|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36923 Posts
On March 04 2017 02:14 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:There's nothing wrong with that part of the point, what I'm saying is the attitude of calling the thread a hellhole, half-joking about closing it forever, talking like this: On March 03 2017 12:55 tofucake wrote:
get your head out of your ass.
that thread is never good isn't a recipe for interacting with the community positively or shepherding things in the right direction. So, to recap: 1. The conservatives say the liberals suck at posting in US Politics 2. The liberals say the conservatives suck at posting in US Politics 3. I say everyone sucks at posting in US Politics 4. Stop sucking at posting in US Politics
LOL! I believe this sums it up pretty nicely. I love point #4.
|
On March 04 2017 02:44 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:14 tofucake wrote:On March 04 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:There's nothing wrong with that part of the point, what I'm saying is the attitude of calling the thread a hellhole, half-joking about closing it forever, talking like this: On March 03 2017 12:55 tofucake wrote:
get your head out of your ass.
that thread is never good isn't a recipe for interacting with the community positively or shepherding things in the right direction. I was not joking when I said that thread is awful. It accounts for more mod reports than most other entire forums we have. And it's because nobody is holding themselves accountable. During the election, when we were being very harsh with the actioning, people agreed that it was doing a lot of good. Since we let up a bit and tried to let you guys go back to policing yourselves, it's gone to shit again (if I'm to believe the feedback here). So by evidence supplied by both conservatives and liberals, nobody is able to actually maintain a good thread worth reading. However, I don't have any interest in reading every post and checking sources and trying to figure out tone of voice of posts and actioning things. It's almost as soul crushing as working retail. Nobody is even trying to self police. Everybody antagonizes and pushes others' buttons and then when angry retaliatory posts are made which have little bearing on the actual thread, everyone gets mad. All of you need to take responsibility for your own shitposting if you want other people to stop shitposting. So, to recap: 1. The conservatives say the liberals suck at posting in US Politics 2. The liberals say the conservatives suck at posting in US Politics 3. I say everyone sucks at posting in US Politics 4. Stop sucking at posting in US Politics If you read the thread guidelines in the OP, it gives the impression that the thread is supposed to be a place where people introduce topics of conversation about US politics and then have an impersonal, data-driven discussion about them. And yet, it always seems to get personal, very quickly. Hell, sometimes it seems like making it personal is almost a rhetorical strategy at this point (look at this guy with his ad hominem shitpost, clearly his criticism of my point is useless and irrelevant). Idk how to stop that though. Maybe locking the thread for a week and then moderating harshly is the right approach.
you can join me in the push for tighter moderation. imho stricter moderation fixes the problem fairly well, though it is a lot of work. and there are indeed some apparent or at least likely left/right biases in the moderation.
it gets personal in part because most people have been here so long that everyone knows everyone, and some people start trouble quite often, so stuff can fall apart quite readily, and people have run out of patience with certain other people's problem posting.
the main problem is simply it's a lot of work to moderate, and there's no staff that wants to put in the immense effort. and there's no alternate solution which has sufficient support to be approved.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Acrofales, it highly depends on what the post is. What I would like to see is a good discussion going on in the thread with a couple of icebreakers here and there. Politics can be a heated discussion as everyone knows by now so a humorous on-topic comment isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as it's within moderation. Of course, there are a lot of other factors and it's a case by case basis. Also, I've messaged some posters in the past regarding their posting if it gets out of hand.
On March 04 2017 02:14 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:There's nothing wrong with that part of the point, what I'm saying is the attitude of calling the thread a hellhole, half-joking about closing it forever, talking like this: On March 03 2017 12:55 tofucake wrote:
get your head out of your ass.
that thread is never good isn't a recipe for interacting with the community positively or shepherding things in the right direction. I was not joking when I said that thread is awful. It accounts for more mod reports than most other entire forums we have. And it's because nobody is holding themselves accountable. During the election, when we were being very harsh with the actioning, people agreed that it was doing a lot of good. Since we let up a bit and tried to let you guys go back to policing yourselves, it's gone to shit again (if I'm to believe the feedback here). So by evidence supplied by both conservatives and liberals, nobody is able to actually maintain a good thread worth reading.
