EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 189
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
There ya go. I reported a different post of his but it wasn't a pretty set of posts reguardless of a mods comment. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
oversell(s) the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution To On August 28 2018 08:59 Plansix wrote: That is the only criticism of John McCain that was actioned before the burner account someone made to dump hot poop in the thread. What else’s is there? People have been able to be critical without getting hit with the mod hammer. (^I'm unclear how this addresses the request at all?) and what appears to be a comment on the prettiness of his posts and a link to the comment that you guys said he had oversold? On August 28 2018 09:02 Sermokala wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27129522 There ya go. I reported a different post of his but it wasn't a pretty set of posts reguardless of a mods comment. I don't follow? | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28558 Posts
Ciaus_Dronu's post, which is highly critical, was in no way actionable, at all, and nobody called for it. Is it possible to find some hypocrisy in the 'try to be civil right after somebody died' line of thinking? Obviously, because there are people almost nobody would extend this line of thinking to. Is 'should there be a period of grace' a worthwhile topic of discussion? Again, absolutely. I don't mind the discussion. But I think some people are kinda making mountains out of a molehill here. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 28 2018 17:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't have problems with people posting critical stuff about McCain. There were other people that posted critical stuff about McCain. Grumbels and A_flayer (on a new account he created to circumvent a ban) were the only ones moderated. It's a question of how you phrase the critique. Ciaus_Dronu's post, which is highly critical, was in no way actionable, at all, and nobody called for it. Is it possible to find some hypocrisy in the 'try to be civil right after somebody died' line of thinking? Obviously, because there are people almost nobody would extend this line of thinking to. Is 'should there be a period of grace' a worthwhile topic of discussion? Again, absolutely. I don't mind the discussion. But I think some people are kinda making mountains out of a molehill here. One of the questions I had was if people could relate to/understand the perspective that for some people, what Grumbles said or even a_flyer it isn't any more offensive than people calling him hero? Is that something people that have opined on this can appreciate? As to the actual events as they transpired I think Danger pretty much nailed it where this all would have been avoided. A reminder to everyone that John McCain passing does not mean that you get a free pass to insult him and say whatever you want. if the post ended there I think it's clear enough and the ensuing actions make sense. Then it went a little off the rails imo If you have nothing good to say, then please just don't say anything at all. That's where I think things went especially sideways (granted we're on the same page on the offensiveness to some of calling him a hero). With all that said it sounds like when the next controversial public official (including former I'd imagine) passes the consensus for both TL and the US politics thread is that people should tread lightly and avoid attacking their supporters/detractors personally, but criticism and praise can begin immediately on the news. Or are we repeating the grace period with/without praise? | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28558 Posts
My further opinions; I don't think there should be (or was, in this case) a grace period for how long you have to wait before you can say negative things about him (or a recently deceased person). However, at the same time, if dealing with a controversial figure, it's also quite predictable that dancing on the person's grave will cause animosity. Additionally, indeed, there's a difference between attacking the supporters/detractors and attacking the person. Like, a 'no tears shed from me. I think he was an evil man whose actions caused the world to be a worse place' is imo fine. I mean ideally you should back up that statement with specific examples of how, but this post by itself should not be actionable. But continuing that with 'and his supporters are ignorant idiots or equally evil', that's where it becomes actionable. I've posted stuff like the following paragraphs before, but I'm trying to reiterate. This is a gaming forum by design. The reason why we have vibrant political discussions is that we have many people hailing from many different backgrounds from many different regions of the world who have matured beyond gaming, but who have an interest in politics. This is a strength and a weakness - it's a strength because our userbase form a better cross-section of 'primarily male posters between 18 and 35' than most other internet forums for political discussion do, and a weakness because we never designed the forums, or the rules for how to moderate the forums, based around political threads, and moderation practices should, imo, be significantly different when dealing with politics compared to dealing with balance discussions, strategy discussions or which progamer is on fire. The job of the moderators, fundamentally, is to create an environment where productive discussions are possible. Now, productive political discussions can, and should, sometimes get heated. But a political discussion without a semblance of mutual respect, those will never be productive. I know that there are many posts that make this transgression that don't get moderated, but in principle, this - respect for the people you discuss with - is important to uphold for a discussion forum like this. Then politics is a peculiar topic, because there are people who hold opinions that are so offensive that they make it impossible to respect the person holding the opinion, but even then, it's important that we try, and at the very least that we don't operate based on an assumption that the other person's opinion is shaped by the least respectable reasoning possible. I get that it's sometimes kinda inevitable, but.. we do have to try to limit the ad hominems. Again - I don't really mind ad hominems towards politicians, but then you really should try to separate the politician from his supporters, because otherwise the environment for productive discussion ends up being hurt. Incidentally, the reason why 'leftists' can get behind someone like McCain is that he was seemingly the (sole? primary?) embodiment of this attitude among prominent republican politicians. I sure as hell didn't agree with him politically, but he didn't make political disagreements personal. Which, again, doesn't work for everybody, because if you are personally affected by a policy, then a political opinion can end up being perceived as personal. While there are legit arguments for why bringing out all the ugly in society is necessary so people start relating to it rather than pretending it's not there, very little good is coming from the increased partisanship and divide that we see in most western countries today. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 28 2018 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm largely in line with you GH. I see how calling him a hero is just as offensive to people who think he was terrible as calling him a war criminal is to people who think he was a hero. My further opinions; I don't think there should be (or was, in this case) a grace period for how long you have to wait before you can say negative things about him (or a recently deceased person). However, at the same time, if dealing with a controversial figure, it's also quite predictable that dancing on the person's grave will cause animosity. Additionally, indeed, there's a difference between attacking the supporters/detractors and attacking the person. Like, a 'no tears shed from me. I think he was an evil man whose actions caused the world to be a worse place' is imo fine. I mean ideally you should back up that statement with specific examples of how, but this post by itself should not be actionable. But continuing that with 'and his supporters are ignorant idiots or equally evil', that's where it becomes actionable. I've posted stuff like the following paragraphs before, but I'm trying to reiterate. This is a gaming forum by design. The reason why we have vibrant political discussions is that we have many people hailing from many different backgrounds from many different regions of the world who have matured beyond gaming, but who have an interest in politics. This is a strength and a weakness - it's a strength because our userbase form a better cross-section of 'primarily male posters between 18 and 35' than most other internet forums for political discussion do, and a weakness because we never designed the forums, or the rules for how to moderate the forums, based around political threads, and moderation practices should, imo, be significantly different when dealing with politics compared to dealing with balance discussions, strategy discussions or which progamer is on fire. The job of the moderators, fundamentally, is to create an environment where productive discussions are possible. Now, productive political discussions can, and should, sometimes get heated. But a political discussion without a semblance of mutual respect, those will never be productive. I know that there are many posts that make this transgression that don't get moderated, but in principle, this - respect for the people you discuss with - is important to uphold for a discussion forum like this. Then politics is a peculiar topic, because there are people who hold opinions that are so offensive that they make it impossible to respect the person holding the opinion, but even then, it's important that we try, and at the very least that we don't operate based on an assumption that the other person's opinion is shaped by the least respectable reasoning possible. I get that it's sometimes kinda inevitable, but.. we do have to try to limit the ad hominems. Again - I don't really mind ad hominems towards politicians, but then you really should try to separate the politician from his supporters, because otherwise the environment for productive discussion ends up being hurt. Incidentally, the reason why 'leftists' can get behind someone like McCain is that he was seemingly the (sole? primary?) embodiment of this attitude among prominent republican politicians. I sure as hell didn't agree with him politically, but he didn't make political disagreements personal. Which, again, doesn't work for everybody, because if you are personally affected by a policy, then a political opinion can end up being perceived as personal. While there are legit arguments for why bringing out all the ugly in society is necessary so people start relating to it rather than pretending it's not there, very little good is coming from the increased partisanship and divide that we see in most western countries today. Makes sense and I can understand that. I'm not sure how wide some of the sentiments you expressed resonate with some other posters or mods, but I appreciate the response. I agree on the mutual respect, what I think has been lost in some of my lesser moments is that the overwhelming majority of my tone is (imo) reflective of the lack of that respect shown towards perspectives outside of a certain political range/orthodoxy. This disrespect is sometimes applied appropriately (Kwark is usually pretty good on this but makes mistakes), sometimes wildly inappropriately (I don't want to put anyone on blast here because that's not the point, I got receipts though). Those that have picked up on that seem to get along better not just with posters like myself, but other posters that many in the related threads simply can't have substantive interactions with. The McCain thing and the apparent tone deafness of how praise for McCain can be interpreted by those who found themselves or people they care about on the wrong end of the policies he supported or groups he helped empower serves as an example. This McCain one is just especially obvious for a lot of people (though I doubt everyone), but no less than once a week there's something comparably tone deaf said but since it's a tone most participants are deaf to the groups conclusion is that the offense is imagined or overblown. On the other hand, when the offense targets a particular centrist world view it's suddenly widely apparent among participants that the offense is intolerable. This is often done without the preferred backing of supporting evidence/documentation and with the explicitly stated (or clearly implied) refusal to engage with contrary evidence in a meaningful way. With him completely drowning out the shooting (what's left after Trump coverage anyway) and several events centering him and a cadre of like minded individuals from both sides of the political aisle, I suspect there will be more discussion about the lesser known aspects of his legacy. But if improving political moderation is a goal (and it doesn't