Change in moderator policies

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
If the fact/opinion is hurtful - it will hurt no matter how it's presented, if it goes through unscathed.

In that same way, you don't go to your doctor and expect a respectful message about having cancer.

That's why they just go out and say it.

Some people would probably prefer not to know - but I think that's a bad idea.

Yes, but the doctor doesn't say:

"Haha you have cancer, go die already!" <- disrepesctful

The DArt way:
"I have the results of the tests. Marker xxx is present. Meaning you have cancer. Statistics say you'll die from this cancer within 3 years. We all have to die. I'll die. Being sensible like I am you're prepared to die. I am. I have a made a will. I could die tomorrow, this afternoon, crossing the street. Many people die not from cancer. But living means death eventually. You are not prepared for death, most are not prepared as I am. They are scared, they do not want to think about death. You're delusional. You act as if death does not exist. Nah nah, do not lie to me, you have no will, you are not prepared. I am prepared. Since I was a child I have been living with the idea society would have to do without my intelligence. Many are not. Many won't be missed. I won't miss you. Okay. All has been said. Time's up. Next!"

Originally Posted by Pladio
Actually, I have answered almost every single one of your questions. You just don't like my answers.

That doesn't make me wrong lb…

1. No you haven't. You're lying. Bare faced lying.
2. It's not a matter of not liking your answers, your answers aren't subjectively bad, they're objectively bollox.
3. You are indeed entirely wrong:

Originally Posted by Pladio
Neither…

I'd go with the more comfortable one, which means I would have to try them both out.

The level of comfort a chair provides is an objective fact, the act of trying them out is you attempting to gain objective knowledge. Further, if you honestly need to 'try out' the two chairs I posted images for in order to 'find out for sure' which is more comfortable then it is pretty freakin obvious you're just arguing because you feel you have to in order to maintain a failed argument, unless you're blind there would no reason at all to 'try out' the two examples, it is blatantly obvious from the first glance.

Like I said, you're just pushing a fanatical fallacy. At any cost. You just want to answer "everything is subjective" because that makes life easier for you, you don't have to apply any thought to any of your answers. It's no different to a codexer answering every debate with "everything is shit", it's no different to a chronic cynic answering every debate with "everything is pointless", it's no different to a Anita Sarkeesian answering every debate with "everything is sexist". It's just lazy, hyperbolic, fanatical bollox designed to kill rational debate rather than engage debate.

Originally Posted by Pladio
Yes, but the doctor doesn't say:

"Haha you have cancer, go die already!" <- disrepesctful

Who says that?

Have you ever seen me say anything like that?

There's being honest and upfront - and then there's being cruel. There's a very big difference.

I don't laugh at misfortunate - nor have I ever and nor would I ever.

Originally Posted by Eye
The DArt way:
"I have the results of the tests. Marker xxx is present. Meaning you have cancer. Statistics say you'll die from this cancer within 3 years. We all have to die. I'll die. Being sensible like I am you're prepared to die. I am. I have a made a will. I could die tomorrow, this afternoon, crossing the street. Many people die not from cancer. But living means death eventually. Okay. All has been said. Time's up. Next!"

Not necessarily that far from the truth.

But you're taking things to the extreme.

You can say things in a very blunt way - and still be there to comfort and support afterwards.

But the message MUST be clear and understood. That is key.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Not necessarily that far from the truth.

But you're taking things to the extreme.

You can say things in a very blunt way - and still be there to comfort and support afterwards.

But the message MUST be clear and understood. That is key.

Yes, the message must be clear AND understood. That is key.

So you have to see how people are taking it. Bluntness is subjective. Words you might think of as being neutral, others might think of as being blunt - because of personal circumstances, background, education, etc. You do not know the background of strangers, you only know how to say things to people you're intimate with, but even then…

When people are upset they do NOT hear the message correctly, they do NOT hear the way it was intended.
So apart from being clear, you have to look how your turd is being received/perceived.

