@zerkalo: i agree he didn't conduct himself optimally. people rarely do. debates and remarks often escalate. since when do we ban people for things other than spam, continuous wickedness or obnoxious stupidity?
I thought things changed recently after that whole blowout last time when multiple people were banned. I was under the impression that temp bans were going to be used more as a means of cooling off and warnings. In the past it was tons of warnings and then perma ban. I think this is better. 2 days is something I would promote as being a good way to prevent the need to perma ban someone.
It was only democracy that diluted the burden of dynastic disputes. Just wait until some major administrative changes need to happen. We will see who starts a famine or kills a fellow noble.
I thought things changed recently after that whole blowout last time when multiple people were banned. I was under the impression that temp bans were going to be used more as a means of cooling off and warnings. In the past it was tons of warnings and then perma ban. I think this is better. 2 days is something I would promote as being a good way to prevent the need to perma ban someone.
Hmmm, I was fast asleep and woke up to a thread that had, like 1200 views.
I thought "what kind of nincompoop revives an old intro thread?"
Then I clicked on it and "Aha - attractive woman introduces herself...."
....
Etc....
Err, yeah, Neckbeard got himself in it up to his neckbeard, indeed. However, it would be informative to read post #25 in this thread.
After carefully reading through his post history, it seems he is willing to entertain different perspectives, provided one is reasonable about it. Yes, he does say some dubious things about women in the random thoughts thread, but he did not say women don't have the intellectual potential. He stated that he thinks women are less intelligent because they don't have to use intellect as much to impress men. Rather unfortunate choice of words, Neckbeard - but I sort of get what you are saying
I'm a woman brought up in a small farming village in the 70's. I identify with males more than females. I am interested in "male" topics and disinterested in the stereotypical female discussions that occur at parties, etc. Things were a bit different in the 70s and women were generally discouraged from appearing too intellectual (the jolly 60s and the Stepford wives thing were still very much imprinted upon us).
The result was that I was quite under-stimulated, very bored and directionless in my late teens. Later I have realised I am indeed not stupid because I'm female or whatever and got myself two degrees and currently preparing myself for an Honours research project. My mind came back with a vengeance once I decided to set my synapses free to do what they want, and I stopped believing the voices in my head from my childhood.
...fast forward to Kara's intro and promptly put his foot in it, as he did eventually admit. He did also state when he made the comment about narcissism that he hoped it would not come off as offensive - that disclaimer made the difference for me. When Kara responded the way she did, it was understandable as it could indeed be interpreted as an accusation of mental illness/sexism/whatever. Then it escalated, of course - feelings running hot on both sides.
I have read through all his/her(? you never know) posts and come to the conclusion that Neckbeard is clumsy indeed - but not malicious.
Which is why a short temporary ban would suffice for now. We should also give him the benefit of the doubt, since we don't really know.
...I mean, by the time we have finished squabbling over this, he would have made another 50 posts, or so.
Sadly, I don't know if Kara will come back. I hope she does as she seemed very interesting. She had been lurking for ages and then got this treatment. I understand the reaction - anyone with a bit of self respect and integrity would stand up for themselves, although typology attacks are not the way to do it here if you want people to have a discussion with you.
Type is irrelevant (unless that discussion is invited and accepted by both parties), topic is everything. Don't get personal - it doesn't work in the long run. /mod
I would welcome both Kara and Neckbeard back and hope they both can enjoy the forum.
Why on earth do these blowouts even happen? I mean sure, some banter and disagreement for a few posts is great, but why do so many supposedly rational people so doggedly pursue their points? And why do some take things so personally?
I propose a few guidelines to be utilized at will:
1. If you are feeling contempt, disgust, or significant irritation toward someone, walk away from the discussion.
2. If someone is being stubborn and clearly abusing/ignoring your fine, hand-crafted argument, give up.
3. If the only points left to argue are largely subjective, you've all already stated your opinions, and you still disagree, then there is nothing left to discuss.
4. Leaving a discussion is a silent process. Not a bitchy statement on your way out the door.
I propose a few guidelines to be utilized at will:
1. If you are feeling contempt, disgust, or significant irritation toward someone, walk away from the discussion.
2. If someone is being stubborn and clearly abusing/ignoring your fine, hand-crafted argument, give up.
3. If the only points left to argue are largely subjective, you've all already stated your opinions, and you still disagree, then there is nothing left to discuss.
4. Leaving a discussion is a silent process. Not a bitchy statement on your way out the door.
The people who need things like these are always those who are least likely to follow them, still it can be used as justification for punishment at least.
Never liked the silent process. I prefer a diplomatic goodbye and if I had a part I think expressing 'the thing I learned' is also good even if the other person does not.
I actually feel like a silent exit without saying anything is rude. Maybe you didn't mean it literal anyways....?
I have noticed the recent .....'goodbye' but not really because I need to step back in now to reply to what you said and then 'goodbye' but not really.... etc...
