On February 23 2019 09:59 JimmiC wrote:
I just find it odd that if he makes the exact same post without the source he doesn't get banned but with the source he does. I understand that there was a problem in the past when people were simply just posting tweets and stuff but that isn't a problem anymore. He also quoted out the parts he thought was important and included the entire source for those who wanted to read it.

It seems like real effort was made to make a quality post, which lead to quality discussion. I don't think this a "bad" post and would rather more like it rather than less.

Maybe I'm missing something. If he made the same post without the source (by source I mean the pasted text from the article as well as the url), wouldn't we have no idea what he is even talking about? Was he responding to a recent post?

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

February 23 2019 02:13 GMT

#4304

--- Nuked ---

micronesia

United States24632 Posts

February 23 2019 02:38 GMT

#4305

On February 23 2019 11:13 JimmiC wrote:
No you are right, we would have no idea and he wouldn't get banned.

You're right. We'd be like, "what?" and move on. Then, if he kept doing it, he would be warned and eventually banned, just like what happened with articles.

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

February 23 2019 02:57 GMT

#4306

--- Nuked ---

micronesia

United States24632 Posts

February 23 2019 03:13 GMT

#4307

JimmiC are you arguing for the thread rules to be changed, for an exception to the rule to be made for a particular poster on a regular basis (this is a recurring thing), or something else? The rule is pretty clear both in terms of what a post with an article needs to include, and what the principle behind it is. The post in question was determined not to be satisfactory on either front, despite the fact that the article itself still may have been interesting and may have inspired some good discussion. Although to be honest, I only see one post responding to the article in question, so I'm not sure where you are coming from there either.

Sermokala

United States13816 Posts

February 23 2019 03:19 GMT

#4308

Where are you supposed to draw the line between a Twitter feed post and an actual effort post?

SB has continually refused to provide the bare minimum people are asking for him to provide along with the sources he posts. He has refused in any way to improve his posting despite the mod actions.

People are asking him to put the slightest measure of effort into his posts and he has steadfastly refused to even acknowledge anything people say to him about it. He has changed nothing from before the change to the posting policy about sources.

He doesn't show that he thought about the source or is trying to start the discussion. He makes a statement with a source and expects people to create the discussion by reading the source he posts with a hook to get them interested in what he posted. He doesn't bring value to the thread he creates work for other people to do to engage properly. The discussions he mostly brings is people reacting to his post not his source. These discussions get derailed instantly by the people who posted after reading his post being corrected by the people who read the source. After this the people who didn't read the source continue to post but with the changes brought to them by the people who did read the source who didn't change their original take on the subject because this new information didn't change that. This creates rubber-banding effects of "go back to what I originally said" being an impossible statement because you have two posts that are often now a page or two apart that are both what they originally said but contained different standards of information that are close enough to be near indistinguishable but are different in the eyes of both sides of the conversations.

What is above is fucking crazy nonsense that you don't want on your message board. SB makes the above necessary to post like.

IgnE

United States7681 Posts

February 23 2019 03:40 GMT

#4309

I don't want to read a summary of an article that is posted with an excerpt and a link. I like that he provides material. I like the discussions that follow, even sometimes when they are derailed.

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

February 23 2019 05:46 GMT

#4310

--- Nuked ---

Sermokala

United States13816 Posts

February 23 2019 07:16 GMT

#4311

On February 23 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:

Show nested quote +

I guess that the rule is changed. Because it really only seems to impact one person. I get far more annoyed at people who post assumptions as facts with no source.

If you have to ban someone for a thread specific rule it might be better to give a 1 week thread ban instead of site wide.

They did that already and he refused to communicate or change anything.

WolfintheSheep

Canada14127 Posts

February 23 2019 08:27 GMT

#4312

On February 23 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:

Show nested quote +

It only seems to impact one person because the other people learned a lot faster.

micronesia

United States24632 Posts

February 23 2019 13:40 GMT

#4313

I'll keep a closer eye out for other users who might do the same things but slip under the radar because of a lack of moderation history.

TheCivilizationShow

1 Post

February 23 2019 15:56 GMT

#4314

--- Nuked ---

dumpster_to_grave

3 Posts

February 23 2019 16:24 GMT

#4315

--- Nuked ---

Excludos

Norway8000 Posts

February 23 2019 16:59 GMT

#4316

I think it might be time to start looking into implementing a minimum post count before you can join the politics thread. I don't like it any more than anyone else here, but it seems certain people can't help themselves. And that is why rules exist in the first place: Because some people tend to ruin it for others.

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

February 23 2019 19:02 GMT

#4317

--- Nuked ---

left_tuesday

1 Post

February 23 2019 21:25 GMT

#4318

--- Nuked ---

KwarK

United States42255 Posts

February 23 2019 21:41 GMT

#4319

Buddy, this is a starcraft forum for people brought together by love of the game who want to talk about the game with each other. There's no classes, no elites, no "the man", no oppressors or enforcers. It's just a bunch of regular people who want to hang out together. If you're rejected by the group for being an asshole you're not a martyr, you're the kid eating lunch by himself in high school. We don't like the person you're choosing to be and we don't want to hang out with you. That doesn't reveal any secret inner truth about society or freedom, you're not sacrificing yourself to show the inherent injustice of the system. The way you're acting is really sad and you should reflect upon why it is that you're choosing to fight this non battle for your freedom to hang out with a bunch of people who don't want you around.

Even if you got your wish and we stopped banning you we still wouldn't like you because the problem isn't that you're being rejected, it's that you're choosing to be a person who deserves rejection. You're focusing on the wrong thing, you've turned what is clearly an issue with you into an issue with the system, despite the fact that basically everyone else can somehow get along here.