|
On May 10 2018 02:10 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 00:10 Plansix wrote:
I’ve had to explain the same rudimentary concepts to the same posters repeatedly. They either have selective memories or some learning disability I am not aware of. Or they see forcing folks to explain the same basic concepts, like systematic racism, over and over again as a way to chill discussion on the topic. I find your take on this very interesting. Maybe its not a discussion for this thread, but this certainly isn't how I remember it going.
It was over years, to be clear. The discussion is old like the sea in the US pol thread. It was never you, also. Most of the worst actors on that specific subject left the thread post 2016 election.
It is a hard topic in general, but one where I’ve seen the same people go back to the well over and over, using the same talking points that I put a lot of effort into responding to.
|
On May 10 2018 01:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters. No it wouldn't be. People have vastly different opinions on what constitutes stupid. I think you're a smart guy in general, but I think your assertion that it's 'easy to eliminate stupidity from the thread' is actually pretty stupid. :p Moltkewarding has been called variants of idiot/stupid/incomprehensible guy who needs to work on his command of the English language before, for example.
Like I mentioned before, I have a good, objective measure in mind. I'd eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding.
|
Norway28864 Posts
On May 10 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 01:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters. No it wouldn't be. People have vastly different opinions on what constitutes stupid. I think you're a smart guy in general, but I think your assertion that it's 'easy to eliminate stupidity from the thread' is actually pretty stupid. :p Moltkewarding has been called variants of idiot/stupid/incomprehensible guy who needs to work on his command of the English language before, for example. Like I mentioned before, I have a good, objective measure in mind. I'd eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding.
This stuff isn't objective. You can't quantify snarkiness. It's all contextual and based on personal interpretation.
|
On May 10 2018 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 02:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 10 2018 00:10 Plansix wrote:
I’ve had to explain the same rudimentary concepts to the same posters repeatedly. They either have selective memories or some learning disability I am not aware of. Or they see forcing folks to explain the same basic concepts, like systematic racism, over and over again as a way to chill discussion on the topic. I find your take on this very interesting. Maybe its not a discussion for this thread, but this certainly isn't how I remember it going. It was over years, to be clear. The discussion is old like the sea in the US pol thread. It was never you, also. Most of the worst actors on that specific subject left the thread post 2016 election. It is a hard topic in general, but one where I’ve seen the same people go back to the well over and over, using the same talking points that I put a lot of effort into responding to.
That's totally fair then.
I actually remember having good in depth discussions around the terminology of racism that were subtle and interesting. I guess thing have moved on since the old days haha.
|
On May 10 2018 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2018 01:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters. No it wouldn't be. People have vastly different opinions on what constitutes stupid. I think you're a smart guy in general, but I think your assertion that it's 'easy to eliminate stupidity from the thread' is actually pretty stupid. :p Moltkewarding has been called variants of idiot/stupid/incomprehensible guy who needs to work on his command of the English language before, for example. Like I mentioned before, I have a good, objective measure in mind. I'd eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding. This stuff isn't objective. You can't quantify snarkiness. It's all contextual and based on personal interpretation.
You're looking at the wrong element. It's not the snarkiness that I'd be focused on so much as the misrepresentation, which is objective. It's pretty clear looking at the thread that the snarkiness often naturally flows from the misrepresentation, particularly when certain posters repeatedly misrepresent arguments. I get that people mess up and are sometimes confused by posts, and those are certainly not the people that I'd be after or who'd be affected by my policy.
|
On May 10 2018 00:10 Plansix wrote:
I’ve had to explain the same rudimentary concepts to the same posters repeatedly. They either have selective memories or some learning disability I am not aware of. Or they see forcing folks to explain the same basic concepts, like systematic racism, over and over again as a way to chill discussion on the topic.
I’m sure you and I have very different notions of what rudimentary concepts are in racism. If you want to understand race relations in America today, you have to be willing to consider the prevalence and impact of racism as a debatable subject. That would be everything from thinking everybody’s a little bit racist to most discussions about racism nowadays is intended to quash important discussions on the issues. Im constantly having to ask lefties if x and y is a clear cut example of racism, or that it’s obviously not racism and I’m trying to use an extreme example to generalize to the whole. The 2016 election was huge on speech policing, identity politics, and accusations/defenses of overt/covert racism, so it will naturally come up again and again.
As long as nobody’s presuming their definition and assessment is the One True Racism rubric, I have no problems.
|
Yes Danglars, you and I have very different interpretations of the basic concepts surrounding racism. Give the number of times we have discussed the issue over the years, I feel it is a subject you and I will never find common ground on.
|
On May 10 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2018 01:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters. No it wouldn't be. People have vastly different opinions on what constitutes stupid. I think you're a smart guy in general, but I think your assertion that it's 'easy to eliminate stupidity from the thread' is actually pretty stupid. :p Moltkewarding has been called variants of idiot/stupid/incomprehensible guy who needs to work on his command of the English language before, for example. Like I mentioned before, I have a good, objective measure in mind. I'd eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding. This stuff isn't objective. You can't quantify snarkiness. It's all contextual and based on personal interpretation. You're looking at the wrong element. It's not the snarkiness that I'd be focused on so much as the misrepresentation, which is objective. It's pretty clear looking at the thread that the snarkiness often naturally flows from the misrepresentation, particularly when certain posters repeatedly misrepresent arguments. I get that people mess up and are sometimes confused by posts, and those are certainly not the people that I'd be after or who'd be affected by my policy.
