|
Canada11203 Posts
Do you really think that the response he made, spending 2/3 of three very long posts criticizing that people said mean things about him months ago, contributed in any positive way to the discussion?
I don't. But neither do I think the glib pot shots contributed to the discussion taken at a poster who stopped posting months ago. A pox on both houses as it were because no one was letting it go.
As an aside, is there a way to find out when one post quotes another poster or is that a mod feature?
I brute forced it using filter and just scanned to see whether his name showed up in quotes- given he stopped posting in June or so, that cut out half the posts I needed to look at. You might have responded without direct quotes, but I was trying to get ballpark sense of what was going on because kwizach didn't really stand out to me as a good or bad poster. He was just sort of there, people got annoyed with him and then he was gone. To me it came as a bit of surprise compared to some other posters that regularly mix it up.
|
On August 20 2016 09:23 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Do you really think that the response he made, spending 2/3 of three very long posts criticizing that people said mean things about him months ago, contributed in any positive way to the discussion? I don't. But neither do I think the glib pot shots contributed to the discussion taken at a poster who stopped posting months ago. A pox on both houses as it were because no one was letting it go.
See, this is one of the big problems with the US Politics Thread that comes up repeatedly: the failure to understand and appreciate context. The potshots taken at kwizach didn't arise in a vacuum. We were asked, and we responded. As another example, I'm referred to as one of the more toxic posters in the thread. I'll be the first to say that I've launched some pretty nasty shit at people, but what I don't like is how people always forget or overlook the fact that I'm very rarely (if ever) the first to be the dick. Posters are going to get out of me what they put in. I typically only flame people in retaliation to those who flame me (last night was a perfect illustration of this). Let's just face the facts: TL doesn't moderate liberal shitposts like it moderates conservative shitposts. I'm generally on my own to deal with this stuff, which is fine with me. I'm happy to handle it in my own way.
And let me offer a little bit of perspective on kwizach as one of the longest-running participants in the US Politics Thread and its related/predecessor threads. Every poster in that thread has a reputation. I've read pretty much every post in that thread, so I know who everyone is and how they are likely to respond to a post of mine. I've dealt with kwizach extensively in there over the years, and he is uniquely unpleasant to deal with for all of the reasons that LegalLord mentions. What separates him from the typical liberal shitposter (of which there are many), is that he is actually smart and clever enough to give his arguments the semblance of being well-thought out and sourced. But when you get right down to it and peel the layers back, he is one of the worst posters in the thread at strawmanning arguments and posting shit out of context. Toss in his pathological inability to let anything go, and you have a poster who has caused some of the worst discussions that the politics threads have seen. I've been down that road before, and it isn't any fun for anybody (except kwizach).
Frankly, I should be given a medal for being as selective as I am in responding to people. If I responded to every post and affront that was thrown my way, the US Politics Thread would be completely ungovernable.
|
|
|
Canada11203 Posts
Context is not unappreciated (which is why I was bothering looking at older posts)- it's what makes the thread impossible to moderate at this point in time- it's a Gordian knot of people that feel justified in being snarky to each other because of years of interactions. I have read most of the US Politics thread (there were a couple months were I was too busy) and was far more active in the old US Politics thread.) Maybe if we could go back in time seven years or so, we could unravel it, but I get the feeling that people have been arguing for 5+ years with certain posters and are just sick of and contemptuous of each other- and yes that includes people on the left and the right.
One of the few good developments in recent times, is Drone's more recent involvement, who is much more even keeled and trying really hard to listen to both sides. I wish more people would try to listen as I see is, despite is acknowledged left leanings. It's like everyone involved in the thread needs a factory reset to wipe out old grudges and try to start fresh, but that's unlikely to happen.
|
On August 20 2016 10:54 Falling wrote:
Context is not unappreciated (which is why I was bothering looking at older posts)- it's what makes the thread impossible to moderate at this point in time- it's a Gordian knot of people that feel justified in being snarky to each other because of years of interactions. I have read most of the US Politics thread (there were a couple months were I was too busy) and was far more active in the old US Politics thread.) Maybe if we could go back in time seven years or so, we could unravel it, but I get the feeling that people have been arguing for 5+ years with certain posters and are just sick of and contemptuous of each other- and yes that includes people on the left and the right.
One of the few good developments in recent times, is Drone's more recent involvement, who is much more even keeled and trying really hard to listen to both sides. I wish more people would try to listen as I see is, despite is acknowledged left leanings. It's like everyone involved in the thread needs a factory reset to wipe out old grudges and try to start fresh, but that's unlikely to happen.
