|
On August 08 2018 09:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 09:16 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2018 09:04 LegalLord wrote:On August 08 2018 08:20 IgnE wrote:
free stealthblue. the people demand a stealthblue exception. free stealthblue Could we at least free Kickboxer from the USPMT ban list? I mean he angrily posted a novel-length reply in the EU thread right after a ban from the US Pol thread. And I think his mod PM was pretty incoherent to say the least (I think "dense" would be the more charitable explanation). No one is saying to reverse the site-wide ban.
this is an interesting and potentially useful point. It's helpful when ban lists are short and easy to read.
was kickboxer given a perm site ban, or just a long term one? I forget.
If someone has a permanent site ban, removing them from the threadban list would reduce clutter. Of course now the lists are short enough that maybe it doesn't really matter. There is however merit in having the historical record noting that some people were threadbanned.
|
On August 08 2018 07:54 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 06:33 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:49 Aveng3r wrote:On August 08 2018 05:26 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:18 Aveng3r wrote:
I still can't get my head around these temp bans that are getting slapped on stealthblue
I appreciate getting to read the news that he posts and I can't understand why his presentation of it gets micromanaged so hard. I also don't see who his posts are hurting - everyone is free to skip over his posts and keep arguing the theme of the day if they desire.
What is the rationale here? I think the basic rationale is: they set a rule, and stealth repeatedly fails to follow it. the bans are just because repeated warnings are failing to work. regardless of whether the rule itself is reasonable or well thought out, it's the rule they've chosen so they're going to enforce it. The rule itself is the target of my gripe ok, well, gl getting an answer. Seeker generally tries to answer stuff, so if you don't get an answer in a few days you could try pm'ing him to get an answer. I know the topic was discussed aways back in the thread, and maybe there was an answer there, but I would'nt know the page number or anything. I would be happy to answer any of Aveng3r's questions. However, I'm not sure what else more there is to say that hasn't already been covered previously.
I hear ya, I know this has been covered before I just don't know exactly which page and I cant be bothered to look through all of it, too many pages here now 
Just to condense a few thoughts, I saw last page someone say that people were linking articles to make their points in arguments rather than make the points themselves - I get why this was annoying and not conducive to having an actual discussion. No argument there.
However I don't think CC did this. My feeling (and maybe I'm wrong - never interacted with him personally like I'm sure you and others have) was that he was and is just trying to contribute information to the thread. Not only do I appreciate reading what he posts as a source of information, I also appreciate the idea of contributing to something for everybody's benefit.
So basically I write this to say that I think that the thread is lesser without CC making his posts. I also think that the rule changes have merit and are worth enforcing within a certain context, but in this case are catching a well meaning poster in the crossfire.
Thoughts?
|
I think the times that StealthBlue took sarcastic potshots along with his newsposts are of the class of posts that rule was intended to eliminate. That doesn't describe all of StealthBlue's newsposts but it does describe a non-negligible fraction from what I recall.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
On August 08 2018 10:13 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 07:54 Seeker wrote:On August 08 2018 06:33 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:49 Aveng3r wrote:On August 08 2018 05:26 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:18 Aveng3r wrote:
I still can't get my head around these temp bans that are getting slapped on stealthblue
I appreciate getting to read the news that he posts and I can't understand why his presentation of it gets micromanaged so hard. I also don't see who his posts are hurting - everyone is free to skip over his posts and keep arguing the theme of the day if they desire.
What is the rationale here? I think the basic rationale is: they set a rule, and stealth repeatedly fails to follow it. the bans are just because repeated warnings are failing to work. regardless of whether the rule itself is reasonable or well thought out, it's the rule they've chosen so they're going to enforce it. The rule itself is the target of my gripe ok, well, gl getting an answer. Seeker generally tries to answer stuff, so if you don't get an answer in a few days you could try pm'ing him to get an answer. I know the topic was discussed aways back in the thread, and maybe there was an answer there, but I would'nt know the page number or anything. I would be happy to answer any of Aveng3r's questions. However, I'm not sure what else more there is to say that hasn't already been covered previously. I hear ya, I know this has been covered before I just don't know exactly which page and I cant be bothered to look through all of it, too many pages here now Just to condense a few thoughts, I saw last page someone say that people were linking articles to make their points in arguments rather than make the points themselves - I get why this was annoying and not conducive to having an actual discussion. No argument there. However I don't think CC did this. My feeling (and maybe I'm wrong - never interacted with him personally like I'm sure you and others have) was that he was and is just trying to contribute information to the thread. Not only do I appreciate reading what he posts as a source of information, I also appreciate the idea of contributing to something for everybody's benefit. So basically I write this to say that I think that the thread is lesser without CC making his posts. I also think that the rule changes have merit and are worth enforcing within a certain context, but in this case are catching a well meaning poster in the crossfire. Thoughts?
