|
On February 11 2019 10:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2019 09:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:
what i've gathered from this thread is that some of the people who don't like GH being bant don't like it because they enjoyed his aggressive-aggressive ranting because it targeted opinions and people they disagree with
aka tribalism
if it had been aimed at the political opinions they have and the people advocating them, i think their opinion of his banning would be quite different
note i said SOME ok not ALL
whether you enjoyed it or not it very clearly went right up to the line TL has instituted and not uncommonly went over it This is deeply stupid. GH and I agreed on far more than we disagreed on political. He was unapologetic asshole who treated people like shit. Its not complicated. The guy was a condescending jerk more often than not.
i think DEB might be referring to the conservatives who used to say "GH gets it" when he was bashing the neolibs, which was some of the most transparent baiting ever.
i suppose i'll miss having someone unironically talk about the coming proleteriat revolution. i think fondly of the time he argued that driverless cars meant i hated the poor. i'll pour one out for GH.
|
If that if that was what he was saying, I apologize. I misread the post.
|
Too hard to tell what deepelmblues is writing about. Too many "its" and "they" without clarifying what its is, uppercase letters in the wrong places, lowercase letters in the wrong places, lack of punctuation, too many disconnected sentences. it s almost like reading fluidrone
or one of MY
posts
what is bant ?
|
Banter. It is short hand for banter.
|
...some of the people who don't like GH being bant...
In this context I think it's probably "banned".
|
On February 11 2019 23:50 Aquanim wrote:In this context I think it's probably "banned".
How very Romanian of you...
|
On February 08 2019 20:56 opisska wrote:
The ban reason states quite clearly what the priorities of TL moderation is and it is the same reason why I am basically one step from hell here as well: more then anything, they are now about being respected. I fully expect someone to jump here and say it is not true and that it is just "explaining their motivations to them" or something along those lines, but there is now a mountain of evidence that "being respected" is the key priority of at least some members of the TL mod team.
It wasn't like that in the past and the shift was slow and thus never really perceived, until it just brought about a slow genocide of veterans who signed up years ago for a completely different forum.
I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe.
The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on.
|
SK.testie is still around. I beleive he's just not allowed to post in the EU pol thread anymore, so he doesn't get himself permbanned as TL seem to like having him around. I don't know why though. To be fair, "veterans" and "media personalities" get a lot of leeway, which I disagree with, as they either tend to get emboldened and explode into a raging asshole because they get away with it, or they explode into a raging asshole and suddenly they don't get away with it as what they regard as before.
The general leeway given to vets also leads to a lot of new posters getting banned when responding similarily to them, or see how vets post and adjust to their level as they assume that the behaviour exhibited of vets are permissable.
In anycase, there is definately an element of immature mods, but there too is an element of immature vets. It's not really a fair comparison as one side has all the power and in any case it presumes that any of the mods or posters are of a mature age anyways.
|
On February 12 2019 02:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 20:56 opisska wrote:
The ban reason states quite clearly what the priorities of TL moderation is and it is the same reason why I am basically one step from hell here as well: more then anything, they are now about being respected. I fully expect someone to jump here and say it is not true and that it is just "explaining their motivations to them" or something along those lines, but there is now a mountain of evidence that "being respected" is the key priority of at least some members of the TL mod team.
It wasn't like that in the past and the shift was slow and thus never really perceived, until it just brought about a slow genocide of veterans who signed up years ago for a completely different forum. I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe. The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on.
zlefin - similar to GH, wouldn't give up on being an ass.
oneofthem - committed sudoku by mod.
GH - discussed at length.
Testie - called people monkeys, defended the 14 words and #justotherwhitenationalistthings. still around, too.
then others like samzdat (who i think got much less leniency than the others mentioned) and a whole slew of other people that have faded from memory.
it may be more that the mods/ TL grew up, but users didn't.
|
On February 12 2019 02:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 20:56 opisska wrote:
The ban reason states quite clearly what the priorities of TL moderation is and it is the same reason why I am basically one step from hell here as well: more then anything, they are now about being respected. I fully expect someone to jump here and say it is not true and that it is just "explaining their motivations to them" or something along those lines, but there is now a mountain of evidence that "being respected" is the key priority of at least some members of the TL mod team.
It wasn't like that in the past and the shift was slow and thus never really perceived, until it just brought about a slow genocide of veterans who signed up years ago for a completely different forum. I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe. The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on.
I think you have a bit of a fallacy here. Just because the USPol thread tends to claim veterans (not even sure that is true), doesn't mean the mods are prone to ban veterans more than newbies. It's just that people who come to a Starcraft site for the first time, don't tend to beeline for the USPol thread (except for PBUs), and thus people who get banned for their posting in the USPol thread are generally veterans of the site... just because non-veterans don't really find their way to the USPol thread in the first place.
