If only people didn't say ignorant things like "racism is so dead" I wouldn't bother to even engage. That's just so monumentally ignorant and offensive I can't let it slide. I know TL thinks things like that are fine but I wont let ignorance like that go unchecked myself.

IgnE

United States7681 Posts

June 15 2016 19:06 GMT

#83

this meta discussion going on about the underlying discussion's worthiness is so tiresome. can we dispense with the hand-wringing and angst?

IgnE

United States7681 Posts

June 15 2016 19:18 GMT

#84

nevermind it's hopeless. try and have a dialogue to understand what the other side thinks and all you get is jargonned stonewalling.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

June 15 2016 22:01 GMT

#85

On June 16 2016 04:18 IgnE wrote:
nevermind it's hopeless. try and have a dialogue to understand what the other side thinks and all you get is jargonned stonewalling.

Yes, "jargoned stonewalling" is a good way to describe a lot of so-called "high content" posts that really are just long-winded shitposts. After a while I tend to just start tuning it out because it's just a circlejerk where some people say something, the other side says something else, and it becomes a battle of egos, posturing, and semantics rather than of content. This issue is one of those where no one really has anything new to add and people just start repeating the same old shit, but also feel like their egos are at stake and just have to defend themselves against the evil ideas of the opposition.

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

July 26 2016 19:04 GMT

#86

Can we get a ban on vayneauthority? A lot of people in thread are shitposting; but he's really being the most obnoxious about it; and he's not even adding anything useful to the discussion, or even representing a side that doesn't have many advocates (a reason we keep some people around).
Also needs more moderation in general.

KwarK

United States43729 Posts

July 26 2016 19:14 GMT

#87

On July 27 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:
Can we get a ban on vayneauthority? A lot of people in thread are shitposting; but he's really being the most obnoxious about it; and he's not even adding anything useful to the discussion, or even representing a side that doesn't have many advocates (a reason we keep some people around).
Also needs more moderation in general.

I'd really like to. I took a look at his mod history, he has an awful, awful mod history and is generally the kind of poster who shits things up. However I'm not gonna take action in that topic.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

July 26 2016 19:37 GMT

#88

I haven't seen anything worse than normal from him in that thread. More antagonistic than average but there are a lot of stupidly antagonistic people on certain topics. I think it'd be better to wait until there's something explicitly banworthy.

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

July 26 2016 19:50 GMT

#89

On July 27 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:
I haven't seen anything worse than normal from him in that thread. More antagonistic than average but there are a lot of stupidly antagonistic people on certain topics. I think it'd be better to wait until there's something explicitly banworthy.

the thing is; most people who are shitposters, at least provide some good posts to make them somewhat worthwhile to keep around (though i'd still prefer tighter moderation). He also seems to be antagonistic on nearly everything. I'm not sure he's had a single actually constructive post on anything. Also, people with a long mod history of being a problem and numerous bans should be given less slack, as they've been given ample notice and warning. at least that's my view on it.

edit: and it's been done, hurray!

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

July 26 2016 20:22 GMT

#90

The problem with tighter moderation is that it always ends up being partisan. You can't moderate inflammatory opinions out of existence and the people who post with a difficult style are more likely to be banned if they have unpopular opinions.

My personal solution is to ignore people who aren't worth talking to because it ends up being a shitty conversation. I also gloss over any of the "racism" debate because it gets nowhere and it's severely emotionally charged. I'm not happy about quite how many people in the thread are worthy of being blacklisted, but I don't quite think they deserve bans either. Not all of them at least.

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

July 26 2016 20:41 GMT

#91

It's certainly hard to avoid being partisan; though it should be possible (moreso if you can find someone to do it who really doesn't care about the issues of course)

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

July 26 2016 20:45 GMT

#92

There is pretty much no one who does not personally care about the issues. They have a very global effect.

Also, threads like this one (more so Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and guns) take up a disproportionate amount of the mod workload. One person wouldn't manage.

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

July 27 2016 00:30 GMT

#93

True; US has so much world effect it'd be a lot harder to find someone who doesn't care than it would be for some other things.
It would be a lot of work for one person, though doable if it's someone with enough spare time. I don't have a good sense of how high the average mod workload is. But it's certainly better to have multiple people working on it anyways. I reiterate my eternal offer to be in charge of it

mwahahaha.

IgnE

United States7681 Posts

July 27 2016 05:13 GMT

#94

Yo wtf? 600 posts in 8 hours? I don't wanna read that many shitposts but how will I know if anyone said anything interesting?

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

July 27 2016 05:18 GMT

#95

It's just LRing for the DNC. Skippable.

KwarK

United States43729 Posts

July 27 2016 17:30 GMT

#96

I absolutely think this kind of ignorance should be actionable

On July 28 2016 01:27 Cowboy24 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Probably to counteract whatever international alliances the Soviets were building and to create a nice fat buffer zone between Russia and Western Europe.

It just isn't very good policy now, in my opinion. Getting involved in European land-wars happened and I'm not going to re-litigate the past and say it was a mistake then, but going forward it would be a mistake to continue. What do I care if Eastern Europe is too weak to protect their own borders? If Putin wants it and he can take it, let him. None of my business. Hell, if he wants Western Europe, none of my business and besides, he'd probably do better than most of the current fools who run things over there.

Europe should either start paying for our defense or paying for their own defense. I'm tired of sending American boys to die protecting European socialists.

It's not that he doesn't like NATO, it's that he thinks European socialists have a long history of invoking NATO in order to kill American boys. He angrily and vehemently defended this stance. If I had my way that shit would be gone.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

July 27 2016 17:32 GMT

#97

Cowboy24 specifically has been very simplistic in his understanding of the issues as far as I've seen. Definitely a poster I've mentally flagged as notably uninformed.

KwarK

United States43729 Posts

July 27 2016 17:37 GMT

#98

It's like he doesn't know that Nazi Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around, and that NATO was not a factor in that decision. Also that the socialists in the Second World War were the National Socialists, not whoever he thinks NATO was defending in WWII.

opisska

Poland8852 Posts

July 27 2016 17:48 GMT

#99

And that's why you are such a bad moderator. "This kind of ignorance" should be dealt with by debunking it, not by bannign the poster. If you don't understand why, I am afraid that there isn't much room to help you.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

July 27 2016 17:50 GMT

#100

I mean, it's not like Kwark hasn't posted plenty of "ELI5" type simplistic attempts to educate Cowboy24. It's more like he doesn't listen or doesn't care.