I can agree that misrepresenting another's post is something that should not be allowed; though in some cases the argument can get tricky, and more subjective, as an original poster could misrepresent their own post, claiming it was something else.
|
Norway28864 Posts
On May 10 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2018 01:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters. No it wouldn't be. People have vastly different opinions on what constitutes stupid. I think you're a smart guy in general, but I think your assertion that it's 'easy to eliminate stupidity from the thread' is actually pretty stupid. :p Moltkewarding has been called variants of idiot/stupid/incomprehensible guy who needs to work on his command of the English language before, for example. Like I mentioned before, I have a good, objective measure in mind. I'd eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding. This stuff isn't objective. You can't quantify snarkiness. It's all contextual and based on personal interpretation. You're looking at the wrong element. It's not the snarkiness that I'd be focused on so much as the misrepresentation, which is objective. It's pretty clear looking at the thread that the snarkiness often naturally flows from the misrepresentation, particularly when certain posters repeatedly misrepresent arguments. I get that people mess up and are sometimes confused by posts, and those are certainly not the people that I'd be after or who'd be affected by my policy.
misrepresentation is not objective either, not even close.. People don't flesh out their thoughts in an academically rigorous manner before hitting post. Sometimes you read a post and go 'the logical conclusion of the argument you presented is X', which might be a fair interpretation but still differ from the original post.. I think people should be better at asking followup questions before engaging based on their assumption, but you yourself are notorious for posts that aren't fully fleshed out, and I also think it's valid to claim that people should be better at fleshing out their thoughts before hitting post. (I also give you credit for fleshing out your thoughts if asked to do so in a reasonable manner. ) Furthermore, there are degrees of misrepresentation - at what degree does it become an actionable offense?
Moderation is always going to be somewhat arbitrary - unless you do something algorithm-wise in terms of word count /specific words /targeting advertisement bots or whatever. If you wanna claim that your method could do a better job than the current job, that's fair enough, but there's no way of pleasing everybody. The various approaches for dealing with thread-related issues are in conflict with each other, the issue is finding the proper balance that to the biggest degree succeeds in accomplishing as many of the different goals the thread/forum sets out to accomplish.. But here people have different ideals..
|
|
|
On May 10 2018 05:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2018 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2018 01:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters. No it wouldn't be. People have vastly different opinions on what constitutes stupid. I think you're a smart guy in general, but I think your assertion that it's 'easy to eliminate stupidity from the thread' is actually pretty stupid. :p Moltkewarding has been called variants of idiot/stupid/incomprehensible guy who needs to work on his command of the English language before, for example. Like I mentioned before, I have a good, objective measure in mind. I'd eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding. This stuff isn't objective. You can't quantify snarkiness. It's all contextual and based on personal interpretation. You're looking at the wrong element. It's not the snarkiness that I'd be focused on so much as the misrepresentation, which is objective. It's pretty clear looking at the thread that the snarkiness often naturally flows from the misrepresentation, particularly when certain posters repeatedly misrepresent arguments. I get that people mess up and are sometimes confused by posts, and those are certainly not the people that I'd be after or who'd be affected by my policy. misrepresentation is not objective either, not even close.. People don't flesh out their thoughts in an academically rigorous manner before hitting post. Sometimes you read a post and go 'the logical conclusion of the argument you presented is X', which might be a fair interpretation but still differ from the original post.. I think people should be better at asking followup questions before engaging based on their assumption, but you yourself are notorious for posts that aren't fully fleshed out, and I also think it's valid to claim that people should be better at fleshing out their thoughts before hitting post. (I also give you credit for fleshing out your thoughts if asked to do so in a reasonable manner. ) Furthermore, there are degrees of misrepresentation - at what degree does it become an actionable offense? Moderation is always going to be somewhat arbitrary - unless you do something algorithm-wise in terms of word count /specific words /targeting advertisement bots or whatever. If you wanna claim that your method could do a better job than the current job, that's fair enough, but there's no way of pleasing everybody. The various approaches for dealing with thread-related issues are in conflict with each other, the issue is finding the proper balance that to the biggest degree succeeds in accomplishing as many of the different goals the thread/forum sets out to accomplish.. But here people have different ideals..