The USPol thread also has somewhat different rules from the rest of the site. If people behaved as absurdly assholy to one another anywhere outside USPol (or TL Mafia, may it rest in peace), they would've gotten banned ages ago. It just so happens that if there is one topic that inflames people with more argumentative ardor than "how OP protoss is", it is politics. So people who are perfectly civil and nice on the rest of TL turn into raging monsters on the USPol thread. xDaunt is a prime example: he was a writer, and put out many thoughtful, high quality HotS articles, but has gotten into trouble more than once for his posting on USPol.
Moreover, out of the list you mention, I don't think a single one was banned directly due to their posting in USPol. In fact, most otherwise fine posters just get hit with a thread ban, rather than a site ban. zlefin got banned for continuously harrassing people by PM. oneofthem I don't remember, but I believe he just went on a flaming rampage of suicide for no clear reason. Testie isn't permed. I'm not even sure he's still threadbanned, as I see his posts from time to time.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On February 12 2019 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:35 oBlade wrote:On February 08 2019 20:56 opisska wrote:
The ban reason states quite clearly what the priorities of TL moderation is and it is the same reason why I am basically one step from hell here as well: more then anything, they are now about being respected. I fully expect someone to jump here and say it is not true and that it is just "explaining their motivations to them" or something along those lines, but there is now a mountain of evidence that "being respected" is the key priority of at least some members of the TL mod team.
It wasn't like that in the past and the shift was slow and thus never really perceived, until it just brought about a slow genocide of veterans who signed up years ago for a completely different forum. I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe. The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on. zlefin - similar to GH, wouldn't give up on being an ass. oneofthem - committed sudoku by mod. GH - discussed at length. Testie - called people monkeys, defended the 14 words and #justotherwhitenationalistthings. still around, too. then others like samzdat (who i think got much less leniency than the others mentioned) and a whole slew of other people that have faded from memory. it may be more that the mods/ TL grew up, but users didn't.
I can't speak about oneofthem since I wasn't moderating the thread as much then. Testie is also still around as well like you mentioned. Lots of discussions can take place when moderating single Pol posts since trying to keep consistency among mods can be rough, and even more so when a poster is going to get permed such as GH. Having said that, in this case, the decision was quite unanimous among the most active mods. The site and more specifically the US Pol threads have rules. They are in place to make sure discussions happen and people don't go hostile or off on tangents or various other reasons. Have people already forgotten just how bad US Pol was at one point when that rape convo happened for instance?
We've even been lenient at times considering some US Pol posters have 2 pages of mod notes and are still around. Suffice to say, not everyone will agree with the rules of US Pol and there will be some that think mods are power-tripping or w/e. Best to disagree in that case since actions speak louder than words. It's also funny to see the age thing come up. In the old TL days, there was less consistency in the sense that you could get banned if a mod didn't like you or if you guys had an argument. Nowadays, and especially since SCII's release, there's been a lot more consistency in moderation, and the rules are more laid out overall.
|
I actually don't mind.
Here's the thing. Many of the frequented threads on TL are "discussion" threads. There's the occasional "math" thread etc - but in general, the most frequented threads are indeed political discussions.
Now you gotta ask yourself, how much can a smart-alecky self righteous conspiracy theorist riding in on a self-perceived moral high horse actually add to a discussion-thread without stirring shit. It's like talking to a flat-earther.
People arguing that it adds an interesting viewpoint to the discussion, but i absolutely disagree. He derailed technically decent discussions by just flamebaiting via throwing the race card in, he engages in arguments while having zero idea what he's even talking about (EU Pol, teargas) - and of course doesn't back down once proven wrong. There's a few posters like this on TL, most of which do not participate in the Pol threads anymore for one reason or another (btw, that includes right and leftwing posters) - and i'm not arguing for a ban or something here, i'm trying to make clear that these people are able to conduct themselves in a manner (for the most part) that enables at least superficial conversation. They don't necro, they don't challenge (much) the moderation.
I'm of course not a moderator, but i'm pretty sure that if the moderation had an inclination that GHs conduct was temporarily, he wouldn't have gotten permabanned.
Usually permas aren't given out like haribos - and i've yet to see one that came out of the blue for no apparent reason.
|
On February 13 2019 15:06 m4ini wrote:
Now you gotta ask yourself, how much can a smart-alecky self righteous conspiracy theorist riding in on a self-perceived moral high horse actually add to a discussion-thread without stirring shit. It's like talking to a flat-earther.
It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine...
I share a lot of agreement with GH, but I'm not overly confrontational (or when I am, I am even more confrontational toward conservatives and that's something that we have less of a problem with as a forum, clearly). And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier.
|
On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote:... And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum.
...
