EPTWhen people like Doodsmack (1 week) & Plansix (maybe Kwark on a couple topics) come back, it will be tested worse. So I only worry that these few cited instances that are incongruous become the new steady state. If they're the exceptions in the next three months, I'll mail treats. Slaughter & RiK can be exceptions as mods find opportunity to discuss in mod forums or pull one another aside "Hey, this is a perfect example of a one-line shitpost mischaracterization" or w/e.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 36
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
When people like Doodsmack (1 week) & Plansix (maybe Kwark on a couple topics) come back, it will be tested worse. So I only worry that these few cited instances that are incongruous become the new steady state. If they're the exceptions in the next three months, I'll mail treats. Slaughter & RiK can be exceptions as mods find opportunity to discuss in mod forums or pull one another aside "Hey, this is a perfect example of a one-line shitpost mischaracterization" or w/e. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
that said some issues do remain. The particular one I notice most is the failure to adequately deal with those with status who shitpost a lot. In particular Kwark and Xdaunt. Kwark had been doing a lot of bad posting for quite awhile, and it only stopped because he lost a ban bet, not because his actions were curtailed or he was talked to. xdaunt is likewise a persistent problem poster. frequently lying and misrepresenting things; asserting things as fact that simply do not hold up at all; as our recent spat in thread demonstrated (I can go into detail if necessary, dunno how clear it is to everyone else). He's far from the worst offenders; but far from not being an offender either. I know sometimes he is merely responding to attacks and unjustified posts by others; but there are also quite a lot of times where he's clearly the instigator; and his presence often degrades discussions. as I no longer have the general ability to report, I'm not sure if such posts are reportable; my vague memory is that mods adn staff may not have had a report option on their posts, can someone tell me if this is true or not? if such posts can't be reported, it'd prevent the development of a file demonstrating a long history of malfeasance rather than single isolated instances. except in the minds of those who've been aroundf and watching a long time who do remember it. something more aggressive and quicker needs to be done about status'd people doing bad posting. one person requested a siteban recently iirc because of the persistent failure to address such things. the other minor issue is that warnings/bans are often not explained adequately, so it's not clear what the violation was, and why sentences may differ. adding a few lines to such things would provide more clarity (especially as one reason for differing sentences is their mod history) | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19125 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 06 2016 23:43 tofucake wrote: Perhaps the fact that you had your report privileges revoked means you shouldn't be the one to make a big list of things people are doing wrong. perhaps, but that does not change the validity and soundness of my points. Especially since it was proven that I was in part correct: that higher moderation standards were needed in the thread. it was removed a long time ago because most of my reports did not lead to action. most of my reports were in the US politics thread and other simliarly troubled gen discussion threads. some of those reports would've been actioned under the current system; and were not actioned because standards used to be very lax there. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 06 2016 23:48 zlefin wrote: perhaps, but that does not change the validity and soundness of my points. Especially since it was proven that I was in part correct: that higher moderation standards were needed in the thread. it was removed a long time ago because most of my reports did not lead to action. most of my reports were in the US politics thread and other simliarly troubled gen discussion threads. some of those reports would've been actioned under the current system; and were not actioned because standards used to be very lax there. Your "higher moderation standards" basically boil down to actioning anyone who disagrees with you and shows you up, while you get to freely label those posters as "liars" and "rude." | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 07 2016 00:12 xDaunt wrote: Your "higher moderation standards" basically boil down to actioning anyone who disagrees with you and shows you up, while you get to freely label those posters as "liars" and "rude." more lies from xdaunt, as usual; so many claims that are provably false. as kwark doesn't really disagree with me on much of anything. nor have several others who clearly have deserved action who I would have actioned. Also fails to address the sound points I've raised; and resorts to an unjustified ad hominem; he's always starting fights, then claims it was the other person who provoked him. tofu, you yourself said asserting as true things that are false was actionable; and while it's not near as blatant as RiK, xdaunt does do it some. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19125 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21868 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19125 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