Tofu's whole post is pretty much on point (just copied the first part).
|
On March 04 2017 03:51 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:20 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 00:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Are there many places on the internet where we actually have both conservatives and liberals engaged in more civil discourse? We live in a tense period of time, political actions have real consequences, people see their lives negatively influenced by policies.. It makes sense that people are angry. But what we need is more dialogue, not less.
I think most of us can just, assume some personal responsibility, read your post before you press post, evaluate whether that snarky line is really necessary, maybe remove it if it isn't. But like, 2017 politics is a contentious issue. And the reason it's contentious, is that it's important. Seeing as how we're a website centered around gaming, I get that some of it can seem out of place, but I really think we can, and should, accept more adversity when it comes to issues that really, truly matter, than what we accept from balance discussions or whether flash bisu or jaedong is king of brood war. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that the complaint isn't about all of the liberal posters so much as it is about a few of the liberal posters. This is not a new complaint that can be chalked up to the current polarized political environment. There's been a disparity in the moderation of conservative and liberal posters for years. Conservative shitposting was basically stamped out whereas no such purge was ever conducted on the other side. Please give an example of a liberal post which according to you crossed the line, but wasn't actioned, despite being reported. Also, RiK is still around, as is SoSexy. Plenty of opportunity for rightwing shitposting. The time I've been banned are from reasons such as "Stop with the hyperbole and derailing and unsourced claims." But users like Plansix, Biff the Understudy goes around calling Pence stupid as an one liner and Biff Understudy just say "Oh yeah we've established that already." without anything to back them up. Then he continues on with the usual insult like: "Looks like a weird monk with no charisma and 1920's opinion was an efficient counterweight to the Donald." And those users end up getting away with it without even a warning. The mods are clearly biased.
Oh come on. Nobody whined when you guys destroyed Kaine after his VP debate. I even had to agree he indeed did look like The Joker.
But tell me, because i am interested: how saying that Pence has no charisma and has been chosen because it counterbalances Trump's "colorful" personality to the conservative base warrants me being banned.
It's so self evident that if it warranted action, it would be for lack of originality. Or is it the "weird monk" you didn't like? Or the 1920s opinion? Well the guy thinks that the earth is 6000 yo, so should i have said 1620s?
I mean i don't believe i am without blame for anything, abd I certainly am too emotional and confrontational in general in that thread, but mate you can find worse posts from me if you want to publicly expose how much i should get banned, really.
I've posted a lot, you'll find what you need.
|
I find the fact that the metathread has gone to 50 pages highly fascinating. There is now a subcommunity on TL devoted to arguing who from another subcommunity is the worst! How ... human 
|
On March 05 2017 02:02 opisska wrote:I find the fact that the metathread has gone to 50 pages highly fascinating. There is now a subcommunity on TL devoted to arguing who from another subcommunity is the worst! How ... human
im sure it will get more meta with time.
|
On March 04 2017 22:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 03:51 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 04 2017 01:20 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 00:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Are there many places on the internet where we actually have both conservatives and liberals engaged in more civil discourse? We live in a tense period of time, political actions have real consequences, people see their lives negatively influenced by policies.. It makes sense that people are angry. But what we need is more dialogue, not less.