Are you familiar with GreenHorizons' posts on the subject of 9/11?
EDIT: For instance the conversation starting here.
|
On February 13 2019 22:53 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote:... And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum.
... Are you familiar with GreenHorizons' posts on the subject of 9/11? EDIT: For instance the conversation starting here.
Not really, no.
|
Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance.
What's even stupider is that "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly. You'd have to be a goddamned idiot to believe there are no conspiracies in the world, it's not even an opinion it is a fact. Some of them were huge, that's also a fact.
edit: I guess aquanim didn't necessarily imply a negative connotation to conspiracy theorist, unlike the other guy (but I would guess that is how he feels by his post)
|
Aquanim is countering the notion that I brought up, that GH gets shit because he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it. He is attacking my argument that I don't get called a conspiracy theorist by saying that I'm not one and GH is, as examplified by his stance on 9/11.
What I find funny (somewhat, it's not hilarious) is that in the example brought up here, GH is talking about 9/11 because while they were discussing the way the US does foreign intervention, Wolf got annoyed talking to GH, and decided that it would be easier to dismiss him, so he brought up the 9/11 conspiracy theory clearly in an attempt to say "therefore we don't have to listen to what you're saying", and then the conversation moves to 9/11 because GH can't let go of stuff, ever =)
Long story short, I could use the same example provided by Aquanim against my point as an argument for my point. And what Aquanim did here is basically the same thing Wolf did there. It's meta, I love it
|
On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 15:06 m4ini wrote:
Now you gotta ask yourself, how much can a smart-alecky self righteous conspiracy theorist riding in on a self-perceived moral high horse actually add to a discussion-thread without stirring shit. It's like talking to a flat-earther.
It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine... I share a lot of agreement with GH, but I'm not overly confrontational (or when I am, I am even more confrontational toward conservatives and that's something that we have less of a problem with as a forum, clearly). And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier.
If you took away:
1. the shitty attitude
2. insulting PM's
3. conspiracy theories
GH would be kind of where you are. And he also wouldn't be banned, I think.
Beyond that, there is a element of both-sides-ism. I still have frankly have no idea what GH does for a living. While I don't want to make a claim of elitism or let-the-adults-talk because this is a forum for everyone to share their opinions and thoughts, GH debating how taxes worked (clearly had no idea what was going on) with KwarK (who is an accountant and tax cheapskate) or something was pretty much modern art.
|
On February 14 2019 00:03 travis wrote:
Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance.
What's even stupider is that "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly. You'd have to be a goddamned idiot to believe there are no conspiracies in the world, it's not even an opinion it is a fact. Some of them were huge, that's also a fact.
edit: I guess aquanim didn't necessarily imply a negative connotation to conspiracy theorist, unlike the other guy (but I would guess that is how he feels by his post)
Travis is correct. This is a very stupid stance that demonstrates a considerable lack of self-awareness. Just to illustrate, consider all of the left-wing posters (including mods) who swallowed the Trump/Russia collusion narrative hook, line, and sinker and peddled post after post accusing the Trump campaign of Russia-related treason. What are we going to do now that the whole, stupid narrative has collapsed? Ban all of those people? Of course not.
|
On February 14 2019 00:25 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2019 15:06 m4ini wrote:
Now you gotta ask yourself, how much can a smart-alecky self righteous conspiracy theorist riding in on a self-perceived moral high horse actually add to a discussion-thread without stirring shit. It's like talking to a flat-earther.
It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine... I share a lot of agreement with GH, but I'm not overly confrontational (or when I am, I am even more confrontational toward conservatives and that's something that we have less of a problem with as a forum, clearly). And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier. If you took away: 1. the shitty attitude 2. insulting PM's 3. conspiracy theories GH would be kind of where you are. And he also wouldn't be banned, I think. Beyond that, there is a element of both-sides-ism. I still have frankly have no idea what GH does for a living. While I don't want to make a claim of elitism or let-the-adults-talk because this is a forum for everyone to share their opinions and thoughts, GH debating how taxes worked (clearly had no idea what was going on) with KwarK (who is an accountant and tax cheapskate) or something was pretty much modern art.
You noticed now GH never revealed facts about himself or his life experiences. Or his education. Or anything beyond being black. He always seemed to keep that locked down for some reason. It wouldn’t be that bad if he wasn’t so aggressive ignorant on so many subjects. I remember when he tried to argue that the US cause the Korean War as some sort of imperial expansion. But when questioned on the subject he always gave half answers and clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Be he was very confident in his lack of understanding. And let’s not even get into the discussion of Lenin.
Edit: the knock against conspiracy theoriest isn’t what they believe, but how they argue. They effectively require someone to prove a negative. It is up to me to prove the moon landing was not faked. And proving a the absence of something, or that something doesn’t exist is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