On November 23 2016 10:17 Danglars wrote: Not to parrot your posting style, but would you mind explaining in detail what you consider hate, and specifically what things on the right you equate with more of the same? I tire of reading again and again "that's just this" "you're ignoring when the other side does it" "yes there are some issues" "there are other legitimate concerns too" "your citations only reveal the deep flaws" "they don't make the case" "you don't disavow" "your side does it too" "your side's narratives do the same" If everything is morally equivalent, permit me to also yawn. You've thrown banal gripes into a shotgun and sprayed them wide. If you can't bring a concise response demonstrating hypocrisy and specific concerns, I'll have no idea if you gave them a reading or a fair reading. As for xDaunt and Kwark, let me provide my perspective on both of them, since they both come up a lot. Kwark, he's a self-described "cultural objectivist and imperialist" who is quite set in his interpretation of events. And that comes with its own set of demons, but he does provide some nice insights to make that bias reasonably tolerable. Where he goes wrong is indeed in that he uses his position as a moderator to insult people explicitly with impunity. Read the first few pages of this thread to see how many people have a problem with that. As for xDaunt, he sort of reminds me of how I used to post: with a tendency towards sorter, semi-inflammatory posts that nevertheless tend to make a good point and have a sort of short-post elegance to them. In a lot of cases he could stand to be more specific, but... have you ever considered actually asking him for clarification? He has a tendency to respond with specificity when asked for specificity. But when you take the "context wizard" approach to assuming what he means, only then does he get somewhat aggressive. When I get strawmanned the way he does on a regular basis I tend to walk away from the discussion because that's some really stupid shit. I think this actually falls in line quite well with xDaunt's own appraisal of the situation, to give him credit there. I know that someone, if they really wanted to, could turn around and offer some sort of interpretation that makes my comments here look like hypocrisy. And yet I'll say this much: I don't ask for the ban of people who I disagree with because I know damn well that I can't be an objective judge of that. Perhaps it would be reasonable for others to do the same. Kwark, as a mod, realizes this quite well, for example. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18834 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
and I disagree with your claims that I assume are directed to me in your first paragraph. and it contradicts what you danglars is saying; what danglars is saying is that most of my posts are too vague or vacuous, which means I'm not asserting anything at all; rather than asserting things that are false. So you need to clear up your claim there. I provide backup when needed or requested. and the points where xdaunt is making claims that are demonstrably false are rather clear. nor were you paying attention to how often I call people liars; I do so rarely, and when there's been ample evidence in thread that their claim is wrong. (not the claim they may have intended to make, but the claim the plain wording of their chosen words makes). xdaunt might need a ban, but warnings/curtailments might work as well. Note that I generally say something like moderator action; and in my post I did not call for a ban on xdaunt. there are many possible ways to resolve an issue, and I did not declare ban to be the one and correct punishment. If the improper behavior can be curtailed, then that is of course sufficient. if warnings or a talking to suffices, then that is fine. tofu -> no need for threadlock; we've taken the issue to website feedback and can await assessment there. saying some people need to chill out is not an accurate assessment however; i'ts more that there are real problems that need to be addressed. and allegations that certain people are needlessly provocative and insulting. in particular, xdaunt and I both seem to be people who claim that we don't start the bad posting, but may continue it if it is directed at us; which makes disputes over who started it rather important; and can lead to escalation problems. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 07 2016 00:15 zlefin wrote: more lies from xdaunt, as usual; so many claims that are provably false. as kwark doesn't really disagree with me on much of anything. nor have several others who clearly have deserved action who I would have actioned. Also fails to address the sound points I've raised; and resorts to an unjustified ad hominem; he's always starting fights, then claims it was the other person who provoked him. tofu, you yourself said asserting as true things that are false was actionable; and while it's not near as blatant as RiK, xdaunt does do it some. what's an example of xdaunt asserting "as true things that are false?" | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 07 2016 11:59 IgnE wrote: what's an example of xdaunt asserting "as true things that are false?" ok, made a writeup, as per your request: Ok, Igne, I searched for the points where I made the claims of lying; and will cover each of them. you may disagree with my conclusions. And they are far less blatant than the ones RiK did. They also are insulting/provoking in addition to false, and the insults are more the problem in these cases, though I maintain they are lies as well. They involve subjective judgments in part, and there's a wide range of conclusions one can make there; but his fall outside that. In addition, it can not simply be ignorance or foolishness; as xdaunt is quite smart