EPT
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 6
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44109 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:48 opisska wrote: 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. People did. It didn't help. He doubled down. At a certain point if you don't know what caused the Second World War maybe you should stop arguing about it and go to wikipedia for a basic explanation of it. Ignorance is excusable but willful ignorance is not. The correct response by him should be "ooops, that's embarrassing, brb finding out what the Second World War was", not On July 28 2016 01:33 Cowboy24 wrote: 600,000 US soldiers died in WW2. Now, granted, some of those were in the Pacific, however... No, go ahead keep it up. Here's my response: When your country loses six-hundred thousand men fighting in Utah to save us from robo-Hitler, you can talk. Until then, I don't care. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44109 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:50 LegalLord wrote: 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. When Cowboy claimed that the A-Rabs were practicing imperialism and the west wasn't I wrote an essay on what imperialism was at which point Cowboy said "I don't see how any of that is relevant because imperialism is like when one country wants to, like, attack another country like how Iran does". To give a parallel to how much of a brick wall his person is imagine the following exchange Cowboy: "Evolution can't be real because my uncle lived on a boat but my cousin doesn't have fins." Me: *Long detailed explanation of what evolution is and the mechanism by which it works. Cowboy: "No but that's all like science stuff, I don't see how any of that is relevant, I was talking about evolution, like how when a monkey gives birth to a human and shit". opisska can you see why that kind of deliberate ignorance is a problem? Or to put it another way, if I were to pretend to be as ignorant as he actually is I should absolutely be banned for trolling because going into a topic and spouting stupid shit just to rile up other posters and force them to debunk what I was saying is pretty much what trolling is. Now I don't think he is deliberately trolling, I think he is just a moron of the highest order. This is why I have made several generous and altruistic attempts to educate him in the past. However at a certain point if he is incapable of actual knowledge of the subject he should, at the very least, be capable of knowledge of his own lack of knowledge. That is, he should know enough about his own ignorance to be silent until such a time as he has learned a little more. But he doesn't do that, he just keeps on posting. His posting is indistinguishable from that of a troll. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
It's very tempting to support the "ban ignorance" line, as long as our views on truth coincide. In the case of historical events it's almost straightforward, but drawing the line is very difficult. You have, in the past, shown willingness to push your views on much more disputed issues (such as in the transgender debates and the whole "What is rape" freakshow) as a clear-cut truth. That's just not a way to run a discussion forum, if you set some points as undisputable from the position of power. Again, unless you understand that, you will not be a good moderator of discussion. edit for the second half of the double post: I do understand the point. Believe me, I really do, I have done a fair share of debunking nonsense in my life (mainly in science outreach). But I just still can't see how approaching the problem from a position of power is a good solution. If you can't educate the guy, ignore him. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44109 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4624 post# something ending in 74 is where it starts. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44109 Posts
On August 03 2016 05:36 zlefin wrote: he's baaaack (vayneauthority) and borderline trolling, hard to be sure yet though. and since it's me he's chosen to go after for now, I'll leave reports to others; but boy is he being obnoxious from my pov. Seen. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22424 Posts
On August 14 2016 05:07 LegalLord wrote: No different from the last time the entire thread had to explain the ACA and how risk spreading through insurance works ><.I'll just note that I think Atreides is shitting up the thread right now by randomly insulting people that disagree with him. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44109 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:47 Atreides wrote: Edit2: Also I'm pretty sure KwarK post is so retarded it doesn't need a response but I'll give it a one-liner. I'll be fine.  | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
KadaverBB