I think most of us can just, assume some personal responsibility, read your post before you press post, evaluate whether that snarky line is really necessary, maybe remove it if it isn't. But like, 2017 politics is a contentious issue. And the reason it's contentious, is that it's important. Seeing as how we're a website centered around gaming, I get that some of it can seem out of place, but I really think we can, and should, accept more adversity when it comes to issues that really, truly matter, than what we accept from balance discussions or whether flash bisu or jaedong is king of brood war. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that the complaint isn't about all of the liberal posters so much as it is about a few of the liberal posters. This is not a new complaint that can be chalked up to the current polarized political environment. There's been a disparity in the moderation of conservative and liberal posters for years. Conservative shitposting was basically stamped out whereas no such purge was ever conducted on the other side. Please give an example of a liberal post which according to you crossed the line, but wasn't actioned, despite being reported. Also, RiK is still around, as is SoSexy. Plenty of opportunity for rightwing shitposting. The time I've been banned are from reasons such as "Stop with the hyperbole and derailing and unsourced claims." But users like Plansix, Biff the Understudy goes around calling Pence stupid as an one liner and Biff Understudy just say "Oh yeah we've established that already." without anything to back them up. Then he continues on with the usual insult like: "Looks like a weird monk with no charisma and 1920's opinion was an efficient counterweight to the Donald." And those users end up getting away with it without even a warning. The mods are clearly biased. Oh come on. Nobody whined when you guys destroyed Kaine after his VP debate. I even had to agree he indeed did look like The Joker. But tell me, because i am interested: how saying that Pence has no charisma and has been chosen because it counterbalances Trump's "colorful" personality to the conservative base warrants me being banned. It's so self evident that if it warranted action, it would be for lack of originality. Or is it the "weird monk" you didn't like? Or the 1920s opinion? Well the guy thinks that the earth is 6000 yo, so should i have said 1620s? I mean i don't believe i am without blame for anything, abd I certainly am too emotional and confrontational in general in that thread, but mate you can find worse posts from me if you want to publicly expose how much i should get banned, really. I've posted a lot, you'll find what you need.
"You guys"?
I didn't say anything bad about Kaine during the VP debate.
But I've personally gotten banned for saying how Trump was on point in the debate with how he focused on how he would fix Obamacare, bought attention to the growing issue of illegal immigrants, the issues of radical Islam, and that he would pull in a lot of fund to rebuild inner cities while Hilary was going off on how she is reading from anecdotal evidence that some young kids are scared of Trump being president as a total emotional arguments.
Then I get banned for saying those stuff because of "no evidence".
And then people like zlefin, Plansix, you, and people constantly name calls Trump as man babies. Just constantly shitposting about him.
The mods doesn't bat an eye for behaviors like this.
The mods are clearly biased.
|
Hyrule18982 Posts
Fun fact, you weren't banned for "no evidence" when discussing those points, you were banned for no evidence when you said Trump was a better person than Hillary.
|
United States42008 Posts
What amuses me is that RiK seems to genuinely believe that there is no evidence to suggest that Trump is thin skinned, irrational and cries about how everything is unfair. He lives in a complete fantasy.
|
On March 05 2017 06:14 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 22:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 04 2017 03:51 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 04 2017 01:20 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 00:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Are there many places on the internet where we actually have both conservatives and liberals engaged in more civil discourse? We live in a tense period of time, political actions have real consequences, people see their lives negatively influenced by policies.. It makes sense that people are angry. But what we need is more dialogue, not less.