Originally Posted by Eye
Yes, the message must be clear AND understood. That is key.

So you have to see how people are taking it. Bluntness is subjective. Words you might think of as being neutral, others might think of as being blunt - because of personal circumstances, background, education, etc. You do not know the background of strangers, you only know how to say things to people you're intimate with, but even then…

When people are upset they do NOT hear the message correctly, they do NOT hear the way it was intended.
So apart from being clear, you have to look how your turd is being received/perceived.

There's no way to see online.

Also, you're absolutely wrong that people don't hear the message correctly when they're upset. They don't understand the MESSENGER correctly - but they understand the message.

That's why they're upset.

They just haven't understood the implication fully yet. They haven't processed it yet.

Feelings are profoundly powerful - and they'll dictate much more than any of us can control.

So, when you're hurt - it takes time to process. During that time - there will be a lot of lashing out and pointing fingers. Especially if you're the sensitive kind.

If someone comes along and tells you that you've gotten fat - you're not going to appreciate it at first. But, maybe - just maybe - that message wasn't intended to hurt you - but help you. There's really no other way to deliver that message in a way that's going to be fully understood. If there was, it'd be just as hurtful.

Eventually, though, being hurt by an honest statement is very likely to affect people a lot more than a polite delivery that so easily gets forgotten and confused.

Believe it or not, my honesty is what most of my friends and loved ones like the most about me - even if many started out hating it.

My girlfriend calls me "nailbrush" - but she's come to appreciate that aspect of me greatly.

That said, she also understands that I never hurt to hurt. I never say anything that I don't think is for the better. If I do, I apologize as soon as I realise it.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
It wasn't targeted to you personally, but was intended to be a generic question on how this works for people. I kinda have an idea on how it works for you, but it also has been mentioned by others that some insults would be OK.

Let me try to give my view on this, and try to explain.

I've seen a lot of debates on TV, at work, among friends, among real people among family.

Almost all of these debates has one thing in common people who have a strong opinion are also very passionate about that opinion, and often knowledgeable.

If you have a polite debate completely devoid of any kind of feelings, it becomes stale and boring. It could even be a Monthy Python sketch. ( I am exaggerating on purpose )

"Dear Sir, I believe that you as a homosexual should not be allowed to adopt children, because a child should have the right to a biological mother and father"

"O, delightfully put my dear Sir. However I do not agree with you, I do believe that you are wrong, the important thing is that the child is well taken care of, and I believe me and my partner could do that in a must excellent manner"

If you feel strongly for your right to have children even in a gay relationship, most people simply would not react in such a calm and collected way, and might consider the original insulting to homosexuals. Then it is not so easy to reply very politelly and matter of factly. Instead the second person might resort to calling insulting the other person in some way, for example claiming they are narrow-minded or whatever else.

I don't think it is possible to people debating without getting involved in some way. That is why minor insults or insulting opinions could be part of a debate, and is part of a debate no matter if it is in the local bar, on the internet, or in the parliament.

Now what should not be allowed IMHO and is in no way constructive is if the first person would say "You are a f****ng idiot, you D**n f****ng nitwit" it would add nothing and make people really upset, and might even generate another insult as a reply. But I think it is still very seldom we see such a things happening here.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Also, you're absolutely wrong that people don't hear the message correctly when they're upset.

That means they've heard the message correctly. That's why they're upset.

They just haven't understood the implication fully yet. They haven't processed it yet.

You assume message x is always x, for everybody.
But take a circle of people and whisper message x in the ear of the person left of you, and you'll see that after a couple of minutes message y will be whispered in your right ear.

People have different associations with words, what you may call a forest, others might consider a park - based on personal experiences.
People have different feelings when it comes to words, what you think is neutral, others might consider to be negative - based on personal experiences.
People have a different vocabulary, what you think is completely clear, others might not understand.
People may stop listening/reading to wonder about a word, or the implication, and by doing so they miss the rest of the story.
People might put the emphasis on another part of the story then you did, and might value things you think to be insignificant.