I think how you exit is up to you as long as you don't, like you said, jab them in the eye before walking out. (Don't like the word bitchy so didn't quote you exactly... except I am writing it now...)
Why on earth do these blowouts even happen? I mean sure, some banter and disagreement for a few posts is great, but why do so many supposedly rational people so doggedly pursue their points? And why do some take things so personally?
I propose a few guidelines to be utilized at will:
1. If you are feeling contempt, disgust, or significant irritation toward someone, walk away from the discussion.
2. If someone is being stubborn and clearly abusing/ignoring your fine, hand-crafted argument, give up.
3. If the only points left to argue are largely subjective, you've all already stated your opinions, and you still disagree, then there is nothing left to discuss.
4. Leaving a discussion is a silent process. Not a bitchy statement on your way out the door.
redbaron: OP states the principle is of key interest, not this specific instance per se.
do you always like to correct people when their discussion pertains to a "lost battle"? what things aren't in a sense lost battles, in terms of the individual's power to direct a course of events? this issue is not a particularly lost battle unless you presuppose that the moderators are bureaucratic automata and/or omniscient deities. is your resentment toward authority so immense that you can't step back to look at the intpf staff as people? why go all fatalistic bombast over a little bickering?
i'm getting angry about people who say that discussion of moderation policy is useless, not people who discuss moderation policy. isn't that evident? can't really take you seriously atm. along with others you came in here to effectively declare the thread stupid and useless by virtue of being a discussion of moderation policy.
you seem to think that the rules are the only thing that informs moderation and that the rule of "the moderators are the moderators, no one else" precludes any sane discussion/criticism of how moderators handle things. even though that same rule also states that comments are welcome. clusterfuck, man. why do you have to do that
sometimes when i'm in a bad mood i feel like whining about everything i personally wouldn't consider a worthwhile activity or topic of inquiry. does that resonate with you? does something like that perhaps seem to be the problem?
another problem might be my use of the word "policy". the relevant thing isn't primarily the rules, but their application. perhaps the word "policy" misrepresents that. but we all know the rules haven't stated to ban neckbeard or even how specifically to handle derailed confrontations so you're just being a pain in the ass if that semantic detail is your hang-up.
@Polaris: i completely agree with your assessment.
No one's blanketing discussion as useless though - just the way that it's being brought up in this thread.
If you want to discuss moderation policy, there's no reason you can't try and do something productive, like pinpoint which ones in this thread you think should be clarified.
If you're really being honest about creating a better forum environment, improving efficiency in management and improving priorities and decisions then go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.
Stop strawmanning Lot, Cognisant and myself and actually come up with real, usable ideas for creating a better forum environment, improving management, decisions and priorities.
omg you still think the rules are exhaustive and unambiguous and moderators are just executives of the rules? no. there's plenty of wiggle room for interpretation. that's where we are. the rules are just a basic formality. they're not where moderation decisions happen. decisions are made by moderators by authority and with support from the rules, which are written to secure mandate in various situations - not to provide exact instructions. it's odd how that escapes you seeing as you've made a point of quoting the very rule that gives the moderators freedom in operation. so how, again, is it futile to criticize moderation decisions and their justification, consistency, implications etc.? how is proposing changes to the rules (essentially a "legal" technicality) the only way to influence the habits and values of moderation as practiced?
if you read my post, you know that by "policy" i am referring to any pattern in moderation, not just the rules. i've stopped using that word for better clarity. are you purposely misunderstanding? are you poking fun at my obsession with explication or is that colossal arrogance of yours ever the tip of its own iceberg?
Based on how well prolonged criticism has gone down on this forum in the past...yeah it's pretty futile.
Also it'd be asinine for the moderators to actually alter their MO on the basis of threads like this, since the people who complain and criticize are basically just a vocal minority. In such a community where many people don't speak up about these issues, it's practically a necessity to make sure that it stays NOT a democracy - lest decisions be influenced to a disproportionate degree by whoever is the most opinionated or adamant about their point of view.
Which I'm sure is largely why Ragnar explicitly stated that this isn't a democracy and it happens to be something others realise too.
is it also "asinine" that Polaris the moderator (? iirc ?) pretty much agrees with the criticism in this case? apparently the chasm between contrarian dissidents and moderators isn't so epically unbridgeable as your towering exposition of forum history would suggest.
no-one is asking for formal democracy. that's a strawman, for good measure. we're trying to reach the moderators by appeal to reason and sound social perception, not majority.
I agree with Redbaron and I don't think one should get their hopes up in changing the mods minds because they may likely be disappointed, However I do think the mods have shown evidence of listening and hearing people out although they may not agree with your opinion and go as far as to implement it. They have also made changes in the past after receiving opinions when they thought the advice was good or reasonable or whatever but it isn't something that happens all the time and I wouldn't expect a change to the functionality or policy of the forum every time a user makes a comment. The only time I notice them completely disregarding someones opinion is when, after hearing them out, they continue to push and push the subject hoping the admin/mods will finally agree, but why should they listen when they heard it a thousand times? It wasn't long ago that they went out of their way jsut to reply to people who criticized and commented on the running of this forum to make them feel heard and even gave reasons why they disagreed and where they did agree. I liked their effort and I hope it continues but I cannot expect that they have all the time in the world to listen to everyone's concerns all the time.