When SB links a source, the supporting statement that he provides does not follow the new guidelines. Your supporting statement when providing a source should explain what the source is about, and why it is relevant for people to discuss it.
When SB posts his supporting statements, they are almost always filled with his own personal opinions about the article and what he thinks about it. That kind of statement does absolutely nothing to help the readers understand what the source is about in the first place and why people should read it.
The biggest issue the USPMT had before these new guidelines came along was that people were posting articles links and tweets without giving any context whatsoever. That is unacceptable because it's just lazy posting. If you can't even bother to explain why you're linking what you're linking and why it's relevant, then why should people even bother to read what you link?
|
While I largely agree that kind of posting can be lazy; a news feed of a few major articles/top stories of the day wouldn't be a problem imho, as their relevance is self-evident and helps give context to people less tuned in, and many of those had pertinence that was self-evident by their title (at least to anyone who remotely follows politics). It's just that, like aqua said, some of SBs were of the more problematic kind.
btw, the rules on posts like that are just for uspmt, not sitewide, right?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
On August 08 2018 10:57 zlefin wrote:
While I largely agree that kind of posting can be lazy; a news feed of a few major articles/top stories of the day wouldn't be a problem imho, as their relevance is self-evident and helps give context to people less tuned in, and many of those had pertinence that was self-evident by their title (at least to anyone who remotely follows politics). It's just that, like aqua said, some of SBs were of the more problematic kind.
btw, the rules on posts like that are just for uspmt, not sitewide, right?
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
|
The claim that the rule singles out stealthblue cannot be said to be true. Preventing stealthblue's hit and run clickbait posts is a positive improvement to the thread. Formerly, it was more of a case that everybody else who did it got warned and tempbanned, but stealthblue had immunity due to being a staffmember. When he was no longer a staff member, he lost that immunity, but carried on the same posting that got everyone else warned and banned for. Doodsmack also got banned from doing so and he wasn't nearly as bad, yet no one is calling for doodsmack to be back.
|
On August 08 2018 11:19 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 10:57 zlefin wrote:
While I largely agree that kind of posting can be lazy; a news feed of a few major articles/top stories of the day wouldn't be a problem imho, as their relevance is self-evident and helps give context to people less tuned in, and many of those had pertinence that was self-evident by their title (at least to anyone who remotely follows politics). It's just that, like aqua said, some of SBs were of the more problematic kind.
btw, the rules on posts like that are just for uspmt, not sitewide, right? Show nested quote +Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
but then how come he does that in the space thread (aka nasa and the private sector)? the space thread is like 50%+ news posts by stealth; and most people seem to like it. last time I asked everyone was fine with the thread as it was. is the thread a special exception or something?
|
Honestly I think CCSB is a remarkably bad poster that has consistently dragged the thread(s) down with a sea of non-contributing twit posts. I spent over a year asking for that to be dealt with - and only now did it finally get done.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
On August 09 2018 07:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 11:19 Seeker wrote:On August 08 2018 10:57 zlefin wrote:
While I largely agree that kind of posting can be lazy; a news feed of a few major articles/top stories of the day wouldn't be a problem imho, as their relevance is self-evident and helps give context to people less tuned in, and many of those had pertinence that was self-evident by their title (at least to anyone who remotely follows politics). It's just that, like aqua said, some of SBs were of the more problematic kind.
btw, the rules on posts like that are just for uspmt, not sitewide, right? Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. but then how come he does that in the space thread (aka nasa and the private sector)? the space thread is like 50%+ news posts by stealth; and most people seem to like it. last time I asked everyone was fine with the thread as it was. is the thread a special exception or something?
Space thread is fine. Political threads like USPMT, Gun thread, Euro-economics thread, etc. need to be moderated and carefully watched over.
|
GH, your recent posts in the USPMT have been tremendously awful. It feels like you are just trying to pick a fight with everybody. I think it's time for you to take a long break away from the USPMT. If you can't have civil political discussions, then just don't post at all. You are hereby temporarily banned from the USPMT until further notice.
If you just put "people are complaining about your posting despite it not breaking any rules and it irritates me so I'm banning you" I'd be less frustrated by this.
