissed and ban 20 random people like it was the fucking lotto
|
Bush was chosen to be a president, if he didn't have a...
You have to see that that argument won't fly? Bad leaders were chosen at any time. And good/bad is still subjective.
Then surely they can't all be good if they have a different opinion on where to draw the line?
Sorry, but I don't understand the Bush comment. Also, good/bad is hazy, but it's lines are clearly defined enough so that people understand what is good and what is bad. Finally, the moderators are all good because they have a similar idea that decides what is good and what is bad.
Wouldn't say so, on a lot of sites people have a lot more leeway to criticize 'respected members of some community' and it doesn't run into /b/ at all.
If they did, it would allow no-names to criticize respected members of the community. You could say that IdrA got a lot of hate. In the end, he probably said screw it, I don't have time to deal with this and reply to everyone hating. Therefore, we may have lost a good source of smart strategy crafting. I only use IdrA as an example.
Like I said, that guy did have attitude, I just wanted to know why he was singled out from all the others. But he just was unlucky and was one of the few reported I guess.
And again, the Day[9] comment, I ask you, how could he have phrased it in a more civilized way? I don't see the attitude in it, and if you do, please point out how he could have phrased his opinion more politely without changing his fundamental opinion that Day[9] doesn't respect is co-casters.
Original Comment: This is exactly what I don't like about Day "I am big" Nine. He is just full of himself, and has absolutely no respect for his partner. He thinks they are just worthless. Pisses me off.
Better way to say it: This is exactly what I don't like about Day9. He doesn't give enough respect to his co-casters. Like at...[example]
Doesn't use as strong of a language, and gives a valid example. You have created an argument, no matter how unpopular.
I don't deny this is true. But EvilT said it wasn't and that people were not banned for their unorthodox opinions, but for their attitude. This is something I don't agree with, people are in a lot of cases just phrasing unorthodox opinions in a very polite and civilized way and get banned for 'ignorance'.
I mean, even if he should back it up (which is besides the issue here), it has nothing to do with ignorance, it's a personal opinion. It's like calling someone who's not a fan of Tom Cruise's acting ignorant.
The reason they are banned, then is because they would have started an argument. If the person who is not a fan of Tom Cruise were to post that in a forum of Tom Cruise fans, they would get banned for that because it would start an argument and derail the quality of the thread/forum.
|
On April 04 2011 14:28 Latrommi wrote:Show nested quote +Bush was chosen to be a president, if he didn't have a...
You have to see that that argument won't fly? Bad leaders were chosen at any time. And good/bad is still subjective.
Then surely they can't all be good if they have a different opinion on where to draw the line? Sorry, but I don't understand the Bush comment. What I mean to say is that a lot of people who did some questionable things decision wise got to be in positions of power, it can happen everywhere.
Also, the point is, what kind of people would either search power or let power be entrusted upon him? I always wonder with what reason people like to be mods, it's a lot of work wouldn't you say?
Also, good/bad is hazy, but it's lines are clearly defined enough so that people understand what is good and what is bad. Finally, the moderators are all good because they have a similar idea that decides what is good and what is bad. Nahhh, there have been some cases of mods here openly debating with each other if some action was the right thing. Like the IdrA comment on the WeRRa scandal.
If they did, it would allow no-names to criticize respected members of the community. You could say that IdrA got a lot of hate. In the end, he probably said screw it, I don't have time to deal with this and reply to everyone hating. Therefore, we may have lost a good source of smart strategy crafting. I only use IdrA as an example.
Well, if the community wants to criticize IdrA, it's just artificial and not healthy to try to dampen that.
I also don't care about some-one's 'name' when he makes a comment and I think it's unhealthy to do so. Reputation is a silly concept. And a lot of communities flourish by the idea that a no-name can criticize a big name if he has some argument or doesn't need it at all.
Besides, criticism is a lot more productive than just mindless praise.
Original Comment: This is exactly what I don't like about Day "I am big" Nine. He is just full of himself, and has absolutely no respect for his partner. He thinks they are just worthless. Pisses me off.
Better way to say it: This is exactly what I don't like about Day9. He doesn't give enough respect to his co-casters. Like at...[example]
Doesn't use as strong of a language, and gives a valid example. You have created an argument, no matter how unpopular.
Why did he need to give an example, he said 'this is exactly what I don't like', the example was what he commented on?
Other than that, the point was that people are getting less leeway if their opinions are unpopular, as in, required to give an argument where they aren't when they just say like every other person for the trillionth time 'Woah, go Day[9], you do so much good stuff for the community.'
The reason they are banned, then is because they would have started an argument. If the person who is not a fan of Tom Cruise were to post that in a forum of Tom Cruise fans, they would get banned for that because it would start an argument and derail the quality of the thread/forum.
Yes they would, and I wouldn't say that's right.
Also, again, I don't deny it's the case, I was contesting EvilT's original point which said that it wasn't the case and people aren't banned or given less leeway because of unpopular opinions but because of 'attitude'.
and it's very human to misread an unpopular opinion as 'attitude', people simply subconsciously perceive people that don't agree with them as arrogant, that's how it goes. This even goes so far as that the amount of Terrans and Zergs who perceive MC as arrogant way exceeds the amount of Protoss players that think that.
Edit: I mean look at this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=208619
It's filled to the end with completely useless stuff that doesn't add or contribute anything, there's even a person that just says 'woot', but do people get warned for it? Not at all.
|
Yep.. I'm warned several times for discussing balance in my BLOG. Oh and one time warned/banned for banning some trolling mod from my blog - He got what he deserved.
|
i dont really care that much but it gets annoying
i think ive been banned 2-3 times and im perm banned from sc2 strategy lol
reading some of the stuff there makes me rage
|
I got my first warning this week  but I kinda expected it. other than that, I'm here for over a year with kinda just a few posts but never had a problem.
I think if a poster is using common sense, a warning is as far as he can get. Getting banned with common sense on is kinda hard.
However, I remember seeing some bans that I didn't agree with, but oh well, one can't please them all!
|
I do, mostly because I'm often a dick when people make retarded as fuck posts.. and that's bannable. I try to help out a lot tho to balance it out.. so I feel like.. less bad =]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