So I personally agree with the current process and that is that people should be heard and communicated with as much as possible but users should make every effort to respect the final discussions of the mods after everything is finalized instead of getting in an uproar. Not that that has been a problem recently.
The only issue I had with RedBarons comment was that it gave me the feeling of "Just give up, its useless" but if you read it carefully you'll find that it is just saying something like "Don't get your hopes up and then get bent out of shape if the policy stays the same because it likely will.".
you agree with redbaron that the moderators are all irredeemable pompous shmucks and that anyone who likes to criticize moderation decisions is guilty of harboring naïve hopes? all he has is false assertions, convoluted logic and moving goalposts. he just so needs to be right about something. no one knows what it is anymore (some vague assessment of the staff's level of receptivity to criticism, which isn't a relevant objection to anything anyone said but just a smartass whatever thing). i'm pretty sure it cancelled itself out like threefold. nonsense.
you agree with redbaron that he knows things and is right. ok.
no-one is asking for formal democracy. that's a strawman, for good measure. we're trying to reach the moderators by appeal to reason and sound social perception, not majority.
If your argument appeals to reason and is sufficiently persuasive (for example offers a better solution than the one already used, given objective criteria, which always exist and you probably know them) you will eventually reach and convince close to whomever you want here. It's not like they will cover their ears and say "I can't hear". If they did, they would soon be pressed to answer before numerous other individuals that were convinced by your proposition.
If your argument appeals to reason and is sufficiently persuasive (for example offers a better solution than the one already used, given objective criteria, which always exist and you probably know them) you will eventually reach and convince close to whoever you want here. It's not like they will cover their ears and say "I can't hear". If they did, they would soon be pressed to answer before numerous other individuals that were convinced by your proposition.
it's reasonable not to ban members for innocuous remarks followed by apologies, just because the recepient went batshit and started perpetual ultra drama.
it's reasonable to suppress the compulsion to ban/warn someone. if the situation isn't fully understood, it's better to refrain from acting.
members who spam or display consistent unwavering malice/stupidity should be regarded as undesirable and removed. there's no need to wait for an opportunity to point out a sufficient obvious incidental violation. and there's no need to rewrite the rules for there to be no need for that cause mods already got tha powah. there's no right to be on this forum, and it'd take an extreme level of baseline consistency/transparency (not to mention size) to warrant a rights-esque kinda heuristic about who gets to stay here, second chances etc.
basically ban more really bad members and less members who happened to express themselves crudely or say a thing someone couldn't handle. example: don't warn me for calling cog or redbaron a dick when they've put me through ten pages of dishonest quotemining hell. pretty plaese
those would be my suggestions. but i came in here primarily to challenge the notion that it's self-evidently (or by reference to rule number whatever) categorically useless/unjustified/dumb/something to criticize moderation. not to criticize moderation per se. everyone who actually read the thread knows that was a stupid and unnecessary ban.
i could disposition my comments more "Reasonably" but if that's what it takes to convince i don't care about convincing.
those would be my suggestions. but i came in here primarily to challenge the notion that it's self-evidently (or by reference to rule number whatever) categorically useless/unjustified/dumb/something to criticize moderation. not to criticize moderation per se. everyone who actually read the thread knows that was a stupid and unnecessary ban.
It's hard work, even if you have both the virtue and conviction. Sometimes you need to change your reputation too, else people will ignore your posts assuming it's same as always. (Think of it as winning elections, only that this time your arguments are logical and more frequently help you score)
You make sense and I agree with your suggestions, although I don't see them as being either unimplemented or implementable in the current situation.
The only issue I had with RedBarons comment was that it gave me the feeling of "Just give up, its useless" but if you read it carefully you'll find that it is just saying something like "Don't get your hopes up and then get bent out of shape if the policy stays the same because it likely will.".
Admin seem pretty under-staffed right now w/ Absurity leaving, are 2 pages of posts in response to every 2-day temp ban [lol] really necessary?
These 'oh, a mod's done something let's make a thread about it' threads are starting to feel like the forum's bi-monthly reminder of its own existence.
Neckbeard simply violated the Universal Law of Good Manners: Never make the other person feel at a disadvantage. It lubricates the machinery of interaction. I got the feeling he deliberately went out of his way to disingenuously try to put the new member at a disadvantage. Why do people do that? I know INTP are less adroit with the social graces, but still, isn't this something everyone learns in kindergarten? That it's better to play nicely until you have a good reason not to, then get out the brass knuckles? Kind of like Road House?
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