I think most of us can just, assume some personal responsibility, read your post before you press post, evaluate whether that snarky line is really necessary, maybe remove it if it isn't. But like, 2017 politics is a contentious issue. And the reason it's contentious, is that it's important. Seeing as how we're a website centered around gaming, I get that some of it can seem out of place, but I really think we can, and should, accept more adversity when it comes to issues that really, truly matter, than what we accept from balance discussions or whether flash bisu or jaedong is king of brood war. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that the complaint isn't about all of the liberal posters so much as it is about a few of the liberal posters. This is not a new complaint that can be chalked up to the current polarized political environment. There's been a disparity in the moderation of conservative and liberal posters for years. Conservative shitposting was basically stamped out whereas no such purge was ever conducted on the other side. Please give an example of a liberal post which according to you crossed the line, but wasn't actioned, despite being reported. Also, RiK is still around, as is SoSexy. Plenty of opportunity for rightwing shitposting. The time I've been banned are from reasons such as "Stop with the hyperbole and derailing and unsourced claims." But users like Plansix, Biff the Understudy goes around calling Pence stupid as an one liner and Biff Understudy just say "Oh yeah we've established that already." without anything to back them up. Then he continues on with the usual insult like: "Looks like a weird monk with no charisma and 1920's opinion was an efficient counterweight to the Donald." And those users end up getting away with it without even a warning. The mods are clearly biased. Oh come on. Nobody whined when you guys destroyed Kaine after his VP debate. I even had to agree he indeed did look like The Joker. But tell me, because i am interested: how saying that Pence has no charisma and has been chosen because it counterbalances Trump's "colorful" personality to the conservative base warrants me being banned. It's so self evident that if it warranted action, it would be for lack of originality. Or is it the "weird monk" you didn't like? Or the 1920s opinion? Well the guy thinks that the earth is 6000 yo, so should i have said 1620s? I mean i don't believe i am without blame for anything, abd I certainly am too emotional and confrontational in general in that thread, but mate you can find worse posts from me if you want to publicly expose how much i should get banned, really. I've posted a lot, you'll find what you need. "You guys"? I didn't say anything bad about Kaine during the VP debate. But I've personally gotten banned for saying how Trump was on point in the debate with how he focused on how he would fix Obamacare, bought attention to the growing issue of illegal immigrants, the issues of radical Islam, and that he would pull in a lot of fund to rebuild inner cities while Hilary was going off on how she is reading from anecdotal evidence that some young kids are scared of Trump being president as a total emotional arguments. Then I get banned for saying those stuff because of "no evidence". And then people like zlefin, Plansix, you, and people constantly name calls Trump as man babies. Just constantly shitposting about him. The mods doesn't bat an eye for behaviors like this. The mods are clearly biased.
That's terrible.
I will make sure i explain and source why Pence looks like a weird monk next time I say something like that.
Sarcasm apart, I've been banned too several times, although it has been quite a few years, and what I get from it with the time perspective is that every time I was being a bit of a douche. I still am sometimes, and I try not to. You can whine about bans or just try to see where mods are coming from. From my experience usually they have a point.
Moderation is fine and so is that thread, despite tofucake very hard judgement on us. There is a lot of well argumented points, interesting ideas and posts with a lot of efforts put into them. And when someone is really being too much of a cock, he gets actionned. I don't know why people get so upset by the whole thing.
I don't like your opinions at all, but I'm happy you can express yourself, be confronted about your beliefs by us dirty leftists and confront is when we don't make sense, and don't wish you to get banned again.
|
On March 05 2017 06:45 tofucake wrote:
Fun fact, you weren't banned for "no evidence" when discussing those points, you were banned for no evidence when you said Trump was a better person than Hillary.
I've clearly provided evidence that Trump spoke highly of Hilary's character while Hilary Clinton evaded that question and went for the low blow to just say nice things about Trump's kids.
|
On March 05 2017 07:44 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 06:45 tofucake wrote:
Fun fact, you weren't banned for "no evidence" when discussing those points, you were banned for no evidence when you said Trump was a better person than Hillary. I've clearly provided evidence that Trump spoke highly of Hilary's character while Hilary Clinton evaded that question and went for the low blow to just say nice things about Trump's kids.
That's the debate when he said that he would put crooked Hillary in jail? How could she be so mean not to say what a great man he is. I don't get it. I mean the man spent the entire campaign throwing mud, exaggerated accusations and conspiracy theories at her, a true gentleman, and she was so ungrateful she couldn't compliment him on his wonderful temperament, great manners and immense modesty.
Aaaaanyways..
|
On March 05 2017 02:02 opisska wrote:I find the fact that the metathread has gone to 50 pages highly fascinating. There is now a subcommunity on TL devoted to arguing who from another subcommunity is the worst! How ... human
The metathread to the megathread.