and quite aware of things in the thread and the people in it. There have been times on some topics where there are better examples than the ones that will be here; I'll keep an eye out for them, and add them if I see them and remember to. First one concludes a small chain of responses at this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6368#127346 xdaunt accused many of us of not giving trump even a single ounce of fairness. He clearly included me in this category, and some others. I disputed his claim, as quite a few of us, like myself, have amply demonstrated in thread that we've given Trump some chance, though it easily might not have been entirely fair. It might well have been significantly unfair. But it clearly does not rise to the evil of not giving trump a single ounce of fairness. for example in my case, I did not declare him a racist, bigot, or rapist. He then doubled down on it, indicating it's not just hyperbole. So I declared it a lie; as it's been amply shown to the contrary in thread. a dispute occurs around here, this one doesn't really fit in the lie category well, but it's nearby so I add it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6371#127407 xdaunt says: "Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign" I said doing such a thing in that way would be petty. he was asserting it would be a proper and righteous act, and that his description also matched a proper and righteous act. In the feedback thread himself he lies, accusing me of: "Your "higher moderation standards" basically boil down to actioning anyone who disagrees with you and shows you up, while you get to freely label those posters as "liars" and "rude."" which, as I noted in the thread itself; is contradicted in my own posts wherein I note kwark, who I agree with in general, as a major problem offender. so it's just a nonsensical claim contradicted by my own recent posts. which I see little reason to classify as anything other than a lie. as things have quieted down now, I don't want to rehash these too heavily. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 08 2016 02:59 Paljas wrote: banning both xdaunt and zlefin sounds like a fair compromise This is politics and they have political differences and anyone can read and conclude which argument he/she tends to believe more. You should probably stay out if your compromise intends to bury the difference and wipe it all out. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
On December 08 2016 12:15 zlefin wrote: ok, made a writeup, as per your request: Ok, Igne, I searched for the points where I made the claims of lying; and will cover each of them. you may disagree with my conclusions. And they are far less blatant than the ones RiK did. They also are insulting/provoking in addition to false, and the insults are more the problem in these cases, though I maintain they are lies as well. They involve subjective judgments in part, and there's a wide range of conclusions one can make there; but his fall outside that. In addition, it can not simply be ignorance or foolishness; as xdaunt is quite smart and quite aware of things in the thread and the people in it. There have been times on some topics where there are better examples than the ones that will be here; I'll keep an eye out for them, and add them if I see them and remember to. First one concludes a small chain of responses at this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6368#127346 xdaunt accused many of us of not giving trump even a single ounce of fairness. He clearly included me in this category, and some others. I disputed his claim, as quite a few of us, like myself, have amply demonstrated in thread that we've given Trump some chance, though it easily might not have been entirely fair. It might well have been significantly unfair. But it clearly does not rise to the evil of not giving trump a single ounce of fairness. for example in my case, I did not declare him a racist, bigot, or rapist. He then doubled down on it, indicating it's not just hyperbole. So I declared it a lie; as it's been amply shown to the contrary in thread. a dispute occurs around here, this one doesn't really fit in the lie category well, but it's nearby so I add it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6371#127407 xdaunt says: "Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign" I said doing such a thing in that way would be petty. he was asserting it would be a proper and righteous act, and that his description also matched a proper and righteous act. In the feedback thread himself he lies, accusing me of: "Your "higher moderation standards" basically boil down to actioning anyone who disagrees with you and shows you up, while you get to freely label those posters as "liars" and "rude."" which, as I noted in the thread itself; is contradicted in my own posts wherein I note kwark, who I agree with in general, as a major problem offender. so it's just a nonsensical claim contradicted by my own recent posts. which I see little reason to classify as anything other than a lie. as things have quieted down now, I don't want to rehash these too heavily. Not gonna lie, every complaint here seems petty and trivial. You are free not to engage in discussion with people who you don't want to talk to by the way. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I made the list cuz igne requested it; as I noted in it, I realized that the recent stuff was less in the lying category than some of his other stuff, and I'll keep an eye out. I am making some effort to avoid him; but trolls have a way of causing problems even if you try to avoid them. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
| ||
| ||
