Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Okay, will do. Thanks.
And on the post less comment, does this mean that I am replying to too many threads or cut down on the doubleposting and fit my reply into one general post?
Also, at what time is it acceptable to tell problem users that they need to stop being fuckfaces and/or address everyone on their attitude/posting style in a thread?
I know when GB did it, it was at a good timing by a generally reasonable person since GB doesn't post dedicatedly and doesn't drive himself to read all of the stupid shit on here and let it fester in his head to the point he explodes on everyone, since he just reads this when linked to. I don't think GB should have to come here everytime somebody is being stupid though. Who is a good person besides the mods to address a problem user on their habits and stupidity? I know rule of thumb hypocrites and other problem members cannot, but our moderators should not have to do that all of the time too.
Can anyone call somebody out for being a self-absorbed fuck and tell them to stop, or should it be reserved for certain members?
Despite this, he insisted on sticking to his argument even after having this reference provided in multiple forms, to such a point that me merely providing the same, fully correct information in different forms, was sufficient to provoke him to anger that he himself describes as being "As far into the red as it is possible to go".
A person who isn't stupid, and who was willing to accept a correction of their viewpoint, wouldn't have done that. A case could be made for his determination had I been citing unreliable sources, but that was far from the case and yet he still persisted.
On the other hand, GMH, while we disagree on a bunch of things, is sufficiently well versed in both my style of rhetoric, and my reputation for knowledge on certain topics, that he will, if not change his mind, at least consider an argument I make and respond appropriately.
I would most certainly ban the former without hesitation if they insisted on either continuing such a pattern of behaviour in a single thread for a period beyond the bounds of simple misunderstanding of the argument, or if they showed a continuing tendency to get involved in such arguments and repeat their actions regardless of the evidence contradicting their argument.
I'd say to me, that would denote a pretty serious inability to function properly on a board meant for discussion, if you're holding that sort of emnity for someone after such a long time for something so minor.
What I don't want, is for there to be a place for people who rely solely on anger and confrontation to try and argue their viewpoints in the absence of evidence or logic that could back those viewpoints up. Thats just inciting pointless flamewars.
But doubly so, I don't want the tone of a conversation to be pervaded by polite passive aggression, any more than I want it pervaded by overt anger. Neither are good things in the absence of evidence or logic, but anger with logic is far more straightforward and therefore it makes it more difficult for the opposing side of an argument to twist to their advantage.
On the other hand, passive aggression can in all its forms be counted on to provide ample opportunities for either side to misrepresent the stance of the other, and to be mercilessly polite while doing so, reducing almost all discussion into a pointless exercise in seeing if you can manoeuvre your opponent into a weak position, rather than allowing straightforward logical debate to take place.
If I have the choice between honest debate, laced with invective, and dishonest debate, conducted politely but with no content beyond devious thinking, I'll take the first choice every time.
That's what I meant. It's cool to actually say things like that as long as it's not 24/7, you're not actively attempting to insult people, and you apologize for excessive rudeness.
There's also the case of determining the intent of someone's words. Someone like me using fuck a lot in a certain post would be entirely on a different level of rudeness than someone like LouieW suddenly letting loose with the Cuss-gatling. In my case it could be seen as colloquial emphasis, in Louie's case it could be taken as him being far, far more angry than we've ever seen him, and subsequently more angry than is healthy.
Certainly, I'd remove Louie myself from any conversation sufficiently toned to make him swear like a trooper. If I saw myself swearing a bunch however, I'd consider that business as normal and carry on, aware that were I really angry, I'd be making it clear in ways more effective and quantifiable than mere swearing
GuitarBizarre,
Sorry, but I disagree with your suggestions about intelligent posters and rudeness. One thing I like about the rules on TV Tropes is that popularity is not supposed to be a factor in whether or not one is banned. Now we can disagree as to if that is actually how the rules get enforced, but I think that principle is clear. Since I agree with that principle, I have a hard time warming up to the idea that someone's intelligence or previous contributions should overrule personal attacks or insults they may have made.
First, I feel like if one is very smart (or of basically any level of intelligence really), that person should also be able to share their insights without saying hurtful things about others. I see no reason why insulting people is necessary (though I am interested to hear why you disagree if you do). Second, I think intelligence or how much someone contributes to a forum can be rather subjective as evidenced by disagreements that you, Khwarizmi, and others have had in this thread about whether or not certain tropers really made a worthwhile impact. At worst, I think that kind of thing will create a treehouse atmosphere where regulars rule and new users feel intimidated. I appreciate that you and I likely have different goals here, but I think that being inclusive rather than exclusive is a better way to attract users and maintain a good membership level.
I personally dislike being part of a group that it is elitist too and I feel like IJBM should be a place where even people who are not super smart (myself for example) can feel welcome. I think that trying to narrow down unbanned users based on post content that is not related to something like trolling or personal attacks will not encourage diverse perspectives and will instead encourage the same kind of perspectives and arguments to appear over and over again.
As for rudeness, I think that it is the responsibility of any community to try to be welcoming to those who volunteer to be a part of it. Since I think insulting people can cause them emotional harm (at least the way I define insulting), I believe that it is the responsibility of a forum's staff to try to curb it.
