|
United States43633 Posts
On July 10 2024 14:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 12:02 KwarK wrote:
But the only moderating I do is PBUs and ad bots and it wouldn’t change my posting any. Not sure what upsides you’re imagining would happen but I’m game to try it if you’d like. Didn’t you once ban LegalLord because you were triggered by him calling Joe Biden Brandon?
Don’t recall but it sounds like I banned him because he was dumb? People who say Drumpf are dumb too. It’s not the nicknames that annoy me, it’s the implication that people might be annoyed by something as utterly childish as a nickname. It’s such low tier comedy performed with so little self awareness that it rubs me the wrong way. Like watching Ricky Gervais try to be funny in the UK Office.
|
Broken beyond repair so far that you can never vote your way into it being fixed.
Different than "system is broken".
|
On July 10 2024 13:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 12:31 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
One problem with Kwarks reasoning is that I don't think I'm better than anyone here, just making a better choice by supporting revolutionary socialism rather than opposing it and arguing for why I believe that. Just like the libs are arguing they are making a better choice than Trump supporters by supporting Biden. I don’t oppose your Pepsi based solution to racism, I’m not the reason it hasn’t worked. Nobody here is stopping you from fixing anything. Go ahead. See... Revolutionary socialism is "pepsi" and if I don't single handedly describe and bring about the revolution to his satisfaction I'm just roleplaying online. It's not the ad hominem of it that I find especially destructive (though it is certainly destructive) to discussion, but the strawmanning combined with the ad hominem based reasoning. It's easily one of the most universally disliked behaviors in the thread and anyone else would have been reined in by now. Unless we're making caricatures of Republican positions to smugly sneer and laugh at their stupidity and moral depravity for believing/supporting such things. That's still allowed but less common (with posters, still pretty common referring to politicians) since most of the right wing posters had enough of it or were banned more or less for responding in kind. Kwark's problem is that I'm not caricaturing libs positions, but I am being critical of the underpinning reasoning of them and their moral implications. He's unable to satisfactorily rebut my points on their merit, so he's resorted to doing the making strawman caricatures (pepsi) thing with revolutionary socialism. + Show Spoiler +Let’s say all of us in the forum get on board with it. We all decide to agree that inviting Hamas and Bibi to share a Pepsi would solve the problem of Palestine. What then? Us forum posters can’t get them to meet up and share a Pepsi.
And hell, even if it would actually work and we convinced them it would work they still wouldn’t want to because both groups actually benefit from the continuation of violence at the expense of their communities. The structural problems remain, they’d refuse precisely because it would work.
So then what? Where does that leave us? Exactly where we started.
In the most charitable imagining possible of your contribution it still has no value. We all know the moral issues with the status quo. It’s not that I can’t rebut them, it’s that I don’t wish to rebut them, I accept those points, they’re evident to the point of being beneath commenting on. Where you lose me is when you attempt to hand wave away all the complexity that resulted in the status quo with a Pepsi.
As far as I can tell you're the only one doing any hand waving by turning 100+ years of socialist struggle into "pepsi" and hand waving away years of hard earned growth and significant contributions from many members over the years as "so evident" as to be "beneath" your commentary.
Clearly everyone hasn't known all the moral issues with the status quo. Many of us have witnessed TL learn them as a community over the years. Homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism (some arguably still works in progress, but all objectively better around here than they were 10+ years ago) to name a few.
I believe a lot of people deserve credit for speaking up about the moral issues and various other problems with the status quo, and it'd be fair to argue I should be included in that group, but I'm not after recognition.
What I would expect, is for you to acknowledge that we're all still learning about the implications and consequences of things we're accustomed to in one way or another that are actually more harmful/sustained/cruel/etc than we ever thought or fully appreciated.
|
United States43633 Posts
On July 10 2024 14:14 Fleetfeet wrote:
Broken beyond repair so far that you can never vote your way into it being fixed.
Different than "system is broken".
For a given value of fixed, sure. You can fix some things by voting but other things are structural or simply not in scope for fixing. Voting in the US election won’t ever fix Palestine, but refusing to vote could make things worse.
|
I seem to recall some dust up over "Brandon" but don't quite remember.