There are all sorts of reasons why message x is transformed into message y.

You HAVE to take your audience into account - if you want to be understood.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
If someone comes along and tells you that you've gotten fat - you're not going to appreciate it at first. But, maybe - just maybe - that message wasn't intended to hurt you - but help you. There's really no other way to deliver that message in a way that's going to be fully understood. If there was, it'd be just as hurtful.

If someone comes along who's gotten fat, I think it's stupid to state the obvious. Don't you think he himself might have noticed?
Second, I think it is wrong to assume anything before asking. I'd pay attention to my audience first: "Hey, what has happened to you? How come you have put on weight?" And then he might tell me it is because of drugs he has to take to fight a disease.
I do not have the arrogance of being able to help people without listening to them first and assume all sorts of things without first trying to understand who I am talking to - apparently you do.

I think it is crucial to look at the receiver of your message. Chances are you just end up being hurtful when ignoring the other completely and simply focussing on yourself or on the message.

You seem to think you can hide behind 'O but I was only speaking my mind'.
Apart from showing you're a presumptuous fool when blaming someone something who can not do anything about it, you are hurting the fat person where it would have been quite easy to avoid it. That is something one can be held accountable for.

Negligence it is called. And judges know how to deal with it.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Eventually, though, being hurt by an honest statement is very likely to affect people a lot more than a polite delivery that so easily gets forgotten and confused.

Being respectful has nothing to do with being vague.
The thing being blunt and being vague have in common is: you hide behind the message: 'This is (just) my turd and have fun analyzing and dealing with it.'
The thing about effective communication is that you take your audience into account: how do I formulate my message in such a way that the receiver understands the message as was intended and does not twist it into something that was never said or was never meant to be said.

I have noticed, DArtagnan, that in your postings you quite often say "I did not say that, that's not what I wrote, do I have to repeat myself, read again what I wrote, you can not read", and the like.
You often seem to blame the other for not having understood your message.

I think it is because you just drop your turd expecting people to understand your message the way it was intended: message x = message x, always.
If people come back to you with message y, you start either blaming them (you did not read what I said) or you continue focussing on you: you start explaining how YOU think/behave/operate/whatever.

Imo you're ignoring the other; you are not taking into account that if you want to be understood you can not just focus on you yourself and you, you can not just formulate your opinion in such a way it is crystal clear to YOU - no, you have to adjust your message to the one you're talking to.

Generally speaking: when people seem to have misunderstood you, most of the time it is not because they can not read, it is because the message may be flawed, i.e. not adjusted to that specific receiver. It needs calibration, it needs fine-tuning.

It is not about how you understand your message, it is not you who has to understand your message, it is the receiver that has to understand the message - if you want to be understood.

Originally Posted by Eye
You assume message x is always x, for everybody.
But take a circle of people and whisper message x in the ear of the person left of you, and you'll see that after a couple of minutes message y will be whispered in your right ear.

No, I don't have to assume anything when I'm communicating online. I use words that are visible in black and white.

But it's true that I can't know if my words are actually understood. There's no way to know that.

I can't start using the wrong words - or words that would not accurately convey my message according to my own experiences.

That would make no sense at all.

People have different associations with words, what you may call a forest, others might consider a park - based on personal experiences.
People have different feelings when it comes to words, what you think is neutral, others might consider to be negative - based on personal experiences.
People have a different vocabulary, what you think is completely clear, others might not understand.
People may stop listening/reading to wonder about a word, or the implication, and by doing so they miss the rest of the story.
People might put the emphasis on another part of the story then you did, and might value things you think to be insignificant.

Absolutely true. That's why I take care to use the right words in the right situation.

That's all I can do.

You HAVE to take your audience into account - if you want to be understood.

There's no way to take into account that which I do not know - or can't know.

