|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37118 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Seeker, I don't want to know if you personally think it is rude or disrespectful to criticise a recently deceased. Your personal thoughts on that is irrelevant to what I want to know. What I want to know is, would I had been free to criticise McCain during your so called two day grace period (which wasn't made clear anyways), Yes or No?
I did not specify a grace period in my original post and that was my mistake. And yes, you would have been free to criticize McCain because my word is not law. And if I did mod action you, it most likely would have been overturned and erased from your mod history depending on the severity.
|
Norway28903 Posts
On August 28 2018 21:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's not an official statement on behalf of the moderation team. We have not had internal discussions about this topic (grace period for deceased people) - I don't think it's that significant of a topic, nor do I perceive any big, significant difference in how the different moderators approach it. I've had a lot of spare time the last couple days and spent a little bit of it making rather verbose posts (I like writing!), so my thoughts have been more fleshed out on the matter, but I don't think me, seeker or micronesia really feel differently about this in a really meaningful manner, even if it's possible to dissect our posts in a way that makes it seem that way.
|
Sounds a bit Russian Roulettey but I appreciate both of your responses regarding that issue. Since I'm not posting in the thread I can't speak to whether that will satisfy some other posters though.
|
|
|
On August 28 2018 22:05 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 21:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Seeker, I don't want to know if you personally think it is rude or disrespectful to criticise a recently deceased. Your personal thoughts on that is irrelevant to what I want to know. What I want to know is, would I had been free to criticise McCain during your so called two day grace period (which wasn't made clear anyways), Yes or No? I did not specify a grace period in my original post and that was my mistake. And yes, you would have been free to criticize McCain because my word is not law. And if I did mod action you, it most likely would have been overturned and erased from your mod history depending on the severity.
Thank you. You made that clear now, but your previous statement combined with your insistence that you did not need to clarify yourself made it unclear. As it is, it is too late now, for the time has passed.
On August 28 2018 22:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 21:28 LegalLord wrote: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. It's not an official statement on behalf of the moderation team. We have not had internal discussions about this topic (grace period for deceased people) - I don't think it's that significant of a topic, nor do I perceive any big, significant difference in how the different moderators approach it. I've had a lot of spare time the last couple days and spent a little bit of it making rather verbose posts (I like writing!), so my thoughts have been more fleshed out on the matter, but I don't think me, seeker or micronesia really feel differently about this in a really meaningful manner, even if it's possible to dissect our posts in a way that makes it seem that way.
Perhaps in the future, moderators who wish to engage in discussion in the thread itself should refrain from expressing opinions in the manner as if it is an official policy.
|
|
|
Norway28903 Posts
or you could assume that unless I state otherwise (I have done so several times in the past), there's no significant deviation from what I write and what is policy (as what is the case now).
|
On August 29 2018 13:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
or you could assume that unless I state otherwise (I have done so several times in the past), there's no significant deviation from what I write and what is policy (as what is the case now).
The inconsistency between individuals on the moderation staff, and the USPOL-unique nature of there being a very poorly defined separation between personal and official opinion, kind of does support a need for specificity.
When moderator X actions post A and moderator Y says something that essentially boils down to “I don’t really see any problems with posts that say A” then we have a problem of consistency that makes all these “just follow vague guidelines and don’t sweat the small differences” statements pretty tone-deaf. And this happens a lot.
|
|
|
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time.
there were as many posts in this thread on this one topic than than there were posts in the actual thread over the same period on all topics. which hopefully speaks to both it’s inanity and the current state of the main thread.
|
|
|
On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time.
I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway).
Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted.
1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms.
2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself.
That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense.
Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all.
|
never mind i’m just projecting. i do understand your motivations moreso than any others for sure though. hope you’re unbanned soon.
|
On August 29 2018 23:33 brian wrote:never mind i’m just projecting. i do understand your motivations moreso than any others for sure though. hope you’re unbanned soon. + Show Spoiler +i understand your motivation more than any others, for certain. and i don’t intend to prescribe onto you the entire notion of childish posting. but at some point the conversation necessarily becomes childish when we need to discuss specifically which word in seekers explanation of a non issue is the most offensive, whether you intend it to or not.
please understand that you’re the most active poster on these subjects typically. so while you’re always part of ‘the posters’ in my own opinions, i absolutely do not hold you accountable in my opinions. and miss you dearly in the main thread.
I don't really even have a problem with some of my actions/posts being labeled as childish sometimes it's accurate (I get the thrust of your comment wasn't directed at me), it's pretty much just everything else I've explained previously and then it's basically that it's used as a cop out for dealing with it.
I'm not even mad about it anymore, I'm just disappointed that we couldn't work it out differently. We were able to work something out that I hope will work better for everyone so that certainly helps.
It feels like comments like these (not yours specifically) are set-ups to trash talk a position while simultaneously making any attempt for someone to defend themselves self-indicting and are absolutely devastating to productive discussion, but do utilize/draw attention to a very real issue of unsubstantiated bickering. I had considered using my original 1-month ban just cataloging/preparing comprehensive examples and explanations and so on but decided against it for several reasons.
I'll just say I presented several examples/alternatives prior and it was unsuccessful so I thought it only sensible to try something different and so far I feel like it's mostly working.
Getting this part out was the last little bit of housekeeping I think should be needed on my part. I suppose if people have more questions they can just PM me as to not result in further disrupting of the posting rate.
|
I’m 100% with you on all that, and specifically ‘comments like yours are just set-ups,’ and fully agree. it’s part of why i should have just not posted that follow up at all, because it has certainly become that, without it having been my intention. i’ve just got a talent..
|
|
|
Edit: deleted. Wrong thread.
|
On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all.
The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle.
The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it.
|
The thread has been on a steady improvement. Whether it is because some people are refraining/banned from posting there in frequency, could entirely be coincidental.
It probably isn't a coincidence though that the ones which are frequently expressing their displeasure with moderation have been banned sometime or another there.
|
Trump was elected in 2016, we're in 2018 and the next elections are in 2020. I think it's the main reason why the thread appears more peaceful. It's in the eye of the storm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