KwarK is an ass and sometimes you have to wonder if he didn't have the hammer would he have been actioned into oblivion by now... but at the same time, so what? You can be snide back. While not my skillset, I've done it (though sometimes I edit those parts out later when I'm less annoyed). I don't know the last time I saw someone actioned for replying to him in kind, and I assume this is not just good luck (feel free to provide receipts). He's not one to keep a conversation going if someone else stops replying, like some people we've seen, though he doesn't forget either.
I think it's fair to ask if he was some other user with his behavior if he would still be here. But bitching about his posting is odd, idk how a thread full of so many people here for so many years still has people complaining instead of ignoring. Maybe I've just never received a level 10 KwarK attack.
I say all this as someone who finds his style grating and counter-productive to civilized discussion (in that sense he will be about as useful in changing hearts and minds as GH is, though somehow I don't think that's his goal).
|
United States43633 Posts
On July 10 2024 14:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 13:19 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 12:31 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
One problem with Kwarks reasoning is that I don't think I'm better than anyone here, just making a better choice by supporting revolutionary socialism rather than opposing it and arguing for why I believe that. Just like the libs are arguing they are making a better choice than Trump supporters by supporting Biden. I don’t oppose your Pepsi based solution to racism, I’m not the reason it hasn’t worked. Nobody here is stopping you from fixing anything. Go ahead. See... Revolutionary socialism is "pepsi" and if I don't single handedly describe and bring about the revolution to his satisfaction I'm just roleplaying online. It's not the ad hominem of it that I find especially destructive (though it is certainly destructive) to discussion, but the strawmanning combined with the ad hominem based reasoning. It's easily one of the most universally disliked behaviors in the thread and anyone else would have been reined in by now. Unless we're making caricatures of Republican positions to smugly sneer and laugh at their stupidity and moral depravity for believing/supporting such things. That's still allowed but less common (with posters, still pretty common referring to politicians) since most of the right wing posters had enough of it or were banned more or less for responding in kind. Kwark's problem is that I'm not caricaturing libs positions, but I am being critical of the underpinning reasoning of them and their moral implications. He's unable to satisfactorily rebut my points on their merit, so he's resorted to doing the making strawman caricatures (pepsi) thing with revolutionary socialism. + Show Spoiler +Let’s say all of us in the forum get on board with it. We all decide to agree that inviting Hamas and Bibi to share a Pepsi would solve the problem of Palestine. What then? Us forum posters can’t get them to meet up and share a Pepsi.
And hell, even if it would actually work and we convinced them it would work they still wouldn’t want to because both groups actually benefit from the continuation of violence at the expense of their communities. The structural problems remain, they’d refuse precisely because it would work.
So then what? Where does that leave us? Exactly where we started.
In the most charitable imagining possible of your contribution it still has no value. We all know the moral issues with the status quo. It’s not that I can’t rebut them, it’s that I don’t wish to rebut them, I accept those points, they’re evident to the point of being beneath commenting on. Where you lose me is when you attempt to hand wave away all the complexity that resulted in the status quo with a Pepsi. As far as I can tell you're the only one doing any hand waving by turning 100+ years of socialist struggle into "pepsi" and hand waving away years of hard earned growth and significant contributions from many members over the years as "so evident" as to be "beneath" your commentary. Clearly everyone hasn't known all the moral issues with the status quo. Many of us have witnessed TL learn them as a community over the years. Homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism (some arguably still works in progress, but all objectively better than they were 10+ years ago) to name a few. I believe a lot of people deserve credit for speaking up about the moral issues and various other problems with the status quo, and it'd be fair to argue I should be included in that group, but I'm not after recognition. What I would expect, is for you to acknowledge that we're all still learning about the implications and consequences of things we're accustomed to in one way or another that are actually more harmful/sustained/cruel/etc than we ever thought or fully appreciated.
Buddy you’re not doing any of that.
You’re not a part of the long history of socialist struggle, you’re not challenging discrimination in gaming communities, you’re not Lenin, you’re Kendall.