For all the reasons I defined earlier in the thread, I believe enforcing civility only makes people find more insidious ways of getting around that. If you read through, my argument should be pretty clear. Its not about encouraging, its about not trying to control, since attempting to control peoples interactions that way can only be a bad thing.
I do not want to be mean, but I think that if people are unable to do that, they should deal with that problem before joining a forum rather than allow the forum to give them license to hurt others through their words if they so happen to match them up with good arguments. I understand that people should probably be a bit thick-skinned on the internet, but I would rather be part of the solution of making things friendlier rather than letting things be as they are just because that is how things have been for a while. I guess that is a bit naive though.
civility only makes people find more insidious ways of getting around
that. If you read through, my argument should be pretty clear. Its not
about encouraging, its about not trying to control, since attempting to
control peoples interactions that way can only be a bad thing.
So should the politeness thing be more of a guideline than a rule? So if you are being a blatant trolling asshole you don't get grouped in with the people who are addressing others for being blatant trolling assholes? Then again that's where the mods/admin's whim comes in when it comes to people using insidious ways to doing dickish shit without really breaking rules as well. Some people take being called out for annoying people with excessive whining or hypocritical opinions as personal attacks, when they are not.
I don't see how that's bannable.
> Guitar, profanity would be allowed, but saying "fuck you you goat fucker" and not contributing to the discussion wouldn't be allowed.
This.
> There is always a way to annoy someone with words, no matter how restrictive you make the rules defining reasonable conversation. Someone will manage it, and they will abuse it in order to get rises out of those people they don't like. And, then, those people will get banned. And because nobody ever agrees 100% on anything, ever, that will leave behind a forum comprised primarily or solely of people who are simply very, very good at being assholes politely, all trying to get rises out of each other as best they can so they can "win" arguments by making other people seem unreasonable, blissfully unaware that what they're doing is just as unreasonable, and perverts the concept of reason in their own minds in order to allow them their fleeting moments of victory.
And?
It's just an internet forum; you should relax.
> I... really reccomend at least tightening that rule, INUH.
I'll go tighten it.
> I know I said I was going to stay out of here, but if I may - the primary reason that I feel that aggression should be moderated for and stupidity should not is that I see stupidity as an unintentional behaviour which may improve over time as a person becomes less ignorant and more self-aware, while aggression is something which any rational person can avoid if they try hard enough but which is disruptive and may upset others.
This.
> There is stupid and willing to learn, and there is stupid and aggressively unwilling to even discuss reasonably that possibility. A troll is the latter, the people you mentioned are the latter, and the kind of person a good forum wants to keep around, is the former.
Okay, I see, you and I define "troll" differently. I take "troll" to be someone deliberately doing something in order to trigger a certain behavioral response from the audience; my definition doesn't include the obliviously and stubbornly stupid, because they're actually being genuine and not manipulative.
> Well the system enforces a spam block that prevents more than 5 posts every minute so I generally went by that.
Does this mean I need to lower this limit further?
> our moderators should not have to do that all of the time too.
I'm considering appointing additional mods.
What things are *REALLY* annoying? For me those things are:
Those are the biggies for me, and I suggest that they be fixed as followed:
Numbers 1&2 can be cured by creating an NSFW board and a Venting/raging board, but that alone isn't enough. Further, one of the following must be made possible:
A nice addition might also be an On Topic board (which wouldn't need to be separate, naturally), as well as the ability to dismiss specific threads from appearing to you at all.
Numbers 3&4&5 can only really be handled by laying out and enforcing the rules - if things get too messy, then the janitor is on stage.
Said rules are:
Is all of this agreeable?
Also, I don't see why "my family sucks for so and so reasons" threads necessarily a bad idea.
And that is where the difference comes into play. Someone who is complaining is actually annoyed by X and wants to talk about it and hopefully handle it better.
Someone who is whining will just go on and on, without genuinely trying to improve their situation. Not fun to talk to.
Don't like a shitpost thread, hide it. Don't like somebody who constantly annoys you? Ignore them. The only people who would STILL be tripping on troll posts and bumping threads with whining or dramafest bullshit would be the ones who purposely do so when there is a better option available.
People have been complaining about the rules for some time now. Honestly, I think that a general "Don't start dramashit" rule would be a good idea.
I really wish I could do that. There a lot of threads that I would make "vanish".
Also, I guess my main concern regarding stupidity is that
I won't be able to post while completely drunkthere are some people who have a tendency, I think, to write very intellectually and refuse to explain to people insufficiently smart or educated to get their points (which seems to me to be incredibly rude). I wouldn't like to be penalised for not understanding somebody and wanting an explanation.The reason why I advocate this is because even though I love you guys, no one is infallible. Anyone can go mad with power and cackle madly as they ban people left and right. Having that well-defined rule limiting the powers of one mod, in my mind, is a good thing, because it can only be invoked in cases when people actually think that the banned person was good for the forum, and the mod was acting alone. If we go by the "Don't be a dick" rule and nothing else... well, I was banned from TV Tropes for saying that I had moral problems with bestiality and Nazism, so if the rules for bannination are too subjective it's only a matter of time before a burned-out mod decides to ban Chagen or Rottweiler because he doesn't like Chagen's RPG or Rottweiler's hat (which is awesome).