| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
As far as talking about issues, I'll talk about them and make long posts where it is called for. I had one or two megaposts that I wanted to make when I have the time. And look on the bright side: we have a week left until we can forget about the elections and the thread reverts to a pretty generic "US political issues" thread. Edit: Actually you know what, I think I'll have some time to spare in a few months. I just might be in the mood for writing another dissertation. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 01 2016 13:11 LegalLord wrote: I've done it enough times to know I'm not interested. Anyways, I'd rather not get into that issue ever again - I've said my piece, and I'm ok with that now. My position on the matter is clear enough that there isn't much more to say. As far as talking about issues, I'll talk about them and make long posts where it is called for. I had one or two megaposts that I wanted to make when I have the time. And look on the bright side: we have a week left until we can forget about the elections and the thread reverts to a pretty generic "US political issues" thread. Aka political current events | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule18980 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:30 ticklishmusic wrote: is there a way to discourage new posters (especially non americans) from popping up and derailing the conversation for pages on things that have already been argued ad nauseum several times? report them? I don't think there's much else that can be done. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 03:21 tofucake wrote: report them? I don't think there's much else that can be done. That approach makes the incorrect assumption that every annoying post is banworthy. Which is far from true. Most of these are just "can you retread old ground on a discussion that already concluded like 200 pages ago" and many of the regulars will simply think, "oh god not this shit again" despite that there isn't really anything bannable there. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On November 02 2016 06:29 LegalLord wrote: That approach makes the incorrect assumption that every annoying post is banworthy. Which is far from true. Most of these are just "can you retread old ground on a discussion that already concluded like 200 pages ago" and many of the regulars will simply think, "oh god not this shit again" despite that there isn't really anything bannable there. Well, thats what megathreads do I suppose. If you dont have separate threads for separate issues you will end up with different people wanting to talk about different things all in one big mess of a thread. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28559 Posts
But that doesn't mean we should discourage it.. The fact of the matter is, the thread functions on several different levels. There's the 'youtube video - look at this shocking footage' - which is largely dismissed as garbage, even if not (at least currently) actionable by itself. Then there's the stealthblue-article - opinion pieces or news articles relating to current events - I assume many people just skim these, but sometimes they kickstart discussions, sometimes the sources are good, sometimes more objectionable. Still, these are mostly productive and certainly help start discussions. Some of these articles (and stealthblue is far from the only poster providing these) are even genuinely interesting and well-written- while I rarely agree with the content, I frequently enjoy reading articles posted by Danglars. Then you have kwizach and Lord Tolkien, who provide genuinely scholarly sources. I'm not a big fan of academic writing, or reading. Frankly, I prefer just spouting off my opinion without having to provide citations, and I prefer reading people whose insight is so obvious (or their world views so in line with my own  ) that they hardly have to provide any. I think writing academic texts is a boring chore. But I also think academic writing represents the highest level of information possible, and the information from scholarly sources is on average much more trustworthy than that out of any other information outlet. When people like me or farvecola compliment kwizach's posts it's because we really enjoy it when the thread provides insight which normally is somewhat inaccessible - I don't have the mental stamina to read academic article after academic article, but I'm really grateful when someone either condenses information from several academic articles or links me particularly relevant pieces.. If you feel it's a sort of shitposting ganging up against you, that sucks, but it's pretty unfounded; I just know from experience that whenever I've written long posts and someone writes 'great post thanks for taking the time to type out all that' or some variant thereof, it makes me happy and motivates me to write more long posts that I spend an hour+ articulating. I also know that writing a super long post and getting 0 responses is demotivating. Once again, I'm not expecting you to address his monster post; but the way these rehashed discussions has looked to me is basically; LegalLord posts something about russia/nato/foreign policy. To me, it mostly seems sound - I'm not a scholar, you speak with confidence, you certainly know some things and bring up some valid points. Then Kwizach or Lord Tolkien writes a rebuttal. It's long. Responding to all the points made would take a long time, and for me, quite a bit of self-educating before I could contest the points they are making. I think wow, these guys really know what they're talking about, I assume whenever there's a contradiction between LL and LT/KZ, the latter is probably more accurate than the first claim. Then I read your claims that they misconstrued your opinions and that they misstated factoids from their linked sources. (More KZ than LT I guess). And I think hm, maybe KZ held you to a standard of precise language or whatever that can't be expected from a forum discussion, and I get that you don't want to discuss with him, because it takes a long time and you don't really feel like you get much of any return from it. But then, the same thing happens, over and over again. And I see you rehash your point about kwizach being impossible to argue with more than I see either you or kwizach arguing. It's much like how you've recently started posting about how everyone spouted on about Hillary being 'so electable' way more frequently than that being cited for a reason for her actually getting the nomination, in fact, a certain poster linked you a poll showing that this wasn't really an accurate depiction of why people supported her, which you ignored. At some point, I find myself thinking that it would have been much easier for you to just go like, 'hey, I'm sorry but I'm not gonna bother having this discussion with you, I don't feel like you've been entirely genuine when discussing and it feels like a massive waste of time, people can choose to believe what you post or what I post, that's up to them, but I just wanna say that I think the misrepresentation of my opinions is not really fair, I just didn't want to put in the effort of an academic text and I assumed people weren't gonna deliberately twist my text to make me look ignorant', and that would've been completely fair - sympathetic even. But now you more come off as having a grudge, and it's kinda petty. I can also see the irony in this being like the third time I'm making this post. But frankly I think it's good if kwizach spends his time lending his FP expertise rather than getting involved in some petty discussion around what type of posting is more preferable to the thread, especially as it's kinda tough to be a fair arbiter of anything you're personally involved in. And I think it's good for everyone if you stops attacking him. Nobody forces you to respond. However, when you do respond, and largely through attacking his posting style (I don't care whether it's true that 6 discussions ago you genuinely tried to address his points), I just have to vocally disagree, because the type of contributions his previous monster post constitutes, even if 90% of the thread literally went too long I'm not reading that, are imo immensely valuable. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