Edit: Also isms in gaming communities is far below the level we’re talking about. Those are the moral issues with the status quo. The basic recognition that we’re born into a system that generates huge amounts of human suffering and that even though we can’t individually change it we could all do far more to mitigate it. That mosquito nets cost less than snacks and that we’d rather pay for the snacks and then pay more for the gym membership than mosquito nets. Everyone has, at some point in their life, been forced to recognize the arbitrary cruelty of human society. We can’t not, we all see homeless people, we’re all capable of empathy, we’ve all struggled to reconcile our own selfishness with our obligation to our fellow man. That‘s a universal human experience, not an achievement you had.
It’s exactly this kind of thing that annoys me. You can’t just declare that class struggle exists and therefore you were involved. That global warming exists, and therefore you deserve credit for speaking up. That the two party system is failing us, and therefore you deserve recognition. Palestine exists, and therefore you’re a moral Superman. But what did you actually do?
I’ll get around to properly lauding you for your sacrifices once I’m done appreciating Kendall. I’m sure you’ll understand given how big of an issue racism is.
|
On July 10 2024 14:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 14:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 13:19 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 12:31 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
One problem with Kwarks reasoning is that I don't think I'm better than anyone here, just making a better choice by supporting revolutionary socialism rather than opposing it and arguing for why I believe that. Just like the libs are arguing they are making a better choice than Trump supporters by supporting Biden. I don’t oppose your Pepsi based solution to racism, I’m not the reason it hasn’t worked. Nobody here is stopping you from fixing anything. Go ahead. See... Revolutionary socialism is "pepsi" and if I don't single handedly describe and bring about the revolution to his satisfaction I'm just roleplaying online. It's not the ad hominem of it that I find especially destructive (though it is certainly destructive) to discussion, but the strawmanning combined with the ad hominem based reasoning. It's easily one of the most universally disliked behaviors in the thread and anyone else would have been reined in by now. Unless we're making caricatures of Republican positions to smugly sneer and laugh at their stupidity and moral depravity for believing/supporting such things. That's still allowed but less common (with posters, still pretty common referring to politicians) since most of the right wing posters had enough of it or were banned more or less for responding in kind. Kwark's problem is that I'm not caricaturing libs positions, but I am being critical of the underpinning reasoning of them and their moral implications. He's unable to satisfactorily rebut my points on their merit, so he's resorted to doing the making strawman caricatures (pepsi) thing with revolutionary socialism. + Show Spoiler +Let’s say all of us in the forum get on board with it. We all decide to agree that inviting Hamas and Bibi to share a Pepsi would solve the problem of Palestine. What then? Us forum posters can’t get them to meet up and share a Pepsi.
And hell, even if it would actually work and we convinced them it would work they still wouldn’t want to because both groups actually benefit from the continuation of violence at the expense of their communities. The structural problems remain, they’d refuse precisely because it would work.
So then what? Where does that leave us? Exactly where we started.
In the most charitable imagining possible of your contribution it still has no value. We all know the moral issues with the status quo. It’s not that I can’t rebut them, it’s that I don’t wish to rebut them, I accept those points, they’re evident to the point of being beneath commenting on. Where you lose me is when you attempt to hand wave away all the complexity that resulted in the status quo with a Pepsi. As far as I can tell you're the only one doing any hand waving by turning 100+ years of socialist struggle into "pepsi" and hand waving away years of hard earned growth and significant contributions from many members over the years as "so evident" as to be "beneath" your commentary. Clearly everyone hasn't known all the moral issues with the status quo. Many of us have witnessed TL learn them as a community over the years. Homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism (some arguably still works in progress, but all objectively better than they were 10+ years ago) to name a few. I believe a lot of people deserve credit for speaking up about the moral issues and various other problems with the status quo, and it'd be fair to argue I should be included in that group, but I'm not after recognition. What I would expect, is for you to acknowledge that we're all still learning about the implications and consequences of things we're accustomed to in one way or another that are actually more harmful/sustained/cruel/etc than we ever thought or fully appreciated. Buddy you’re not doing any of that. You’re not a part of the long history of socialist struggle, you’re not challenging discrimination in gaming communities, you’re not Lenin, you’re Kendall. It’s exactly this kind of thing that annoys me. You can’t just declare that class struggle exists and therefore you were involved. That global warming exists, and therefore you deserve credit for speaking up. That the two party system is failing us, and therefore you deserve recognition. I’ll get around to properly lauding you for your sacrifices once I’m done appreciating Kendall. I’m sure you’ll understand given how big of an issue racism is.