Alas, I'm not surprised at all.
|
But the real reason is you are just an asshole to people and no one gets to cuss you out because this is TL.
|
On August 09 2018 07:28 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2018 07:05 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 11:19 Seeker wrote:On August 08 2018 10:57 zlefin wrote:
While I largely agree that kind of posting can be lazy; a news feed of a few major articles/top stories of the day wouldn't be a problem imho, as their relevance is self-evident and helps give context to people less tuned in, and many of those had pertinence that was self-evident by their title (at least to anyone who remotely follows politics). It's just that, like aqua said, some of SBs were of the more problematic kind.
btw, the rules on posts like that are just for uspmt, not sitewide, right? Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. but then how come he does that in the space thread (aka nasa and the private sector)? the space thread is like 50%+ news posts by stealth; and most people seem to like it. last time I asked everyone was fine with the thread as it was. is the thread a special exception or something? Space thread is fine. Political threads like USPMT, Gun thread, Euro-economics thread, etc. need to be moderated and carefully watched over.
I agree space thread is fine; i'm just trying to understand the rules.
so that rule only applies to political threads (or other threads which are more trouble prone) then?
|
Hyrule19237 Posts
The rules apply where they need to. People don't get into extremely heated arguments which devolve into name calling and shitposting over the space thread posts. They do in the political threads.
|
On August 09 2018 07:54 tofucake wrote:
The rules apply where they need to. People don't get into extremely heated arguments which devolve into name calling and shitposting over the space thread posts. They do in the political threads.
ok, so the rules don't matter/don't apply if the thread is fine and noone's causing a problem in it. thanks for the clarification.
|
On August 08 2018 10:51 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 10:13 Aveng3r wrote:On August 08 2018 07:54 Seeker wrote:On August 08 2018 06:33 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:49 Aveng3r wrote:On August 08 2018 05:26 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:18 Aveng3r wrote:
I still can't get my head around these temp bans that are getting slapped on stealthblue
I appreciate getting to read the news that he posts and I can't understand why his presentation of it gets micromanaged so hard. I also don't see who his posts are hurting - everyone is free to skip over his posts and keep arguing the theme of the day if they desire.
What is the rationale here? I think the basic rationale is: they set a rule, and stealth repeatedly fails to follow it. the bans are just because repeated warnings are failing to work. regardless of whether the rule itself is reasonable or well thought out, it's the rule they've chosen so they're going to enforce it. The rule itself is the target of my gripe ok, well, gl getting an answer. Seeker generally tries to answer stuff, so if you don't get an answer in a few days you could try pm'ing him to get an answer. I know the topic was discussed aways back in the thread, and maybe there was an answer there, but I would'nt know the page number or anything. I would be happy to answer any of Aveng3r's questions. However, I'm not sure what else more there is to say that hasn't already been covered previously. I hear ya, I know this has been covered before I just don't know exactly which page and I cant be bothered to look through all of it, too many pages here now Just to condense a few thoughts, I saw last page someone say that people were linking articles to make their points in arguments rather than make the points themselves - I get why this was annoying and not conducive to having an actual discussion. No argument there. However I don't think CC did this. My feeling (and maybe I'm wrong - never interacted with him personally like I'm sure you and others have) was that he was and is just trying to contribute information to the thread. Not only do I appreciate reading what he posts as a source of information, I also appreciate the idea of contributing to something for everybody's benefit. So basically I write this to say that I think that the thread is lesser without CC making his posts. I also think that the rule changes have merit and are worth enforcing within a certain context, but in this case are catching a well meaning poster in the crossfire. Thoughts? When SB links a source, the supporting statement that he provides does not follow the new guidelines. Your supporting statement when providing a source should explain what the source is about, and why it is relevant for people to discuss it. When SB posts his supporting statements, they are almost always filled with his own personal opinions about the article and what he thinks about it. That kind of statement does absolutely nothing to help the readers understand what the source is about in the first place and why people should read it. The biggest issue the USPMT had before these new guidelines came along was that people were posting articles links and tweets without giving any context whatsoever. That is unacceptable because it's just lazy posting. If you can't even bother to explain why you're linking what you're linking and why it's relevant, then why should people even bother to read what you link?
That's fine, I understand.
On August 09 2018 06:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The claim that the rule singles out stealthblue cannot be said to be true. Preventing stealthblue's hit and run clickbait posts is a positive improvement to the thread. Formerly, it was more of a case that everybody else who did it got warned and tempbanned, but stealthblue had immunity due to being a staffmember. When he was no longer a staff member, he lost that immunity, but carried on the same posting that got everyone else warned and banned for. Doodsmack also got banned from doing so and he wasn't nearly as bad, yet no one is calling for doodsmack to be back.
I see what you're saying. However, I never thought that there was a huge problem with "clickbait" posting from him, I always saw the articles he posted as something you could take or leave and be fine either way.
