US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 136

Aquanim

Australia2849 Posts

May 02 2018 08:45 GMT

#2701

On May 02 2018 15:49 xM(Z wrote:...
ps: if people didn't get it, Aquanim is just asking you to apologize(you'll indirectly do it to him) so he'll stop reporting you; there's no higher logic/reason/justification there.

What? I think maybe I reported a Danglars post like a year ago, but you're way off base here.

xM(Z

Romania5299 Posts

May 02 2018 09:15 GMT

#2702

it's fine dude, banter is fine ... i think.

bo1b

Australia12814 Posts

May 02 2018 09:37 GMT

#2703

On May 02 2018 04:36 Plansix wrote:
The choice between being being shot or being poisoned.

Zlefin vs dauntless moderation.

One of those two is intellectually bankrupt when debating online, or not quite a human, in my extremely honest opinion, the other is somewhat reviled by I'd estimate approximately 70% of the userbase. I hope neither are elected.

On May 01 2018 23:00 Seeker wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=158#3147

This is 100% what we are looking for.

1) Source quoted
2) Source link provided
3) Supporting statement about the source itself and why it is relevant

That's it. We really don't require more than that.

Can there be a note about the quality of sources as well? I have real doubts that banning anything under the Vox umbrella would do harm, in an extremely similar way to banning breitbart.

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

May 02 2018 11:33 GMT

#2704

Vox uses a lot of free lancers of varying quality, so folks should try to back up why they are citing a Vox article. I don’t like Mother Jones, but one of their authors did an excellent peice on private prisons a couple years back.

Seeker

Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts

May 02 2018 12:30 GMT

#2705

On May 02 2018 14:06 Sermokala wrote:
I've got three questions for seeker or someone else.

1. What was the impetus for the series of events that led to the new thread and the actions taken?
In this what changed so that before everyone was fine enough with the thread until now where people weren't fine with it anymore. With respects to the understanding of a legitimate apathy twords the thread and a lack of motivation to understand the dynamics of the thread I don't understand how a group of moderators who don't want to moderate the thread decided to increase moderation of the thread.

2. Was the thread remade specifically for the removal of danglers and to give mods the tools to remove other posters if they were somehow able to agree on removing someone else from the thread? Moreso why the decision was to explicitly start the new thread in order to give the tools to ban Danglers instead of declaring a new age to the thread with updated standards.

3. I'm not sure really how to frame this specifically but was there a consideration to the threads dynamics, where Danglers and other conservative posters are forced somewhat inherently to be more combative and stretched to respond to more people that disagree with them on the basis of their beliefs unique to the thread, about what the message of banning Danglers and Danglers only would send? I don't want to attach unintended negative connotations but was Danglers removal not considered to be the wide reaching message that it sent to the thread and its posters?

1. The mods have wanted to fix the US Politics Mega-thread for quite a while now. Implementing the changes however required a lot of time, effort, and discussions. We saw a posting culture within this thread that we didn't like. People spamming tweets and article links without any context or supporting details, people targeting one another for having different political views, mod reports streaming in like crazy because of disagreements, people responding harshly and aggressively when it wasn't needed, people evading direct questions because answering them didn't suit them etc. etc.

2. The bottom line is that we felt that this particular thread had gotten far too out of control because of the lack of moderation. So we decided to start fresh with new rules and guidelines in hopes of being able to keep track of it better.

The ability to ban someone from a thread has existed for quite some time now. It is not something that came to be just for the USPMT. We internally discussed that there are certain situations and scenarios in which banning someone from the site altogether feels unfair to the user. If their posting habits were horrid in the USPMT but perfectly fine elsewhere, then it made more sense to ban them from the thread itself rather than the whole site.

3. Danglars and other conservative posters were too aggressive in their responses when their views were challenged. (These are not my words)

However, I'm not going to say that Danglars was 100% at fault here. People provoked him and they shouldn't have done that. But quite honestly, to me, it seems like people did that on purpose because they knew how Danglars would react. And that may be true for the other conservative posters on this site who feel targeted as well.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

May 02 2018 14:55 GMT

#2706

On May 02 2018 21:30 Seeker wrote:
3. Danglars and other conservative posters were too aggressive in their responses when their views were challenged. (These are not my words)

However, I'm not going to say that Danglars was 100% at fault here. People provoked him and they shouldn't have done that. But quite honestly, to me, it seems like people did that on purpose because they knew how Danglars would react. And that may be true for the other conservative posters on this site who feel targeted as well.