See?
He doesn't actually address what I say, he just uses it as a jumping off point to personally attack me for not actually being a socialist outside of this website based on his imaginary caricature of me offline.
At this point it's just coming off as pathetic.
|
Hyrule19193 Posts
This is more of an argument than feedback, and it's looking very much like a continuation of the pointless back and forth fights from the US Politics thread except without 98% of the politics.
|
On July 10 2024 14:52 tofucake wrote:
This is more of an argument than feedback, and it's looking very much like a continuation of the pointless back and forth fights from the US Politics thread except without 98% of the politics.
I suppose that depends on what capacity Kwark is acting in here. As part of the moderation team, or as a US Politics poster, the ambiguity of which is nontangential.
I feel like I've had a mod tell me that something Kwark's posted would be actionable but that it isn't because of him being a mod. I could be misremembering that, but I doubt I'm the only one that's had that experience at some point based on how he really lays into people personally. Though I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only one left lol.
Kwark volunteered to give up his mod status, so maybe remove it and people can test whether his more "shitty" posts get actioned or not and can bring it here if they disagree?
|
United States43633 Posts
On July 10 2024 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not actually being a socialist outside of this website based on his imaginary caricature of me offline.
If you want online credit for your offline achievements then you’re going to have to share them online.
There’s no requirement that you share them online, you’re welcome to keep them to yourself. But if you make vague allusions to them online like suggesting that “they” will “come for” you due to your important offline political activities then you’re trying to have it both ways.
I’ve been consistent in saying that I would be happy to be proven wrong. If it turns out you actually are Lenin offline then you can spend however much time you want saying that I was wrong and you’d be right to do that. But so far there’s just no evidence to support your online pomposity.
|
It's important to not misunderstand the meta role that GH plays on this forum.
There is virtually no chance that in the future society continues to run as it does now. We have ample evidence for that. It is in all likelihood going to be much worse to live on this planet in, say, 30 years, than it is right now. When someone thinks about it a little too much, it might make them want to do something about it. But also doing things is hard, they have their own life to live too. So they probably aren't doing as much as they think they should, and that annoys them.
And then there are people like GH who tell them to do things, and this reminds them of their own annoyance. But also, GH is flawed, he's not a perfect unrivaled idol! Therefore we get to talk about this instead of talking about the things that we aren't doing, and that's an easier conversation.
|
Northern Ireland26307 Posts
On July 10 2024 14:25 Introvert wrote:
I seem to recall some dust up over "Brandon" but don't quite remember.
KwarK is an ass and sometimes you have to wonder if he didn't have the hammer would he have been actioned into oblivion by now... but at the same time, so what? You can be snide back. While not my skillset, I've done it (though sometimes I edit those parts out later when I'm less annoyed). I don't know the last time I saw someone actioned for replying to him in kind, and I assume this is not just good luck (feel free to provide receipts). He's not one to keep a conversation going if someone else stops replying, like some people we've seen, though he doesn't forget either.
I think it's fair to ask if he was some other user with his behavior if he would still be here. But bitching about his posting is odd, idk how a thread full of so many people here for so many years still has people complaining instead of ignoring. Maybe I've just never received a level 10 KwarK attack.
I say all this as someone who finds his style grating and counter-productive to civilized discussion (in that sense he will be about as useful in changing hearts and minds as GH is, though somehow I don't think that's his goal).
Aye disengaging is a valid and infrequently used option, so I agree there.
You end up in a scenario where someone with mod status is embroiled in a consistent back-and-forth, and neither participant gets actioned, as you pointed out. In isolation this is pretty equitable, the mod isn’t shown any kind of favourable treatment in these interactions.