I don't hold grudges. If I held a grudge against every poster who has ever affronted me in that thread, there'd be no one left to talk to. What matters to me is whether a poster is willing to engage in a good faith argument in the moment. There are a select few posters who are always game for it. For others, we are talking about a 50/50 proposition. For the rest, I simply know that they won't. And it's not like l haven't given people in this last category repeated opportunities to redeem themselves.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I constantly reevaluate people and the kinds of posts they tend to make, revising my opinion upward and downward of them as appropriate. I'm not unaware that sometimes my opinion is skewed against those who I very consistently disagree with, but nevertheless I do my best to try to understand where they are coming from. I do not, however, think that it would do much good for me to just throw out my general notes on what kind of person each poster is - people really are very much the context in which they exist. I do agree that being charitable towards other viewpoints and giving them a fair spin is generally a good thing.
Kwizach is a particularly egregious case as mentioned before, and he has quite consistently had a style so unpleasant that I believe that his participation in a discussion actively makes it worse. There are only a few select posters for whom I can say as much, and I only single kwizach out only because he was directly mentioned. My original potshot at him (that started this entire chain) was in response to a direct query about why I didn't respond to one of his posts. A few other posts were just brief mentions of him in a manner that is not what I would call insulting - people talk about others in absentia all the time and nothing was particularly rude or unkind. When he posted a mega-retort on his return just now, I responded thrice: once to tell him that I'm not interested in talking to him (as I've mentioned earlier I have found this to be a necessary step), once to reply to someone who insinuated that I don't argue with him because his sources are too good (with a message that "it's time to move on" afterward), and once to explain to you my justification for my posts in that thread. In short, this doesn't come out of nowhere and the context is key.
As far as trying to understand the context of any specific disagreements between people, understand that most of what happens, happens independently of what is actually posted. 90% of my opinion of other posters is from silently reading, not from actively being engaged in a back-and-forth with them. It's not something that a search will tell you.
|
On August 20 2016 12:22 LegalLord wrote:
I constantly reevaluate people and the kinds of posts they tend to make, revising my opinion upward and downward of them as appropriate. I'm not unaware that sometimes my opinion is skewed against those who I very consistently disagree with, but nevertheless I do my best to try to understand where they are coming from. I do not, however, think that it would do much good for me to just throw out my general notes on what kind of person each poster is - people really are very much the context in which they exist. I do agree that being charitable towards other viewpoints and giving them a fair spin is generally a good thing.
Yes, I reevaluate people, too. God knows that I'm a better poster than I was five years ago. And others have improved, too, GreenHorizons being the most notable recent example.
But yes, I, of all people, certainly get Falling's point that some posters are so entrenched in their contempt for particular posters that they are unwilling/unable to fairly engage. There's certainly no shortage of polarized opinions about me. However, one nice side effect of those opinions is that they provide a very useful barometer for gauging the quality of the poster. It's pretty easy for me to determine that someone isn't worth talking to when that person insists that I condone genocide.
|
On August 20 2016 08:35 Falling wrote:
Yes he brought back a debate I was not to eager to see rehashed, on the other hand, there was recently a decent number of declarative 'We broke kwizach' / 'No-one listens to kwizach. It is known', which to my mind is pretty much begging for a response by kwizach. I don't really see the most recent response as not letting a thing go, when he was being brought to the fore by a bit of dancing on kwizach's grave so to speak.
This sums up the issue pretty well. LegalLord, if you repeatedly trash talk me when I'm not even active in the thread, you should not attempt to play the victim card when I end up responding civilly, after someone asks what I've become, to what you have been saying about me. Your initial attacks were completely unprovoked as well -- another poster decided to mention a comment of mine to you because he thought it was relevant to the ongoing discussion, and you decided to spend an entire post to attack me. Then you made an another demeaning comment. Then again later. Then you mentioned me again, this time to distort statements I had made in the thread.
In my response, I addressed exactly what you said, and asked you to ignore my posts if you didn't like reading them and to stop with the childish disparaging comments. I proceeded to respond to you on substance on a topic which is of particular interest to me, and your two responses in the thread, and now your three messages here, are more of the same pettiness. You'll notice that unlike you, I haven't made one comment about how I see you as a general contributor to these threads, and that's because I'm not interested in descending to that level. I've engaged in discussions with pretty much all of the regulars of the US Politics megathread and its predecessors (a few of them have become friends outside of the website as well), and the responses in the thread to your untrue accusations about the quality of my argumentative posts with references speak for themselves. I've already stated repeatedly that I'll always be happy to discuss substance, and if you don't want to exchange that's fine as well. Just leave it at that.