Is there any perception that this was a lazy approach to the problem that sidesteps the larger issue in favor of the simple quick fix? I want to clarify that I know that question seems a bit loaded, but I don’t intend it that way; it’s just the most direct way I can think of to ask what I want.

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

May 02 2018 16:07 GMT

#2707

Different people have different goals/wants for the thread; it might be good to gather a list of what various people want; and then maybe make some polls or something to see what the size of various groups/interests are.

let's see, just listing stuff I can think of offhand, refinement can come later:
1) hearing from people of very different viewpoints.
2) newsfeed
3) in depth discussion of a topic
4) high quality, thoughtful discussion

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

May 02 2018 16:58 GMT

#2708

On May 02 2018 18:37 bo1b wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think both choices would enhance the threadgoing experience and should be serious contenders for such a post.

Seeker

Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts

May 02 2018 17:07 GMT

#2709

On May 02 2018 23:55 LegalLord wrote:

Show nested quote +

What would you suggest then?

xM(Z

Romania5299 Posts

May 02 2018 18:09 GMT

#2710

i got this, kill two birds with one stone: have GH come up with a community policing scheme then implement it.

-he gets his fuck the police wish and a chance to put his money where his mouth is;
-mods wash their hands of US thread(for a while at least);
-based on the outcome, be none the wiser or get schooled.
(some deals/wagers could be made prior for some extra incentives)

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

May 02 2018 18:48 GMT

#2711

On May 03 2018 02:07 Seeker wrote:

Show nested quote +

What would you suggest then?

Starting with addressing the “+1” style of posting first then seeing if that solved the problem.

As described in a slightly edited version of commentary I made earlier:

What I posit is that when the larger trend, rather than any one or two or three individual cases, shows that high quality posts aren’t appreciated except of the “validation of popular opinion” variety, it would be no wonder that those posters don’t bother anymore. It’s not necessarily about being fawned over, but people want to feel that if they spent hours writing something, that there was a point to it. That being widely perceived not to be there, such posters don’t waste their time and either leave or go Twitter style.

I must admit that in my case, I saw this no more clearly than when, to answer a question someone asked in the thread, I went back and scanned through about two years of my last posts to see what would be a good way to answer the question. What I saw, especially towards the more recent end of that, showed very clearly why writing up high quality answers seems like an utter waste of time. The breadth of people there actually willing to listen and discuss just hasn’t been there. It’s mostly the seeking of an echo chamber in which a dozen me-too bandwagoners can say “+1” in ten or so words to a snarky and agreeable comment. That was slightly before the Danglars ban and the gutter-tier response by the moderation that solidified the sentiment of “what is the point of being here anyways?” That was about when I stopped being involved entirely.

[The question of] “should [GH and Danglars] have been actioned” misses the point something fierce, mostly because they aren’t really the problem. Their posts can start fires, but that’s literally the entire point of having a discussion. The real question is why, instead of focusing on the people who start a fight by horribly caricaturing content posts by failing to even put in the effort to understand them, instead the content providers themselves are considered the problem? It’s not hard to read and, if necessary, clarify rather than literally running to assume the least charitable conclusion possible. I’ve done it with all three and they’re generally fairly responsive. And I agree with each at most like 40% of the time.

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

May 02 2018 19:46 GMT

#2712

Can we get a few examples of the +1 style posting the thread itself? You can use me as an example if you are worried about calling someone out.

Sermokala

United States14104 Posts

May 02 2018 19:50 GMT

#2713

Well thank you for responding as you did. I can't say I'm happy but thank you for giving me closure on the thread.

GreenHorizons

United States23664 Posts

May 02 2018 19:52 GMT

#2714

On May 03 2018 03:09 xM(Z wrote:
i got this, kill two birds with one stone: have GH come up with a community policing scheme then implement it.

-he gets his fuck the police wish and a chance to put his money where his mouth is;
-mods wash their hands of US thread(for a while at least);
-based on the outcome, be none the wiser or get schooled.
(some deals/wagers could be made prior for some extra incentives)

I think I've pitched a few various potential mod schemes, haven't really gotten much feedback though. I'm also not a big 'punishment' person, so if I were to do it in the image of a community policing idea bans would be a tool of last resort. No banning without talking to the person directly first. Which would have been a check in the process for the bans Danglars and I experienced.