But versus other interactions, it’s not an equitable approach. Two regular Joes and Janes bickering will get told to take it PM, warned or temped if it takes over a thread. Happened to myself, JimmyC and one other iirc over in the Palestine thread, and I thought it was a deserved time on the naughty step for all involved.
So in that sense it’s something of a parallel approach, not one I’m a massive fan of purely on a basis of consistency.
Hell the ‘Hm can we have less bickering?’ feedback posting has now seen a migration of said bickering
|
Northern Ireland26307 Posts
On July 10 2024 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:
It's important to not misunderstand the meta role that GH plays on this forum.
There is virtually no chance that in the future society continues to run as it does now. We have ample evidence for that. It is in all likelihood going to be much worse to live on this planet in, say, 30 years, than it is right now. When someone thinks about it a little too much, it might make them want to do something about it. But also doing things is hard, they have their own life to live too. So they probably aren't doing as much as they think they should, and that annoys them.
And then there are people like GH who tell them to do things, and this reminds them of their own annoyance. But also, GH is flawed, he's not a perfect unrivaled idol! Therefore we get to talk about this instead of talking about the things that we aren't doing, and that's an easier conversation.
Good point, I mean in a similar fashion you have people criticising someone like Greta Thunberg for using electricity, or farting occasionally because it’s easier to find hypocrisy than address one’s own role in a complex, often shitty world.
Or you’ll see people who absolutely make a point about caring about the environment and let you know about it, until they actually have to make some kind of sacrifice themselves.
I think it’s a big part of the increasing rise of right wing populism. Folks don’t think the current system is working and are rejecting it in increasing numbers, but with politics of that form there’s always some kind of external enemy to stick the blame on, and if we just fix that we’ll be fine. But there is an underlying theme that things are broken there.
Whereas the further left and the centre left are engaged in some inextricable battle whereupon the former think things are fundamentally broken, and the latter do not. Or, if they do are bound by pragmatic pessimism as to whether it’s fixable.
Not commenting on GH or this particular thread’s current direction, but the wider observations you made
|
On July 10 2024 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:
It's important to not misunderstand the meta role that GH plays on this forum.
There is virtually no chance that in the future society continues to run as it does now. We have ample evidence for that. It is in all likelihood going to be much worse to live on this planet in, say, 30 years, than it is right now. When someone thinks about it a little too much, it might make them want to do something about it. But also doing things is hard, they have their own life to live too. So they probably aren't doing as much as they think they should, and that annoys them.
And then there are people like GH who tell them to do things, and this reminds them of their own annoyance. But also, GH is flawed, he's not a perfect unrivaled idol! Therefore we get to talk about this instead of talking about the things that we aren't doing, and that's an easier conversation.
It's hard for me to read this and not believe everyone can see this as plainly as you do. That the only way they "can't" is by virtue of the very phenomena it is describing.
There's something about the longitudinal nature of my experience here on TL that makes it far more surreal than times like when basically the same thing happened to me in person at the Dem state convention when and there was a vote on whether people that identified as women counted toward men or women when tallying for gender based splits on various things state Dems did as a party.
The vote went to tallying transwomen as men after basically the same arguments we still hear from Republicans on transgender rights.You wouldn't believe (well maybe you would) the reaction some of the Dems had about being confronted with how problematic that was and that they needed to fix it immediately. Especially the Karens/Darrens...my god...(haven't thought about that in a while)
|
On July 10 2024 14:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 14:03 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2024 12:02 KwarK wrote:
But the only moderating I do is PBUs and ad bots and it wouldn’t change my posting any. Not sure what upsides you’re imagining would happen but I’m game to try it if you’d like. Didn’t you once ban LegalLord because you were triggered by him calling Joe Biden Brandon? Don’t recall but it sounds like I banned him because he was dumb? People who say Drumpf are dumb too. It’s not the nicknames that annoy me, it’s the implication that people might be annoyed by something as utterly childish as a nickname. It’s such low tier comedy performed with so little self awareness that it rubs me the wrong way. Like watching Ricky Gervais try to be funny in the UK Office.
On July 07 2022 14:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 09:53 WombaT wrote:
Lord of Legal things ban for a full week seems very harsh all things told Well if I gave him less then he might not consider me owned. The longer the ban, the more owned the libs. A week seemed enough to let him to know he’d successfully triggered me with his clever code where he says Brandon but actually means Biden.
Is Brandon a dumb nickname? Sure. But it's not as dumb as banning someone because it rubs you the wrong way, especially as the present discussion is about how you've been rubbing people the wrong way...
Outside of that dumb decision I really don't have much of a problem with Kwark as a poster or a moderator. If he's a dick, just be a dick back. I'd have a problem if Kwark was permitted to be a dick to people and then people would get warned/banned for responding in kind but I haven't seen that happen. Although I could also understand if some posters would be hesitant to respond in kind because Kwark is a moderator and they fear being actioned for shit talking a mod. Personally that doesn't trouble me because I don't fear getting banned as it wouldn't be a big deal to me, but I can understand if others feel the need to pull their punches.
|
Norway28747 Posts
I think Kwark is being dumb as fuck in all of this tbh. Attacking GH for being a revolutionary yet to start a socialist revolution is like attacking people who believe in electoralism but who think Trump and Biden are terrible choices for not running for (or even becoming) president.
Now, being annoyed at GH for reiterating the same point/making the same post a triple digit+ number of times is fair game, but trying to prove how annoying that is through reiterating the same point/making the same post a triple digit+ number of times is stupid. The characterization of a good forum is one where people make their point and move on. Reply to clarify and elaborate as needed.
As far as the moderation discussion is concerned, there are two separate points as far as 'kwark is a mod' is concerned. He really doesn't have a history of banning people for disagreeing with him/for being rude towards him (and people are generally given a lot of leeway when responding to Kwark, or even for moderating any of the political threads (even if you can point to a couple instances of this happening over several years of foruming). But it's definitely true that a non-moderator posting in a similar manner would on some occasions be actioned. Pretending otherwise would be totally dishonest.
That said we're a pretty small tightly knit community and we all have our established personalities and ways of being. Kwark is frequently overly aggressive and has a real issue with not walking away from a discussion. He's also very knowledgeable, smart and witty and sometimes contributes with posts/insight that he is the only forumer capable of contributing with. I'm happy to take the bad with the good. But as a moderator I can also chime in to say that yeah his posting can rub me the wrong way and I'd be delighted if he sometimes went 'hm maybe I should just be happy having made my point' and not go on. His previous tangent about 'you are pepsi kendall not lenin' is the type of thing that he could have written in one post and I guess it'd be a fair attempt at being funny, but he then goes on to repeat it in 5 more posts after.
|
On July 10 2024 17:15 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 14:25 Introvert wrote:
I seem to recall some dust up over "Brandon" but don't quite remember.
KwarK is an ass and sometimes you have to wonder if he didn't have the hammer would he have been actioned into oblivion by now... but at the same time, so what? You can be snide back. While not my skillset, I've done it (though sometimes I edit those parts out later when I'm less annoyed). I don't know the last time I saw someone actioned for replying to him in kind, and I assume this is not just good luck (feel free to provide receipts). He's not one to keep a conversation going if someone else stops replying, like some people we've seen, though he doesn't forget either.
I think it's fair to ask if he was some other user with his behavior if he would still be here. But bitching about his posting is odd, idk how a thread full of so many people here for so many years still has people complaining instead of ignoring. Maybe I've just never received a level 10 KwarK attack.
I say all this as someone who finds his style grating and counter-productive to civilized discussion (in that sense he will be about as useful in changing hearts and minds as GH is, though somehow I don't think that's his goal). Aye disengaging is a valid and infrequently used option, so I agree there. You end up in a scenario where someone with mod status is embroiled in a consistent back-and-forth, and neither participant gets actioned, as you pointed out. In isolation this is pretty equitable, the mod isn’t shown any kind of favourable treatment in these interactions. But versus other interactions, it’s not an equitable approach. Two regular Joes and Janes bickering will get told to take it PM, warned or temped if it takes over a thread. Happened to myself, JimmyC and one other iirc over in the Palestine thread, and I thought it was a deserved time on the naughty step for all involved. So in that sense it’s something of a parallel approach, not one I’m a massive fan of purely on a basis of consistency. Hell the ‘Hm can we have less bickering?’ feedback posting has now seen a migration of said bickering
There were several instances in recent times where, if KwarK wasn't a mod, both he and I would've gotten banned or at the very least received a warning for our behavior. That would be the preferable scenario. I'm very happy to know that I get banned when I cross a line. I want the same thing to be true for everyone who engages in discussion, including KwarK. If we both got banned because of our heated exchanges, that would be a massive improvement.