Given that he was staff, I imagine he had been here for some time and this had just been his way of contributing. I never saw him ban anyone or interact elsewhere on the website so it made sense that this was his place as a longtime contributing member of TL. But if everyone wants to carry on in a different direction, so be it
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
On August 09 2018 08:22 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 10:51 Seeker wrote:On August 08 2018 10:13 Aveng3r wrote:On August 08 2018 07:54 Seeker wrote:On August 08 2018 06:33 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:49 Aveng3r wrote:On August 08 2018 05:26 zlefin wrote:On August 08 2018 05:18 Aveng3r wrote:
I still can't get my head around these temp bans that are getting slapped on stealthblue
I appreciate getting to read the news that he posts and I can't understand why his presentation of it gets micromanaged so hard. I also don't see who his posts are hurting - everyone is free to skip over his posts and keep arguing the theme of the day if they desire.
What is the rationale here? I think the basic rationale is: they set a rule, and stealth repeatedly fails to follow it. the bans are just because repeated warnings are failing to work. regardless of whether the rule itself is reasonable or well thought out, it's the rule they've chosen so they're going to enforce it. The rule itself is the target of my gripe ok, well, gl getting an answer. Seeker generally tries to answer stuff, so if you don't get an answer in a few days you could try pm'ing him to get an answer. I know the topic was discussed aways back in the thread, and maybe there was an answer there, but I would'nt know the page number or anything. I would be happy to answer any of Aveng3r's questions. However, I'm not sure what else more there is to say that hasn't already been covered previously. I hear ya, I know this has been covered before I just don't know exactly which page and I cant be bothered to look through all of it, too many pages here now Just to condense a few thoughts, I saw last page someone say that people were linking articles to make their points in arguments rather than make the points themselves - I get why this was annoying and not conducive to having an actual discussion. No argument there. However I don't think CC did this. My feeling (and maybe I'm wrong - never interacted with him personally like I'm sure you and others have) was that he was and is just trying to contribute information to the thread. Not only do I appreciate reading what he posts as a source of information, I also appreciate the idea of contributing to something for everybody's benefit. So basically I write this to say that I think that the thread is lesser without CC making his posts. I also think that the rule changes have merit and are worth enforcing within a certain context, but in this case are catching a well meaning poster in the crossfire. Thoughts? When SB links a source, the supporting statement that he provides does not follow the new guidelines. Your supporting statement when providing a source should explain what the source is about, and why it is relevant for people to discuss it. When SB posts his supporting statements, they are almost always filled with his own personal opinions about the article and what he thinks about it. That kind of statement does absolutely nothing to help the readers understand what the source is about in the first place and why people should read it. The biggest issue the USPMT had before these new guidelines came along was that people were posting articles links and tweets without giving any context whatsoever. That is unacceptable because it's just lazy posting. If you can't even bother to explain why you're linking what you're linking and why it's relevant, then why should people even bother to read what you link? That's fine, I understand. Show nested quote +On August 09 2018 06:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The claim that the rule singles out stealthblue cannot be said to be true. Preventing stealthblue's hit and run clickbait posts is a positive improvement to the thread. Formerly, it was more of a case that everybody else who did it got warned and tempbanned, but stealthblue had immunity due to being a staffmember. When he was no longer a staff member, he lost that immunity, but carried on the same posting that got everyone else warned and banned for. Doodsmack also got banned from doing so and he wasn't nearly as bad, yet no one is calling for doodsmack to be back. I see what you're saying. However, I never thought that there was a huge problem with "clickbait" posting from him, I always saw the articles he posted as something you could take or leave and be fine either way. Given that he was staff, I imagine he had been here for some time and this had just been his way of contributing. I never saw him ban anyone or interact elsewhere on the website so it made sense that this was his place as a longtime contributing member of TL. But if everyone wants to carry on in a different direction, so be it
If SB can just follow this new rule without breaking it, then I would never ban him again. He can post as many news articles as he wants and he would never receive any mod actions.
But despite repeated warnings and temp bans, he's still posting in a way that goes against the new guidelines. We can't just turn a blind eye to that and ignore him. Especially when he's not even staff anymore.
|
Are m4ini's posts not trying to pick a fight in this thing?
|
would it be possible to set it up so people can't get into fast and furious back and forth with one person or multiple people
like, you post, you can't post again until X number of new posts have been made in the thread
that would maybe sometimes prevent people from whipping each other and themselves into a frenzy that ultimately results in banhammerization *shrug*
i kinda feel bad seeing someone got a ban then i look at their post history and i see they got banned for post #10256 in the thread and they also made post #10254, #10250, #10248, #10246, #10244, #10241 etc... pretty obvious what's going on there, if they'd had to take more time between posts in that thread maybe they wouldn't have got so heated and stepped over the line
|
TLADT24920 Posts
No. People just need to learn to act like adults. Honestly, I'm pretty sure the median age is at least 25, if not much higher. If you find that someone is engaging you to the point that you'll start to rage or the convo isn't going how you like, stop engaging with them. If you feel like you need a break from the thread, request a thread ban and we'll help give you space. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