I don't pretend to have an easy answer for the steadily-reemerging topic in this area of website feedback. Less tolerance has historically been shown for one of two broad sides in the debate. It continues now. I get enough enjoyment from interacting to continue, with breaks here and there. I acknowledge a volunteer moderation staff is unsuited to continually evaluate what style of snide one-liner shitposts is just north of the moderation line.
EG:
+ Show Spoiler +linkOn March 05 2017 06:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Thanks Trump voters for the consequences of Trump's ego. One liner, throwaway. An insult to Trump voters. But Trump's ego is outrageous and it technically responds to a news story. Not worth reporting because I'd lose the button if I bothered for every one of these
+ Show Spoiler +linkOn March 04 2017 21:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into. I alway enjoy the debates on how many of us are facist and poison the discourse. Or if black protesters are vermin. Real enlightened stuff. Snide asides on posters, personal attacks. Bringing up past smears to discredit. Bad faith flippant remarks returned for actual ABC this happened, this is how I characterize it, this is how it connects to the bigger picture. Serves only as service for in-crowd echo chamber. I'll hazard a report, just to keep up on where the line stands. But my gut tells me only maybe 25% of mods would put it below the line, like previous nonactions turned into actions by other mods.
|
On March 05 2017 08:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 07:44 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 05 2017 06:45 tofucake wrote:
Fun fact, you weren't banned for "no evidence" when discussing those points, you were banned for no evidence when you said Trump was a better person than Hillary. I've clearly provided evidence that Trump spoke highly of Hilary's character while Hilary Clinton evaded that question and went for the low blow to just say nice things about Trump's kids. That's the debate when he said that he would put crooked Hillary in jail? How could she be so mean not to say what a great man he is. I don't get it. I mean the man spent the entire campaign throwing mud, exaggerated accusations and conspiracy theories at her, a true gentleman, and she was so ungrateful she couldn't compliment him on his wonderful temperament, great manners and immense modesty. Aaaaanyways..
Was specifically talking about the debate.
On March 05 2017 09:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 02:02 opisska wrote:I find the fact that the metathread has gone to 50 pages highly fascinating. There is now a subcommunity on TL devoted to arguing who from another subcommunity is the worst! How ... human The metathread to the megathread. I don't pretend to have an easy answer for the steadily-reemerging topic in this area of website feedback. Less tolerance has historically been shown for one of two broad sides in the debate. It continues now. I get enough enjoyment from interacting to continue, with breaks here and there. I acknowledge a volunteer moderation staff is unsuited to continually evaluate what style of snide one-liner shitposts is just north of the moderation line. EG: + Show Spoiler +linkOn March 05 2017 06:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Thanks Trump voters for the consequences of Trump's ego. One liner, throwaway. An insult to Trump voters. But Trump's ego is outrageous and it technically responds to a news story. Not worth reporting because I'd lose the button if I bothered for every one of these linkOn March 04 2017 21:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into. I alway enjoy the debates on how many of us are facist and poison the discourse. Or if black protesters are vermin. Real enlightened stuff. Snide asides on posters, personal attacks. Bringing up past smears to discredit. Bad faith flippant remarks returned for actual ABC this happened, this is how I characterize it, this is how it connects to the bigger picture. Serves only as service for in-crowd echo chamber. I'll hazard a report, just to keep up on where the line stands. But my gut tells me only maybe 25% of mods would put it below the line, like previous nonactions turned into actions by other mods.