Seems pretty obvious at this point with only one mod that actually cares to mod and a few that prowl the thread looking for posts that upset them so they can action them unprovoked, the only sensible solution is a community based one.

It might not be perfect, but I'm basically 99% sure anything else is going to be as bad or worse than everything we've had.

@P6 this is one example, but you're aware of it.

On May 02 2018 10:04 Plansix wrote:
“I went to far that time” isn’t a phrase I expect from most of the folks with complaints about the moderation.

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

May 02 2018 20:10 GMT

#2715

Guilty. When I shit post, I shitpost in this thread and do it with purpose.

But I think a few of from the proper thread would be helpful.

GreenHorizons

United States23664 Posts

May 02 2018 20:54 GMT

#2716

On May 03 2018 05:10 Plansix wrote:
Guilty. When I shit post, I shitpost in this thread and do it with purpose.

But I think a few of from the proper thread would be helpful.

Lol, you denied it/doubled down when I first called you out, but admitted it now.

You've generally been better in the other thread lately. The mayor thing was a little sticky but you got there and I can't complain about it beyond the first post (but it just scraped by what I would consider for +1 shitpost). Which was more pettifogging than informative. You eventually constructed your point in a way that was satisfactory though.

Looking back on the thread the +1 shit posts have been less frequent over the past few days. Now I would say the more apparent issue is the whole not addressing/making a complete argument.

This is an example of that which comes to mind:

On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:

Show nested quote +

And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate?
"its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy".

That's just low quality engagement. It displays no awareness of either the position he's critiquing or what's generally being discussed.

Then it triggers other posters to engage with their bad posts (This is a +1 shit post with some random unrelated speculation):

On April 29 2018 20:49 Jockmcplop wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 29 2018 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:

On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:

On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:

On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:

On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:

On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:

On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:

On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:

On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate?
"its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy".

You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter.

To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily.

It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one.

That's not an answer to the question though?

I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse.

If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with.

Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution).

Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods.

So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police?

I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution.

Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US?

Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists?

On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:

On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:

On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:

On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment.

If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process.

Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested.

I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for?

Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it.

Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over.
I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition.

The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are .

Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human.

While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy"

Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime.
Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy.

You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do.

Exactly. (this is the +1 shit post part. followed by the random unrelated speculation)
I would imagine that small disputes over the course of time would escalate into cycles of violent retribution. People think we are all civilized by our very nature but all the psychological evidence points to that being a myth. We are civilized because we live in large civilizations with enforced expectations of behaviour. Remove that and all bets are off.

Also, how long before private security companies go about enforcing the law? Would things be any better under that regime than they are now? Where would the oversight come from?

That's the dynamic I'm referring to. It's not the worst case I've ever seen of it, just one I didn't have to read much to track down.

EDIT:

On May 03 2018 06:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
Honestly I just post here for conversation, not to have every post analyzed/bitched about by the likes of GH (mostly just because it disagrees with a point he made) or my psychology and life history questioned by zlefin each time haha.
Its a bit laughable really.

Thank you for that valuable insight!

Jockmcplop

United Kingdom9771 Posts

May 02 2018 21:04 GMT

#2717

Honestly I just post here for conversation, not to have every post analyzed/bitched about by the likes of GH (mostly just because it disagrees with a point he made) or my psychology and life history questioned by zlefin each time haha.
Its a bit laughable really.

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

May 02 2018 21:41 GMT

#2718

@gh. Eh sometimes I shitpost with meaning too. As seeker pointed out, some folks show zero remorse how they treat others. It was mostly me venting my irritation about that. Through a shitpost.

GreenHorizons

United States23664 Posts

May 02 2018 21:59 GMT

#2719

On May 03 2018 06:41 Plansix wrote:
@gh. Eh sometimes I shitpost with meaning too. As seeker pointed out, some folks show zero remorse how they treat others. It was mostly me venting my irritation about that. Through a shitpost.

*fry meme* not sure if shitposting on purpose or accident lol

I get it, I get frustrated too. Those examples help on the other front though?

Aquanim

Australia2849 Posts

May 03 2018 01:37 GMT

#2720

Back when xDaunt posted frequently Danglars made utterly worthless +1 posts on the regular, so I don't think it's a problem limited to any particular political point of view.

Prev 1 134 135 136 137 138 343 Next

Please or register to reply.

US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 136

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming