US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 341

On October 11 2025 18:42 Dan HH wrote:

This fixes nothing. The toxicity of the thread (which I agree wtih Neb is being overstated) doesn't come from rule-breaking.

It comes from various debatelord strategies such as gaslighting, inconsistency, immunity to hypocrisy, devolving every losing discussion into semantic nonsense, running away when presented with good arguments to one's point only to come back and make the exact same point unchanged a dozen more times in the future, etc

There are no easy rules to apply against any of that, but there are rules against an otherwise civil person telling someone engaging in that kind of behavior to fuck off.

Making Kwark go away or muffling him would be a big loss to the politics threads. He is one of the most skilled writers here, he can make long entertaining posts about nuts and bolts, he can make a bad faith troll in the Ukraine war thread lose their mind and implode after 10 other people had replied to them with no effect. He's part of what makes me come back and read those threads, not because I agree with him the most (far from it), but because his mind works in a way that I find interesting.

Now I'm sorry to say this MP, but you going away was a boon to the pol thread rather than a loss. I have nothing personal against you, you usually come from a good place and I tend to want you to win whatever argument you're in but you pretty much never do. You get in a ton of arguments, you're not good at it, and you find the weirdest hills to die on.

The reason there's pages upon pages of MP vs oBlade arguments isn't because he finds your points the most interesting, but because he finds your points the weakest. There's several people like him, that when presented with 5-10 arguments or a list of things, will only pick the 1-2 easiest to attack and completely ignore everything else. Your replies are almost always among those easiest to attack.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that the people most justified (imo) to ask for Kwark's head, Jankisa and Neb, aren't doing it, but everyone that frequently engages in bad faith tactics and is called out by him wants him gone.

On October 11 2025 20:01 KwarK wrote:

Honestly, yes. That's better than your normal posting, for exactly the reasons he outlined. I'd much rather you just say that you disagree than you attempt to argue why it is wrong and then include 1+1=3 by accident and then have pages of you insisting that 1+1 actually does equal 3.

Debatelords ruin debates. There needs to be a mechanism to end the discussion without losing by attrition and telling someone that they're full of shit and their arguments are shit actually works. A third party isn't going to go "ad hominem, two points from Hufflepuff", if the other person was making a bad argument and everyone else could see it then you found the right answer.

Take the classic example of someone sealioning.
+ Show Spoiler +
I would never action someone for responding with "fuck off sealion". "Fuck off sealion" is a complete, articulate, and fully formed counterargument that concisely and clearly expresses everything that needs to be expressed.

It's just a case of using it at the right times.

On October 12 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:


Tofu gave three clear answers in response to LegalLord's questions. Assuming Tofu is a person you respect and are considering the wishes and volunteer energy of, why are you asking for something they all but stated they were not willing to do?

Like, one of the mods just expressed frustration at their volunteer position and burnout, and your 'solution' is for them to moderate MORE and do MORE work? Think it through, lad. Checking every reported post to see if it does or does not follow the rules is MORE work, especially if there are MORE reported posts. It being a solution or less work for the mods is fantasy - you just want to believe that because it suits your goals.