EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 181
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 09 2018 09:23 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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 in my experience; in cases like that, at least one of the posters is just being a bad poster who shouldn't be posting anyways. the other reason a proposal like yours woudln't wokr is it would prevent a large number of reasonable and perfectly fine discussions (if enforced by the software). back and forth posts aren't inherently a problem; unless the two individuals involved are going at it in a certain way; and if they are, it often happens fast enough that mods who only check in periodically may not be able to tell anything. (i.e. it cna be many hours before amod response happens to anything but the most blatant cases) | ||
|
kidleaderr
361 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 09 2018 09:56 DeepElemBlues wrote: Don't think that approach is working too well But what approach entices you to come back to the thread? All this GH and “making it personal” misses the point. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On August 09 2018 13:06 Danglars wrote: But what approach entices you to come back to the thread? All this GH and “making it personal” misses the point. I dunno, I mean I don't even know if my idea would be technically possible... don't think I was missing the point at all. Lots of people get into that groove where they're all caught up and can't help themselves, you look at the profiles of a lot of the USMPT "regulars" and you see it pretty regularly, out of a 50 post range they'll have 15-25 of them, and then you read those posts and you can see the decorum degrading. I also think that 'be mature and don't let yourself get caught up like that' sounds nice but clearly doesn't match the way people behave and likely never will. So maybe there's some other solution short of thread bans that makes it so people take a deep breath, look at some pretty birds, murder some pixels on B.net, whatever, before they wade into the rhetorical fray again. Maybe it's just impossible and there is nothing to be done except the way things are already being handled lol. Could be. I don't think anyone would say that the current state is ideal, I don't even have to look at the thread more than once a week maybe to see that and I would feel some serious trepidation about posting in it other than one-offs, here's my opinion, I'm not responding to anyone who quotes me and probably not even quoting anyone. Conversation, in that thread? Ehhhh. I don't know how those who do post in it regularly manage to do so without their doctor asking them "are you eating a pound of salt a day or something, look at your blood pressure geez!" every time they get a checkup. On August 09 2018 11:13 zlefin wrote: in my experience; in cases like that, at least one of the posters is just being a bad poster who shouldn't be posting anyways. the other reason a proposal like yours woudln't wokr is it would prevent a large number of reasonable and perfectly fine discussions (if enforced by the software). back and forth posts aren't inherently a problem; unless the two individuals involved are going at it in a certain way; and if they are, it often happens fast enough that mods who only check in periodically may not be able to tell anything. (i.e. it cna be many hours before amod response happens to anything but the most blatant cases) Maybe not a post limit but a time limit. You get one post every 10-20 minutes. If people are really into a good discussion with someone they'll come back to it. Of course they might for a bad discussion too if they're cheesed off enough. I'm just going off looking at some users' profiles and seeing the pattern of posting and then reading the posts, I gotta disagree usually it doesn't seem to be a case of one bad user being bad from the start. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong users. There usually seems to be a shift a few posts in where one or both parties goes into overdrive and then it's Katie bar the door. But again maybe my idea is poop and there isn't much different that could be done than what is. I just think something like that could encourage more thoughtful posting in several different ways for several different reasons. Or not. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
What do people think the difference is? | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
my blood pressure is doing a lot better following that idea. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On August 09 2018 12:25 kidleaderr wrote: GH posting has been awful for well over a year now. He literally e-fights everyone in the thread and ALWAYS without fail has to have the last word. Either that or he'll hit you with a 1500 word response and force you to tap out. No that's not true. GH often posts decent to high quality posts. The problem is that it often feels like there's no actual discussion; he knows he's right - especially when he's wrong - will never back down, and on certain topics he sooner or later starts directly attacking people. He thinks, when he denounces people as not knowing what they're talking about, that there's some assumption from the other side that he does, and he never feels the need to really back up what he's saying. The arguments he's having/had about Maduro in Venezuala are the prime evidence of this. He knows very little about that situation, but damned if that's going to stop him pushing a narrative over it. And his outright hatred of liberals means he clashes personally with a lot of the posters in the thread and most of the US posters there, since most of the left-leaning ones are liberals and the right-leaning ones... well, he obviously disagrees with them because he's farish left. I've had my personal ups and downs with him but I think we get along relatively well. You just have to refuse to take what he says personally and appreciate that he's a passionate activist for his beliefs. Such people will always get in your face if you disagree, it's how the process works. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 09 2018 14:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: I dunno, I mean I don't even know if my idea would be technically possible... don't think I was missing the point at all. Lots of people get into that groove where they're all caught up and can't help themselves, you look at the profiles of a lot of the USMPT "regulars" and you see it pretty regularly, out of a 50 post range they'll have 15-25 of them, and then you read those posts and you can see the decorum degrading. I also think that 'be mature and don't let yourself get caught up like that' sounds nice but clearly doesn't match the way people behave and likely never will. So maybe there's some other solution short of thread bans that makes it so people take a deep breath, look at some pretty birds, murder some pixels on B.net, whatever, before they wade into the rhetorical fray again. Maybe it's just impossible and there is nothing to be done except the way things are already being handled lol. Could be. I don't think anyone would say that the current state is ideal, I don't even have to look at the thread more than once a week maybe to see that and I would feel some serious trepidation about posting in it other than one-offs, here's my opinion, I'm not responding to anyone who quotes me and probably not even quoting anyone. Conversation, in that thread? Ehhhh. I don't know how those who do post in it regularly manage to do so without their doctor asking them "are you eating a pound of salt a day or something, look at your blood pressure geez!" every time they get a checkup. I dont think the individual back and forth matters so much. It’s pretty easy to breeze through. I’m more concerned with the shorter leash given to conservative posters for snark and choosing whom not to start discussions with. For the former, the kind of “this thing is practically angelic, but the conservative view is corrupt and evil, but of course understandable because cons hate that stuff” is permitted, but not the ideological reverse. Specifically, if it’s asserted without evidence, the only reply must be including evidence and not just contrary opinion. Also, not engaging with the more gutter-mouthed and bad faith posters is regarded as “not acknowledging the other side when they point out your BS.” I’ve got no problem with the occasional one-on-one with a unified standard for what’s actionable. Most of the GH wars are easy to skim through (though obviously the trolling gets obscene sometimes). I’m pretty pessimistic at the thread moving towards a diversity of opinions that include pro-Trump and pro-GOP in the mix with the current moderation staff and how they act intentionally and unintentionally. The thread and current moderation approach is fine for left-wing fringe criticism of the mainstream left, and the reverse, since they both get similar mod treatment for irony and incisive political opinions. I agree with you when you say “” I don't even have to look at the thread more than once a week maybe to see that and I would feel some serious trepidation about posting in it other than one-offs, here's my opinion, I'm not responding to anyone who quotes me and probably not even quoting anyone. “” I wonder if a lead up to 2020, or even a 2018 post-election analysis phase will change that. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On August 11 2018 04:42 Danglars wrote: I dont think the individual back and forth matters so much. It’s pretty easy to breeze through. I’m more concerned with the shorter leash given to conservative posters for snark and choosing whom not to start discussions with. For the former, the kind of “this thing is practically angelic, but the conservative view is corrupt and evil, but of course understandable because cons hate that stuff” is permitted, but not the ideological reverse. Specifically, if it’s asserted without evidence, the only reply must be including evidence and not just contrary opinion. Also, not engaging with the more gutter-mouthed and bad faith posters is regarded as “not acknowledging the other side when they point out your BS.” I’ve got no problem with the occasional one-on-one with a unified standard for what’s actionable. Most of the GH wars are easy to skim through (though obviously the trolling gets obscene sometimes). I’m pretty pessimistic at the thread moving towards a diversity of opinions that include pro-Trump and pro-GOP in the mix with the current moderation staff and how they act intentionally and unintentionally. The thread and current moderation approach is fine for left-wing fringe criticism of the mainstream left, and the reverse, since they both get similar mod treatment for irony and incisive political opinions. I agree with you when you say “” I don't even have to look at the thread more than once a week maybe to see that and I would feel some serious trepidation about posting in it other than one-offs, here's my opinion, I'm not responding to anyone who quotes me and probably not even quoting anyone. “” I wonder if a lead up to 2020, or even a 2018 post-election analysis phase will change that. The fact that you, as far as I can tell a smart guy, continue to believe that you are singled out for your political positions, and NOT your nauseatingly condescending and unpleasant tone, will probably never cease to amaze me | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 11 2018 06:00 Aveng3r wrote: The fact that you, as far as I can tell a smart guy, continue to believe that you are singled out for your political positions, and NOT your nauseatingly condescending and unpleasant tone, will probably never cease to amaze me Right back at you. I used to believe liberal posters that love their flippant style and caustic rebukes would identify and handle the same and lesser backlash, but I was thoroughly disappointed. I mean, you clearly think a condescending comment about my opinions vs otherwise smart attitude is appropos. I really thought neutral consideration would hold sway in the end. But this is about a clear trend over years not focused on me or any other single poster, as much as you want to make it about me. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7946 Posts
On August 08 2018 09:45 Seeker wrote: I answered that here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread?page=178#3558 And no, I don't condone KwarK's usage of Nazi accusations when he is arguing with xDaunt or anyone else. However, I also know that KwarK is not an idiot. He's well-versed in US politics and he's an intelligent individual. Almost rarely do I ever question why he said what he said. He may not make decisions that I agree with, but he doesn't just state things for the hell of it. A bit late to the party (3 days in fact), but as someone who has had the pleasure of running into KwarK on at this point rather many occasions I really want to throw my 2 cents in here: I agree with everything in this post. There is no doubt that KwarK is a very smart person who generally knows his stuff. What you left out is that KwarK is also a monumental asshole a large portion of the time. He acts like someone who "doesn't have time for your shit" while simultaneously writing essays and well thought out posts on the topic. I have zero doubts that if anyone who wasn't a mod acted like he did they would be perm banned by now. It's all well and fine to be correct in your posts, but the way the message is delivered is often counter productive to having a reasonable discussion. I rarely have trouble with anything he writes as I find myself agreeing most of the time. But I can completely understand if someone else would take offence to it. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Case in point danglars post where he simultaneously continues his condescending tone whilst complaining about so called snark, whilst writing that it's not about a single poster, but writes "right back at you". That post truly is Danglars in a nutshell. | ||
| ||