With regards to xDaunt's comments (about the dishonest treatment of opposing arguments, the misrepresentation of sources, etc.), they reflect his general strategy of accusing me (and others) of his own failings in the thread, and of regularly piling up with "sniping" comments when others are arguing with posters he dislikes. There's not much else to add.
Anyway, I've said what I had to say, and I don't really see the point of discussing all of this further. If you two want to engage in more bashing in here, knock yourselves out. If you have something to say to me, send me a PM. As I've repeatedly said, I'll be happy to engage on substance with whomever in the general thread. Cheers 
|
this is healthy argument guys. great stuff. what is politics without passion?
|
politics without passion is just boring sound analyses yielding good decisions, and who'd want that from their politicians :D
on another note; I wonder how aware people are of how others view their posting quality. and i'm wondering if there's a way to get feedback for those who might want it, without putting people on the spot. one could for instance, have those who want a rating; and then a mod asks people for their ratings of that person, and the mod gives them in aggregate, so there's noone in particular to be annoyed toward for giving a low rating. just idle thoughts really.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If you could rate people's posting styles, the people with more popular opinions would get the most points. A rating is, in a very direct sense, just a popularity contest. And I also will say that people who have less popular opinions will necessarily be put on the defensive more than the average poster, and the simple act of being pressed by multiple people at once makes you look worse independent of substance.
Falling, you asked at some point about a term that meant "to overwhelm with shitty sources." This article (or this cached version since the site seems to be down) is pretty close to what you wanted. In a more formal debate setting, the term "spreading" is also used, to indicate an argument that just provides so many points that they cannot be properly addressed within time constraints.
|
On August 20 2016 09:58 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just face the facts: TL doesn't moderate liberal shitposts like it moderates conservative shitposts. I'm generally on my own to deal with this stuff, which is fine with me. I'm happy to handle it in my own way.
The thread would be greatly improved if both shitposters were tolerated or there was a major right leaning mod to take out the liberal shitposts that congregate. In the interests of of not plagiarizing, the view is
On March 19 2016 13:06 oBlade wrote:
In this case it's as though EZ got banned because he was being snide coupled with apparently being wrong. I think that suggests a significant ideological element. There are people dumping snark all over the thread which, the way I see it, aren't approached by moderation either because of where they are ideologically or get excused because of their significant posting history. The other factor is it's just looser than the TL I grew up in. Like I said earlier, it's a really high volume thread and I don't think it warrants excessive moderation. Social forces for the most part "handle" the flow. People luckily are smart enough not to engage with every garbage one liner.
You have to really explain to a low post count guy when he's being held to a higher standard, because his posts fit in perfectly for what he's seeing from everyone else - in that thread.
|
I'd rather remove all classes of shitposters. I agree there seems to be a difference in how well moderated they are.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Problem is that shitposter is often in the eye of the beholder. There are a few obvious cases that do get banned, but the rest is mostly people who contribute to the discussion, but in a way that pisses people off. Banning usually ends up being very partisan when there are stricter moderation standards.
|
On August 20 2016 23:31 zlefin wrote:
politics without passion is just boring sound analyses yielding good decisions, and who'd want that from their politicians :D
on another note; I wonder how aware people are of how others view their posting quality. and i'm wondering if there's a way to get feedback for those who might want it, without putting people on the spot. one could for instance, have those who want a rating; and then a mod asks people for their ratings of that person, and the mod gives them in aggregate, so there's noone in particular to be annoyed toward for giving a low rating. just idle thoughts really.
youre great zlefin, we love you :Dddd
@legalord
Competitive auctioneering style debates, like in college, are insanely dumb.
|
United States41615 Posts
On August 21 2016 04:16 Danglars wrote:
The thread would be greatly improved if both shitposters were tolerated or there was a major right leaning mod to take out the liberal shitposts that congregate. In the interests of of not plagiarizing, the view is
Even left and right are pretty subjective. I don't meet most of the ideological purity tests the American right seems to demand of its adherents but I don't identify as left beyond my beliefs that the free market is a tool that should serve society, and not the other way around. The right believe in a mixed economy given their support of socialized law enforcement, military, justice etc, I draw the line just a little further with public and private provision of healthcare and education but that seems to be all the difference when it comes to being branded a socialist.
I like science, rationalism, individual rights and freedoms, constitutional protections, a limited state etc. Hell, I even think a gun ban wouldn't be practical. I recognize the state sucks at providing many services, particularly those which are not natural monopolies, and that the free market is both the product of the exercise of our own natural rights and also reliably the most effective way of getting goods to people. I think equality of outcome is a ridiculous goal and that equality of opportunity is the essence of the American Dream. I suspect I have about 90% of beliefs in common with many of the younger atheist members of the Republican party who don't get why gay marriage or abortion are such huge deals. When I was in the UK I was a member of the Conservative Party and I voted for Cameron in the leadership elections and then the General Election, twice. I want to be a conservative but I simply cannot be a Republican.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If any of those "ideology tests" were to be believed then I would be considered a moderate leftist. Anyone who has had more than a few discussions with me would realize that that's not really a very accurate description of my ideology.