If someone comes along who's gotten fat, I think it's stupid to state the obvious. Don't you think he himself might have noticed?

I can't agree at all.

Having been overweight many times throughout my life - I know a lot about what it's like.

People are amazingly adept at fooling themselves. They stop looking into mirrors - and they slowly stop going out, because they don't feel comfortable with themselves.

Essentially, they avoid situations that would remind them that they're not looking as good as they want to.

That's why being bluntly reminded can be an extremely efficient wake-up call.

Second, I think it is wrong to assume anything before asking. I'd pay attention to my audience first: "Hey, what has happened to you? How come you have put on weight?" And then he might tell me it is because of drugs he has to take to fight a disease.
I do not have the arrogance of being able to help people without listening to them first and assume all sorts of things without first trying to understand who I am talking to - apparently you do.

Yet you have the arrogance to assume I don't care about hurting people, that I never listen to my audience, and that I assume much more than you do yourself.

That's a bit of a joke, isn't it?

I've hurt you - so I'm a bad person. Everything about me has to result in me being a bad person.

If not, then you've been hurt by someone who's not a bad person.

That obviously can't work in your world - which would be a misconception.

I think it is crucial to look at the receiver of your message. Chances are you just end up being hurtful when ignoring the other completely and simply focussing on yourself or on the message.

I think it's crucial to not deceive yourself into believing you can ever know enough about a stranger to deliver an honest message efficiently by manipulating it.

You seem to think you can hide behind 'O but I was only speaking my mind'.
Apart from showing you're a presumptuous fool when blaming someone something who can not do anything about it, you are hurting the fat person where it would have been quite easy to avoid it. That is something one can be held accountable for.

Can't do anything about it? That doesn't compute sorry. Being fat is one of the things you CAN do something about - and that's the only reason to mention it.

I know, because I've done something about it several times in my life.

Negligence it is called. And judges know how to deal with it.

Do they now? What faith in people you don't know.

Being respectful has nothing to do with being vague.
The thing being blunt and being vague have in common is: you hide behind the message: 'This is (just) my turd and have fun analyzing and dealing with it.'
The thing about effective communication is that you take your audience into account: how do I formulate my message in such a way that the receiver understands the message as was intended and does not twist it into something that was never said or was never meant to be said.

I don't think I'm the one hiding here.

I think you're the one pretending to be a decent person, but as soon as you feel hurt - you lash out and you construct an image of this evil person who's only interested in hurting people.

It's pathetic and it falters in so many places I've lost count.

The fact that it's the only image your mind can create when hurt, tells me you're anything but decent unless you can feel good about yourself.

I have noticed, DArtagnan, that in your postings you quite often say "I did not say that, that's not what I wrote, do I have to repeat myself, read again what I wrote, you can not read", and the like.
You often seem to blame the other for not having understood your message.

I tend to be very specific and come up with explanations when I claim things like that.

If you have a specific example, I'll gladly comment.

I think it is because you just drop your turd expecting people to understand your message the way it was intended: message x = message x, always.
If people come back to you with message y, you start either blaming them (you did not read what I said) or you continue focussing on you: you start explaining how YOU think/behave/operate/whatever.

Yes, you've very quickly constructed this "truth" about me.

I always blame people and I never consider anything before speaking my mind.

It sounds extremely plausible.

Imo you're ignoring the other; you are not taking into account that if you want to be understood you can not just focus on you yourself and you, you can not just formulate your opinion in such a way it is crystal clear to YOU - no, you have to adjust your message to the one you're talking to.

Then why are you constantly focusing on yourself here? Why are you not trying to undertand?

You're just droning on without any kind of evidence.

Generally speaking: when people seem to have misunderstood you, most of the time it is not because they can not read, it is because the message may be flawed, i.e. not adjusted to that specific receiver. It needs calibration, it needs fine-tuning.

How can you determine what's true "most of the time"?

In my opinion, such things are completely subject to the circumstances. There are countless reasons a message is not understood.