Germany25658 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 20 2016 04:08 Falling wrote: I actually consider the repeated refrain "we just don't deal with that guy anymore, therefore argument invalid" as a far greater reason to close down the US Politics thread because as I've observed before, people have stopped discussing. You certainly can choose who you do and do not respond to- I after all pick and choose which topics I want to discuss all the time. But by the same measure, if you aren't going to engage, then lay off the 'well x is just x so invalid.' While it can be true, if a poster has become a partisan puppet or a reddit reposter, responding to everything in hackneyed partisan sound bytes and one liners, but then it that case moderation will typically step in, but it's a clear case of the entire thread becoming pulled down by a really terrible and lazy poster incapable or unwilling to self-reflect and re-evaluate. But if a person is bothering to actually use sources, providing actual excerpts and links to where you can find the rest rather than the typical "watch this two hour video that refutes all your points" *mic drop*, then I take a low view of the casual dismissal of the person. Don't respond if you don't want to respond, but don't declare victory if you don't want to engage. Now I do think kwizach could afford to make his posts shorter and therefore more manageable to engage with, but I dislike that an attempt at providing sources (synthesized no less rather than "read these 3 books and get back to me, peasant") was met with a "pffff"... unless the sources are really that bad. It's not the fact that he provides sources that really makes it an issue. It's personally not my style - I provide sources when I think they are necessary but I like to keep posts at a more manageable length, at the cost of occasionally making claims that are or that appear to be unsubstantiated - but if he wants to post a long response with many sources for everything then that's all well and good. The problem is that once you start actually debating the issue with him the thread quickly becomes unpleasant. I already posted my issues with his style before and I won't post them again because it would only serve to be jerkish (and you can read them if you want, and you can feel free to disagree with my assessment of his posting habits. But I think that the flaws in his posting are severe enough that they do not warrant a response from me. It's not really "ur shit so ur point is shit" as it is "you are unpleasant to discuss this issue with so I won't even bother to talk to you." I feel this way even when I do agree with him on specific issues. Now kwizach isn't the only person who has severe unpleasant flaws in his posting that warrant being ignored, but there is one specific thing he does that makes me feel that it is justified to call him out specifically: he is quite incapable of letting an issue go, and interprets any criticism as something that he has to react defensively to. He resurrected old comments to give a reply to a bunch of issues that people stopped talking about a long time ago. But more than that, the majority of his post was a long reply to try to say why people are wrong to criticize him, in a very defensive manner that really just lends itself to a pissing contest. Even to some post along the lines of "iunno I guess he just stopped posting" he feels that he needs to explain that his detractors DIDN'T stop him from posting, that he had his OWN reasons, and that it means NOTHING to him that some people don't care for his opinion. Would anyone have really thought anything different if he just ignored those offhand comments, the way everyone who posts enough to warrant personal criticism generally ignores their detractors? If he didn't address me specifically I would have said nothing. But since he did, and I know from experience that if I don't say something he will simply drone on and on and on about how he posted a glorious rebuttal to my point (a comment made more than a week ago as part of a discussion that ended very shortly after). And as far as my post made far upthread, I gave a specific reason to someone for why I didn't address kwizach's post when specifically asked about such. These are the kinds of things that warrant a response along the lines of the one that I made. It does look petty from the side but in this case it was perfectly justified. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11555 Posts
Yes he brought back a debate I was not to eager to see rehashed, on the other hand, there was recently a decent number of declarative 'We broke kwizach' / 'No-one listens to kwizach. It is known', which to my mind is pretty much begging for a response by kwizach. I don't really see the most recent response as not letting a thing go, when he was being brought to the fore by a bit of dancing on kwizach's grave so to speak. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
The posts he addressed were from a long while ago. Most people would just choose to ignore it and move on. It really is kind of annoying and unpleasant to bring up stuff that mostly happened months ago. I have had much more unflattering jabs directed my way than I posted in the thread here and earlier, and I most certainly don't think it would do any good to bring it up two months later. Hell, anything more than a short "nah idiot" reply right after is just poisoning the discussion. Do you really think that the response he made, spending 2/3 of three very long posts criticizing that people said mean things about him months ago, contributed in any positive way to the discussion? Do you think it was a necessary face saving measure? My opinion is that it was neither and it did, as xDaunt put it, shit up the thread with stuff that nobody really wants to talk about. As an aside, is there a way to find out when one post quotes another poster or is that a mod feature? | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:52 LegalLord wrote: As an aside, is there a way to find out when one post quotes another poster or is that a mod feature? You can look at everyone who quoted your own posts. http://www.teamliquid.net/mytlnet/myquotes.php You could find other users quoting other posters using the search function as well; a larger chain would make this much easier. | ||
| ||