The times that I got banned, it was always either justified or at the very least I had little reason to complain. Most importantly, people getting banned always results in a more productive and less toxic general atmosphere in the forum. It's a good thing that people get banned.
The fact that KwarK can't get banned drags everyone else down. In every discussion he's involved, if he dislikes someone strongly enough that he finds himself going to town with them instead of engaging with their argumentation, he will start his usual routine (ad hominems, strawmen, snappy one-liners, etc.) If his target has enough and returns the favor, he'll attack them personally. This doesn't result in a ban (due to obvious hypocrisy if it did), but it is toxic and abusive. As a side effect is also destroys every chance at a productive, meaningful discussion about the topic, because only KwarK-approved people get to laugh at the toxic exchange from the sidelines. No one who disagrees with KwarK gets to argue in peace.
And KwarK doesn't realize that this is entirely his doing. He doesn't even realize there's a problem because he can't face consequences. And since this has been going on for years, he now thinks this is normal. When someone points out his toxic and abusive behavior, he acts surprised (perhaps because he is actually surprised after years of normalization).
He's a perfect example of someone who's gotten so used to his privileges that he doesn't even notice them anymore. When he says he'd be fine not having mod powers, I don't believe a word. That's literally what he accuses GH of all the time when he says he's not a real revolutionist. I don't believe KwarK when he says he can handle being stripped of his privileges. I think it's 100% a bluff.
|
Everyone involved in this dust up has the power to end it separate and apart from one another. Use that power or don’t, but whining about it seems like a waste of time. Nevertheless, I know I’m in the minority but I find it enjoyable to read so by all means, keep going!
|
On July 10 2024 19:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 17:15 WombaT wrote:On July 10 2024 14:25 Introvert wrote:
I seem to recall some dust up over "Brandon" but don't quite remember.
KwarK is an ass and sometimes you have to wonder if he didn't have the hammer would he have been actioned into oblivion by now... but at the same time, so what? You can be snide back. While not my skillset, I've done it (though sometimes I edit those parts out later when I'm less annoyed). I don't know the last time I saw someone actioned for replying to him in kind, and I assume this is not just good luck (feel free to provide receipts). He's not one to keep a conversation going if someone else stops replying, like some people we've seen, though he doesn't forget either.
I think it's fair to ask if he was some other user with his behavior if he would still be here. But bitching about his posting is odd, idk how a thread full of so many people here for so many years still has people complaining instead of ignoring. Maybe I've just never received a level 10 KwarK attack.
I say all this as someone who finds his style grating and counter-productive to civilized discussion (in that sense he will be about as useful in changing hearts and minds as GH is, though somehow I don't think that's his goal). Aye disengaging is a valid and infrequently used option, so I agree there. You end up in a scenario where someone with mod status is embroiled in a consistent back-and-forth, and neither participant gets actioned, as you pointed out. In isolation this is pretty equitable, the mod isn’t shown any kind of favourable treatment in these interactions. But versus other interactions, it’s not an equitable approach. Two regular Joes and Janes bickering will get told to take it PM, warned or temped if it takes over a thread. Happened to myself, JimmyC and one other iirc over in the Palestine thread, and I thought it was a deserved time on the naughty step for all involved. So in that sense it’s something of a parallel approach, not one I’m a massive fan of purely on a basis of consistency. Hell the ‘Hm can we have less bickering?’ feedback posting has now seen a migration of said bickering There were several instances in recent times where, if KwarK wasn't a mod, both he and I would've gotten banned or at the very least received a warning for our behavior. That would be the preferable scenario. I'm very happy to know that I get banned when I cross a line. I want the same thing to be true for everyone who engages in discussion, including KwarK. If we both got banned because of our heated exchanges, that would be a massive improvement. The times that I got banned, it was always either justified or at the very least I had little reason to complain. Most importantly, people getting banned always results in a more productive and less toxic general atmosphere in the forum. It's a good thing that people get banned. The fact that KwarK can't get banned drags everyone else down. In every discussion he's involved, if he dislikes someone strongly enough that he finds himself going to town with them instead of engaging with their argumentation, he will start his usual routine (ad hominems, strawmen, snappy one-liners, etc.) If his target has enough and returns the favor, he'll attack them personally. This doesn't result in a ban (due to obvious hypocrisy if it did), but it is toxic and abusive. As a side effect is also destroys every chance at a productive, meaningful discussion about the topic, because only KwarK-approved people get to laugh at the toxic exchange from the sidelines. No one who disagrees with KwarK gets to argue in peace. And KwarK doesn't realize that this is entirely his doing. He doesn't even realize there's a problem because he can't face consequences. And since this has been going on for years, he now thinks this is normal. When someone points out his toxic and abusive behavior, he acts surprised (perhaps because he is actually surprised after years of normalization). He's a perfect example of someone who's gotten so used to his privileges that he doesn't even notice them anymore. When he says he'd be fine not having mod powers, I don't believe a word. That's literally what he accuses GH of all the time when he says he's not a real revolutionist. I don't believe KwarK when he says he can handle being stripped of his privileges. I think it's 100% a bluff.
Do you recognize what intro, BJ etc are saying about being allowed to crack back at KwarK with equal strength, though? If KwarK starts going at you about something, "Oh, Fuck off KwarK" is a legitimate and complete response post (I think?) that would not be legitimate against virtually any other poster on the site. You don't have to engage, and if you do engage you certainly don't have to be as kind about it as you are with other posters.
Those are the consequences that KwarK faces, and I'm pretty sure he's okay with them. The discussion we have is whether or not that's just bad for TL in general, and whether or not any of us care enough to ask for change.
I don't think it's a bluff btw. I don't think it would change much. I think KwarK not being a mod would change peoples perceptions in interacting with him, but I don't think it would result in him being banned often or anything.
|
Northern Ireland26307 Posts
On July 10 2024 18:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Kwark is being dumb as fuck in all of this tbh. Attacking GH for being a revolutionary yet to start a socialist revolution is like attacking people who believe in electoralism but who think Trump and Biden are terrible choices for not running for (or even becoming) president.
Now, being annoyed at GH for reiterating the same point/making the same post a triple digit+ number of times is fair game, but trying to prove how annoying that is through reiterating the same point/making the same post a triple digit+ number of times is stupid. The characterization of a good forum is one where people make their point and move on. Reply to clarify and elaborate as needed.
As far as the moderation discussion is concerned, there are two separate points as far as 'kwark is a mod' is concerned. He really doesn't have a history of banning people for disagreeing with him/for being rude towards him (and people are generally given a lot of leeway when responding to Kwark, or even for moderating any of the political threads (even if you can point to a couple instances of this happening over several years of foruming). But it's definitely true that a non-moderator posting in a similar manner would on some occasions be actioned. Pretending otherwise would be totally dishonest.
That said we're a pretty small tightly knit community and we all have our established personalities and ways of being. Kwark is frequently overly aggressive and has a real issue with not walking away from a discussion. He's also very knowledgeable, smart and witty and sometimes contributes with posts/insight that he is the only forumer capable of contributing with. I'm happy to take the bad with the good. But as a moderator I can also chime in to say that yeah his posting can rub me the wrong way and I'd be delighted if he sometimes went 'hm maybe I should just be happy having made my point' and not go on. His previous tangent about 'you are pepsi kendall not lenin' is the type of thing that he could have written in one post and I guess it'd be a fair attempt at being funny, but he then goes on to repeat it in 5 more posts after.
Merci for the feedback to the feedback
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