have to be for TL) then what I (and several others have) am trying to highlight is something that has to be approached with an effort that's at least comparable to the enforcement of the tweet/news story rule. I don't say all that to be critical for the sake of it or petty, but because I value the community and discussions and genuinely want to see them improve in meaningful ways and this is the single biggest problem imo. Because the failure to recognize how political positions/policies/actions can not only be offensive to people's sensibilities, but genuinely put people's lives and well being in jeopardy is dangerously destuctive. I tried to make that mostly generic as to not try to put this all on any particular person/persons and to include myself in the criticism where accurate and because my point isn't to drag any particular poster or even group, but to make it clear that people post some extremely offensive things and stuff like racial slurs are mostly easy to pick up on (though they can slip through too) but there are countless examples that compare more aptly to praising John McCain (without considerations for the atrocities he shares responsibility in) but there's never this moment where people realize that it was/could be seen as extremely offensive and that perhaps the reaction was proportional to the offense. When people immediately report the retaliation to a mod and the mod immediately actions the reaction post without attempting to first gain some context from the person they are going to action it completely destroys any potential for effective dialogue rather than fostering it. It's not an easy thing to address but the alternative is the thread degenerating into shrieking at each other and Trump related one-liners or blasé discussions on traffic and the Mutant football league masquerading as "civil and mature political discussion" (that's not a shot at those that were part of those discussions) while US weapons (that the man later referenced as a "hero" helped provide) blow up a bus full of kids without so much as a mention (until much later). There are all sorts of major stories and events transpiring but you'd have no idea looking at the US politics thread because imo TL has chosen to enforce a negative peace, rather than grow with the people it serves. Another poster alluded to it in another thread but the experience of being told to "grow up" or questioning of my maturity by a community that then lavishes and has a thread dedicated to petty and childish (I enjoy it too sometimes so don't get the wrong idea) gloating about bans and generally based around gaming is, we'll go with ironic. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
New questions: Do you (or anybody) think the people making these posts + Show Spoiler + On August 26 2018 10:08 Sermokala wrote: John mccain died from his brain cancer today. I looked up to him a lot growing up as a model republican. While my political viewpoint has grown more complex from then his impact in modern US politics is undeniable. A true american hero that suffered greatly in vietnam yet was able to forgive them and become the lead in the nations new friendship with vietnam. On August 26 2018 10:12 Neneu wrote: Sad to see John McCain die, he was truly an important conservative voice in modern history. On August 26 2018 10:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I didn't see him going right after giving up treatment. His reasoning will be missed in this new GOP. intended to use the occasion of McCain's death to be provocative? Do you (or anybody) dispute that the person making this post + Show Spoiler + On August 26 2018 10:44 Grumbels wrote: good riddance to war criminals intended to use the occasion of McCain's death to be provocative? (In particular, intended to provoke a useless shit flinging contest.) | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 27 2018 22:01 Seeker wrote: We're not going to ban people from being able to criticize McCain. It just seems wrong and inconsiderate to start bashing him right after he's passed away. Just give it a couple of days before you start ripping into the guy. I'll just keep repeating this until people actually start reading my posts... | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:14 Seeker wrote: I'll just keep repeating this until people actually start reading my posts... For the record, so that your post leaves no further wriggle room for misinterpretation: Does "ripping into the guy" include, or not include, "substantiated criticism which is not obviously intended to provoke a shitstorm"? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:14 Seeker wrote: I'll just keep repeating this until people actually start reading my posts... I think we've all read it, I'm afraid you don't see the problem with it. You're saying: Just give it a couple of days before you start ripping into the guy While Drone (in a notably more thoughtful post), is saying: I don't think there should be (or was, in this case) a grace period for how long you have to wait before you can say negative things about him (or a recently deceased person). Considering Drone doesn't really ban people (and you didn't address P6's question) it leaves more ambiguity than you seem to be recognizing. Perhaps there's some overlapping of personal opinion and moderation policy in your statement, but then simply repeating it doesn't do much to clarify that. Particularly in light of the ban reason which seems to be referencing what/when (in combination with your other comments) he was talking about (being critical of McCain against your understanding of proper decorum) rather than how he was going about it. Grumbels was just temp banned for 1 week by Seeker. That account was created on 2009-05-02 04:58:17 and had 6807 posts. Reason: You were warned to drop it. You deliberately didn't listen.* Please take a week off. *this indicates that it wasn't simply the one post where it went personal, but there were following posts that were unacceptable As we habitually fail to see eye to eye on some things, id rather just leave it there. I just didn't want you to be unclear on why I think several people have taken issue with what you think is an adequately complete statement. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:14 Seeker wrote: I'll just keep repeating this until people actually start reading my posts... We read your post. The thing is, you seem to think that a cryptic one-liner actually resolves the concerns people have, and take it personally when people aren't really satisfied with two very short comments plus a repeated assertion of, "I've made myself clear, how can there possibly be further discussion on the topic?!?" And that sentiment doesn't reflect the reality that you really didn't do anything more than offer a one-liner. On August 28 2018 17:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't have problems with people posting critical stuff about McCain. There were other people that posted critical stuff about McCain. Grumbels and A_flayer (on a new account he created to circumvent a ban) were the only ones moderated. It's a question of how you phrase the critique. Ciaus_Dronu's post, which is highly critical, was in no way actionable, at all, and nobody called for it. Is it possible to find some hypocrisy in the 'try to be civil right after somebody died' line of thinking? Obviously, because there are people almost nobody would extend this line of thinking to. Is 'should there be a period of grace' a worthwhile topic of discussion? Again, absolutely. I don't mind the discussion. But I think some people are kinda making mountains out of a molehill here. I'm just going to ask this very directly, because there is a difference that matters: are you posting this officially, in the capacity of a moderator, or unofficially as a pure personal opinion? The nature of participation of certain members of the moderation in the discussion often makes this unclear and I'd like clarification here. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:28 LegalLord wrote: We read your post. The thing is, you seem to think that a cryptic one-liner actually resolves the concerns people have, and take it personally when people aren't really satisfied with two very short comments plus a repeated assertion of, "I've made myself clear, how can there possibly be further discussion on the topic?!?" And that sentiment doesn't reflect the reality that you really didn't do anything more than offer a one-liner. I'm presuming that's supposed to be aimed at my posting style, not that he sincerely thinks mimicking it is good practice. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:14 Seeker wrote: I'll just keep repeating this until people actually start reading my posts... We all read your posts. However it isn't clear at all. For instance Aquanium is under the impression that I will be able to criticise McCain. I am under the impression that I am not. Whose interpretation is correct? Just that one quote alone is problematic in the colloquialisms used, which are completely open to interpretation in the first place. You have to be open to the idea that your posts aren't clear, and it gets even more murky when other mods are posting as well. For instnace Aquanim thinks that micronesia has explicitely written that I can in fact criticise McCain if I so desire and that is a clearer mod stance than yours. I think that your post in the thread makes it clear that nothing good to say cannot be written about McCain. Who is correct again? | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote: We all read your posts. However it isn't clear at all. For instance Aquanium is under the impression that I will be able to criticise McCain. I am under the impression that I am not. Whose interpretation is correct? Just that one quote alone is problematic in the colloquialisms used, which are completely open to interpretation in the first place. John McCain is a political figure. Political figures are supposed to receive criticism. TL will not stop people from criticizing John McCain. I will not stop people from criticizing John McCain. The only thing I wanted to make clear was that it is rude and disrespectful to insult/criticize someone who just passed away. And seeing as how McCain passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer, it seems appropriate to at least let the guy rest in peace for a couple of days. But that grace period is already over. I will no longer carry out any kind of mod action against people who have things to say about McCain. Unless, of course, their posts break TL rules and guidelines. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:42 Seeker wrote: John McCain is a political figure. Political figures are supposed to receive criticism. TL will not stop people from criticizing John McCain. I will not stop people from criticizing John McCain. The only thing I wanted to make clear was that it is rude and disrespectful to insult/criticize someone who just passed away. And seeing as how McCain passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer, it seems appropriate to at least let guy rest in peace for a couple of days. But that grace period is already over. I will no longer carry out any kind of mod action against people who have things to say about McCain. Unless, of course, their posts break TL rules and guidelines. the thing is, you're speaking as a mod; there's a difference between whether something is appropriate in an etiquette sense, and whether it's appropriate in a moderation sense (ie would be actionable), and it's not clear which your'e talking about when you say stuff like that. It's so interspersed with your statements as a mod that we can't tell what is your personal opinion regarding the situation, and what you're saying will be enforced as a matter of moderation policy. Do you think a grace period exists for avoiding criticism, from a moderation policy perspective? clean yes/no answer preferred. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
I wanted to make clear was that it is rude and disrespectful to insult/criticize someone who just passed away. And seeing as how McCain passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer, it seems appropriate to at least let guy rest in peace for a couple of days. Think people's issue is going to be with that part. Seems like there's some bleeding over of what you "want to make clear" and what you want to enforce as moderation policy, which is fine, but we're telling you it's not as clear to us as it is to you. So setting McCain aside, if Bill Clinton or Trump or GHWB were to die in the near future, is not waiting to be harshly critical going to be acceptable (even if in poor taste in some opinions) as Drone suggests or are you "going to make clear" (by way of bans) that people should let it rest? At this point it's just a matter of clarification, I'm not really concerned about the stuff I was discussing with drone more generally, folks are just trying to be clear on this so that they don't come in hot when Kissinger or whoever goes and run afoul of whatever the official policy is (or at least know they are going into it). EDIT: I suppose some are just looking to know to in order to make sure they report the right posts as well  | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
| ||