Leftist ideas of the traditional variety definitely hold a lot more sway here than average though. Shitty people with popular ideas will always be seen more favorably than shitty people with unpopular ideas and that's the problem with stricter moderation. Too often you give more slack, as a mod, to people who agree with you. I would too, even though I don't try to have that kind of bias.
|
On August 21 2016 06:04 LegalLord wrote:
Problem is that shitposter is often in the eye of the beholder. There are a few obvious cases that do get banned, but the rest is mostly people who contribute to the discussion, but in a way that pisses people off. Banning usually ends up being very partisan when there are stricter moderation standards.
while that's a risk; I believe it's quite possible to avoid.
one of the keys is to actively work on helping people rephrase their posts in non-problematic ways.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Alright, so the last little exchange involving zeo is perhaps a good demonstration of what I mean about selective/partisan interpretation of shitposting.
Basically, zeo made a claim (Trump is leading in the polls again) that is demonstrably wrong, and repeated a talking point (Hillary hasn't had a press conference in X days) that doesn't really add to the discussion. Not really very great posting and something that is perhaps worth calling out as unproductive. However, the response given is pretty disproportionate and even less productive:
On August 22 2016 02:53 KwarK wrote:
It's Zeo, putting him down isn't really a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", it's more a case of "nobody is really in the mood to hear what paid Kremlin shills are saying today, fuck off".
That goes well beyond calling out posting flaws and into the territory of straight-up insulting users. This isn't the first time that has happened and it's a response that is even less productive than any flaws in the original point.
Such posts will necessarily be called out, because making statements which are unpopular with the generally leftist atmosphere of the thread, in addition to being wrong, will receive a disproportionate response. Compare this to the multiple rather stupid discussions that made pretty terrible and stupid statements about Trump - such as that he's basically Hitler and that his rallies are fascist. That's probably an even greater degree of shitposting but it comes from the left so it's interpreted much more favorably. Safe to say that anyone who hurled insults similar to the one that Kwark put up there would be well on their way to a ban.
A very good example of how there is a partisan lens in the tide of opinion which necessarily influences (if indirectly) moderation.
|
United States41615 Posts
Read the full context and you'll see that Biff The Understudy responded angrily to zeo's dumb post, GGTemplar questioned why Biff was being so defensive and all I did was speculate that the reason why Biff was hostile wasn't because zeo's attack on Hillary was so cutting and incisive that it wounded him to his soul but rather was because zeo's shilling for the Kremlin is super old at this point.
I didn't tell zeo to fuck off, my post was in no way addressed to him nor referring to his post. I was speculating to GGTemplar about the mentality that caused Biff to be so defensive. My interpretation was that his defensiveness was coming from a place of "nobody is really in the mood to hear what paid Kremlin shills are saying today, fuck off". I attributed an attitude summed up as that to Biff and if he wishes to inform me that I was wrong to do so then he can feel free.
+ Show Spoiler [exchange quoted below] +On August 22 2016 02:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 22 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 21 2016 21:19 zeo wrote:On August 21 2016 20:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 21 2016 20:57 zeo wrote:
Trump in the lead again in the polls. I've missed the last 100 pages here but every time I popped in there where people saying Trump is totally finished now its finally over.
I really wonder how many 'Trump has no chance' posts there have been in this thread, would make a nice montage when Trump wins. links :D LA Times http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/edit: It's followed the general trend throughout the election cycle so expect more. Interesting to note the boost he got in black votes (and latino) By the way guys its been 260 days since Clintons last press conference. Please be even a bit more obnoxious and post every day how many days it has been. We all care. Clinton doesn't want the press conference format during her campaign. Can regret it, can think it's bad, but we got it. So give a break, thanks. And 531 gives Trump 15% chances to win, based on a gazillion polls, so don't give yourself false hopes. Why are you getting so defensive? It's Zeo, putting him down isn't really a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", it's more a case of "nobody is really in the mood to hear what paid Kremlin shills are saying today, fuck off". Zeo always picks the dumbest lines of attack, bases his claims on assumptions that nobody else accepts as real and cherry picks evidence, in this case one poll, to the exclusion of all contrary evidence.
However in this case perhaps you should contact an admin if you're feeling like I'm in some way abusing my staff position to be mean to other forum users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