Again, I disagree. Yes, people often make shorthand posts and don't fully flesh out their arguments (yes, I do this). However, that's not a license for other posters to act like assholes, like Kwark. There's very clearly a subset of posters who routinely shit up the thread with needlessly inflammatory posts instead of simply asking for clarification before going on the offensive. I think all of that can and should be readily modded out of the thread.
|
Norway28864 Posts
I have no problems agreeing that some posts will have nearly everybody agreeing that they are misrepresentations. However, I think that's a reasonably small percentage of posts that some people claim are misrepresentations. And then there's still the issue of 'how big of a misrepresentation does it have to be before it's actioned', 'is it an honest misunderstanding or deliberate for the sake of winning the argument'.. Honestly, I think 'objective' isn't even a thing when dealing with anything interpersonal.
|
On May 11 2018 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I have no problems agreeing that some posts will have nearly everybody agreeing that they are misrepresentations. However, I think that's a reasonably small percentage of posts that some people claim are misrepresentations. And then there's still the issue of 'how big of a misrepresentation does it have to be before it's actioned', 'is it an honest misunderstanding or deliberate for the sake of winning the argument'.. Honestly, I think 'objective' isn't even a thing when dealing with anything interpersonal.
I'll let you in on a little secret. The reason why you don't think that it's a big problem is that I (and others) have purposefully chosen to ignore most of those posts over the years for the sake of the thread. What do you think the thread would look like if less restraint was shown? And given what happened to Danglars, who do you think would be blamed?
|
Norway28864 Posts
I'm not saying misrepresentation of people's posts isn't a problem. I'm saying it's impossible to objectively evaluate what posts you should consider a misrepresentation.
To present a recent example, I'd argue that you responding to my post the way you just did now is you misrepresenting my previous post(s). I absolutely don't think it (the post I am responding to) should be actioned in any way, and I don't know whether you agree that you misrepresented it in light of me saying that I agree that misrepresentation is a problem, but from my perspective, there's no question that you just misrepresented my previous post and that you are arguing against something I didn't say.
|
On May 11 2018 01:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not saying misrepresentation of people's posts isn't a problem. I'm saying it's impossible to objectively evaluate what posts you should consider a misrepresentation.
To present a recent example, I'd argue that you responding to my post the way you just did now is you misrepresenting my previous post(s). I absolutely don't think it (the post I am responding to) should be actioned in any way, and I don't know whether you agree that you misrepresented it in light of me saying that I agree that misrepresentation is a problem, but from my perspective, there's no question that you just misrepresented my previous post and that you are arguing against something I didn't say.
Hah, touche.
And no, to the extent that my post is a misrepresentation of your post, I wouldn't find it actionable because I'm not being a dick about it.
That said, I don't see my characterization of your post(s) as being that unfair. Clearly you and the mod staff have no problem with subjective moderation, so I don't think that it is out of bounds to presume that there are other reasons why you're resisting what I'm proposing other than "it's not objective enough." So to follow my own advice, let me ask you this:
Why are you so resistant to what I'm proposing if you do agree that I have highlighted a valid problem?
|
a subjective defense to a misrepresentation of an argument about how to(or why one can’t) objectively define and moderate misrepresenting arguments is really a mind fuck.
damn i couldn’t even write it down correctly the first time.
|
xdaunt, you first mention that it would be very easy to "eliminate those posts and posters" that are "snarky stupidity".
Then that a good, objective measure of this would be to "eliminate the snarky posts that misrepresent the argument of the posts to which they're responding."
Then that "it's not the snarkiness that I'd be focused on so much as the misrepresentation".
Would you consider it to be a misrepresentation that you either make shorthand posts and don't fully flesh out your argument to the point where you aren't making an argument at all, or that you simply shift your arguments around?
I suppose you can just say I am being snarky or misrepresenting you, but then you have to face up that you are just writing those same excuse to distract the focus away from you so as to not to argue about what you have actually physically written.
As a separate aside, danglars would be the one sole person who can currently be said to have misrepresented someone in virtual certainty, as he is probably the only person careless enough to claim that someone had retrospectively altered their post to make him look stupid, whilst accidently quoting that very same post in the precious post. Then to remain doggedly that this was the case as if a mod had altered his post, the point was given up by sheer posting stamina. So by your criteria, danglars would be rightfully banned, and in my imagination you should be pleased that he is, if you intention is to reduce misrepresentations
Kwark is just an asshole, but then again he only replies in such a way when what you write can only be construed as deliberately asanine, such that you *must* be trolling.
|
On that last note, #bringbacktherapethread :D
|
There's nothing inconsistent with what I'm proposing. I don't have a problem with snarkiness in a vacuum. I also don't have a problem with misrepresentation as long as it is honest and the poster isn't a douche about it. What I have a problem with is the intentional misrepresentation of arguments that also includes undue snarkiness. And there are certain posters who are routinely guilty of it. So stated another way, what I'm asking the mods to do is take a closer look at misrepresentation posts (step 1), see whether those posts have a shitty tone (step 2), and start actioning the posters who routinely make those posts (step 3). Again, I don't think that this is hard to do fairly.
|
Norway28864 Posts
I'm not fundamentally opposed to warning/banning people for misrepresenting people's posts. My main issue was with the idea that it's an easy fix, or that this would reduce/remove the arbitrariness of moderation. Moderation will always have an element of subjectivity to it, and there will always be disagreement about where to draw the line, even if there is agreement about what should be moderated. Myself, I've always favored light moderation for this reason - I think excessive moderation is more harmful than neglectful moderation is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