Y'know what? I'm going to document all the things that the mods "missed" here from now onward.
|
|
|
United States42008 Posts
Every post RiK makes is a shitpost that is overlooked on the grounds that being delusional isn't by itself normally actionable. He doesn't even respond to refutations. He just goes through the topic spouting his insane gibberish, like that the mainstream media created the lie that Trump, who was sued by the Justice Department for not leasing apartments to "colored" people, was a racist. There are rocks with more self awareness. But by all means RiK, go ahead and make a list.
|
On March 05 2017 09:55 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 08:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 05 2017 07:44 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 05 2017 06:45 tofucake wrote:
Fun fact, you weren't banned for "no evidence" when discussing those points, you were banned for no evidence when you said Trump was a better person than Hillary. I've clearly provided evidence that Trump spoke highly of Hilary's character while Hilary Clinton evaded that question and went for the low blow to just say nice things about Trump's kids. That's the debate when he said that he would put crooked Hillary in jail? How could she be so mean not to say what a great man he is. I don't get it. I mean the man spent the entire campaign throwing mud, exaggerated accusations and conspiracy theories at her, a true gentleman, and she was so ungrateful she couldn't compliment him on his wonderful temperament, great manners and immense modesty. Aaaaanyways.. Was specifically talking about the debate. Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 09:12 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2017 02:02 opisska wrote:I find the fact that the metathread has gone to 50 pages highly fascinating. There is now a subcommunity on TL devoted to arguing who from another subcommunity is the worst! How ... human The metathread to the megathread. I don't pretend to have an easy answer for the steadily-reemerging topic in this area of website feedback. Less tolerance has historically been shown for one of two broad sides in the debate. It continues now. I get enough enjoyment from interacting to continue, with breaks here and there. I acknowledge a volunteer moderation staff is unsuited to continually evaluate what style of snide one-liner shitposts is just north of the moderation line. EG: + Show Spoiler +linkOn March 05 2017 06:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Thanks Trump voters for the consequences of Trump's ego. One liner, throwaway. An insult to Trump voters. But Trump's ego is outrageous and it technically responds to a news story. Not worth reporting because I'd lose the button if I bothered for every one of these linkOn March 04 2017 21:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into. I alway enjoy the debates on how many of us are facist and poison the discourse. Or if black protesters are vermin. Real enlightened stuff. Snide asides on posters, personal attacks. Bringing up past smears to discredit. Bad faith flippant remarks returned for actual ABC this happened, this is how I characterize it, this is how it connects to the bigger picture. Serves only as service for in-crowd echo chamber. I'll hazard a report, just to keep up on where the line stands. But my gut tells me only maybe 25% of mods would put it below the line, like previous nonactions turned into actions by other mods. Y'know what? I'm going to document all the things that the mods "missed" here from now onward.
If you have nothing better to do...
Who knows, you might even get someone banned three days if you persevere. One has to dream big.
|
On March 05 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Every post RiK makes is a shitpost that is overlooked on the grounds that being delusional isn't by itself normally actionable. He doesn't even respond to refutations. He just goes through the topic spouting his insane gibberish, like that the mainstream media created the lie that Trump, who was sued by the Justice Department for not leasing apartments to "colored" people, was a racist. There are rocks with more self awareness. But by all means RiK, go ahead and make a list.
Lol, responded to plenty of "refutations" on this thread alone.
You got no logical ground here.
|
I get the impression that something like the QQ/rage threads for people to complain about their bad games might have some merit for politics, just to dump all the QQ/rage about politicians into so it's less occupying the main thread.
Of course that would require a separate QQ/rage about politics thread, and some effort to maintain the separation.
Mostly it just occurred to me as an idea worth mentioning that may have some use.
|
On March 07 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:
I get the impression that something like the QQ/rage threads for people to complain about their bad games might have some merit for politics, just to dump all the QQ/rage about politicians into so it's less occupying the main thread.
Of course that would require a separate QQ/rage about politics thread, and some effort to maintain the separation.
Mostly it just occurred to me as an idea worth mentioning that may have some use.
I actually kind of like this idea if people from both sides can keep from
a) attacking each other in said thread and
b) quoting it as a cheap way to discredit people in the main thread
If that sounds even remotely doable then why not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