You may notice that I didn't really bother to say much about kwizach specifically. That is, as far as I'm concerned, a resolved issue. I said what I wanted to say about it, and I don't have much more to say (though for posterity I did want to compile a paragraph of the chronicle of my disagreement with him, to make it easier to link if someone asks). And in fact I may just be giving a response to his rather long post(s) as soon as I have the time - it may just be worth the effort to say that I wasted the time to show why the previous one-paragraph criticisms of him are perfectly valid. But again, that's a matter for the future. No, I focused more on the issue of long posts in general, and the sub-issue of why they are a pain to make. You say it yourself: you don't really know the topics well enough to really contest them one way or the other. That's not rare; the issue here is that if someone has nothing to add in terms of content, it would really be appreciated if they would act respectfully rather than heckle from the sidelines. "Sounding more correct" really isn't any benchmark for anything. It bothers me much more when someone has fuck all to say about the original post I made, but an instantaneous surety about the correctness of a reply to it, often with corresponding vitriol. That comes from confirmation bias, pure and simple. I don't care if people compliment kwizach or Tolkien or anyone else who writes a post I disagree with. The selective ability to consider the points critically, that I do have a problem with. When someone says "dat post st00pid" in response to mine without any points to back it up, but "yey u did it" when someone else replies to that one (without spending the bare minimum amount of time it would take to read it critically enough to question the assertions and sources)... well one may wonder what the point is in writing highly sourced and researched posts if people literally just take the position they were predisposed to take beforehand. On holding a grudge... well depends on how you see it. If reacting aggressively to people posting something really stupid like "ur just a f00king moron" is holding a grudge, then yeah, call it a grudge. If deciding that I really don't want to engage someone who I have mentioned before that I don't want to respond to (more than I'm proud of), then that's a grudge. If briefly telling someone off for continuously grudge collecting (e.g. finding literally every time he was mentioned in the last few months and writing a diatribe about it) and posting the exact kind of things I really wasn't inclined to support beforehand, then sure, that's a grudge. But you might also note that I've given him enough credit to acknowledge that, even though I have many problems with the way he posts, his contributions are high-content and that I did enjoy reading some of them. I'd be happy to debate any of the posters who write giant dissertations each time. Length isn't the issue; being a bad-mannered jerk (LT) or being (insert list of things I don't like about kwizach's posting here) is. Really I would prefer that if I spend the time to flesh out my points in depth, the people who read and respond aren't so obtuse about how they do it that I start to wonder why I bothered. And that was the issue I was getting at - not about kwizach in particular. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28559 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
kiwiz story line looks as if the events being discussed(desired or hoped for) are a natural evolution of the West's good deeds(fuck yea, democracy, freedom, liberty, rights, inclusiveness ...) and he wants those bestowed onto you, while your defensiveness looks like a neanderthal refuses to use the fire or the wheel. his pov, from the winner perspective, wins by appealing to masses via relatedness while you're stuck with ... Lenin, Stalin, Putin. he has some bias in the way he presents some opinions/desires/needs(of the people mainly) but you can't get much out of those so i say you'd have a better chance at raising sympathy if you pull the 3rd wave feminist card and start crying for your safe space because it(Russia) is psychologically damaged; he'd probably give you Ukraine. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule18980 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:30 ticklishmusic wrote: is there a way to discourage new posters (especially non americans) from popping up and derailing the conversation for pages on things that have already been argued ad nauseum several times? a long list at the beginning which includes topics already addressed, with links to where in forum, or elsewhere, they were thoroughly addressed. in order to prevent the list from getting too long and unwieldy, i'd want it either cleansed periodically, new stuff be put at the bottom, or have the megathread be numbered by year (and hence older issues would be in the older threads). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On November 02 2016 23:42 zlefin wrote: a long list at the beginning which includes topics already addressed, with links to where in forum, or elsewhere, they were thoroughly addressed. in order to prevent the list from getting too long and unwieldy, i'd want it either cleansed periodically, new stuff be put at the bottom, or have the megathread be numbered by year (and hence older issues would be in the older threads). And then no one would check it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
you don't need people to check it before posting, you just need a rule that the person will be pointed to the resource, and people shouldn't start up the issue again until that person has looked through those links. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 03 2016 01:06 IgnE wrote: "gish gallop" approaching "garbage/dumpster fire" levels of usage, hitting peaks of annoying word usage frequencies not seen since last years pandemic of "no true scotsman" You're not being very electable right now. | ||
| ||
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Group C
Fjant vs MaNaLIVE!
Fjant vs SKillous
Fjant vs Cure
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  44696Calm  11906Rain 5721Hyuk 5585Sea  2896Horang2 1943actioN 1279Jaedong 877Shuttle 852TY 435[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing2231 DeMusliM664 B2W.Neo604 crisheroes315 Pyrionflax302 hungrybox294 Lowko266 RotterdaM256 Liquid`VortiX151 Mew2King54 QueenE33 ZerO(Twitch)23 JuggernautJason18 Vindicta10 ArmadaUGS4 |
|
BSL Nation Wars 2
Poland vs Latino America
PiG Sty Festival
TLO vs Scarlett
qxc vs CatZ
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Bunny vs Nicoract
Lambo vs Nicoract
herO vs Nicoract
Bunny vs Lambo
Bunny vs herO
Lambo vs herO
PiG Sty Festival
Lambo vs TBD
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
SOOP StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SOOP
SortOf vs Bunny
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