All one can do with language is use the correct words in an honest way. That's how I see it.

It is not about how you understand your message, it is not you who has to understand your message, it is the receiver that has to understand the message - if you want to be understood.

Let me guess, if I don't understand what you're saying here - it's my fault?

When I speak - it's my fault.

When you speak - it's my fault.

Right?

Originally Posted by Pladio
Yes, but the doctor doesn't say:

"Haha you have cancer, go die already!" <- disrepesctful

Who says that kind of stuff here? I don't think even the harden trolls says stuff like that here…

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Let me try to give my view on this, and try to explain.

I've seen a lot of debates on TV, at work, among friends, among real people among family.

Almost all of these debates has one thing in common people who have a strong opinion are also very passionate about that opinion, and often knowledgeable.

If you have a polite debate completely devoid of any kind of feelings, it becomes stale and boring. It could even be a Monthy Python sketch. ( I am exaggerating on purpose )

"Dear Sir, I believe that you as a homosexual should not be allowed to adopt children, because a child should have the right to a biological mother and father"

"O, delightfully put my dear Sir. However I do not agree with you, I do believe that you are wrong, the important thing is that the child is well taken care of, and I believe me and my partner could do that in a must excellent manner"

If you feel strongly for your right to have children even in a gay relationship, most people simply would not react in such a calm and collected way, and might consider the original insulting to homosexuals. Then it is not so easy to reply very politelly and matter of factly. Instead the second person might resort to calling insulting the other person in some way, for example claiming they are narrow-minded or whatever else.

I don't think it is possible to people debating without getting involved in some way. That is why minor insults or insulting opinions could be part of a debate, and is part of a debate no matter if it is in the local bar, on the internet, or in the parliament.

Now what should not be allowed IMHO and is in no way constructive is if the first person would say "You are a f****ng idiot, you D**n f****ng nitwit" it would add nothing and make people really upset, and might even generate another insult as a reply. But I think it is still very seldom we see such a things happening here.

I was going to say exactly this but you explained it in much nicer way!

Anyway my point always haven been that this site does not need extra moderation. Its fine as it is so please don't fix something which isn't broken…

@Eye

In any case, it's become a mudslinging contest. I don't have any interest in that. Obviously, it'll lead nowhere.

I'm sorry I let it go on so long. It was a lost cause from the start. My bad.

I'll put you on ignore and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
@Eye

In any case, it's become a mudslinging contest. I don't have any interest in that. Obviously, it'll lead nowhere.

I'm sorry I let it go on so long. It was a lost cause from the start. My bad.

I'll put you on ignore and leave it at that.

Mudslinging always leads to nowhere. So, if we demonstrated that I'm glad.

If anything it has confirmed my opinion that it's best to play the ball and not the man.
Moderation imo should focus on whether debate is hindered.

Originally Posted by Eye
The DArt way:
"I have the results of the tests. Marker xxx is present. Meaning you have cancer. Statistics say you'll die from this cancer within 3 years. We all have to die. I'll die. Being sensible like I am you're prepared to die. I am. I have a made a will. I could die tomorrow, this afternoon, crossing the street. Many people die not from cancer. But living means death eventually. You are not prepared for death, most are not prepared as I am. They are scared, they do not want to think about death. You're delusional. You act as if death does not exist. Nah nah, do not lie to me, you have no will, you are not prepared. I am prepared. Since I was a child I have been living with the idea society would have to do without my intelligence. Many are not. Many won't be missed. I won't miss you. Okay. All has been said. Time's up. Next!"

You kinda spiraled with your extension. Should have kept it tight. Funny thing is that, until you intentionally went over the top at the end, I was completely on board. I can work with that approach. Obviously, you think that's ridiculous and lack basic respect for the position, but we won't dwell on that.

Originally Posted by dteowner
You kinda spiraled with your extension. Should have kept it tight. Funny thing is that, until you intentionally went over the top at the end, I was completely on board. I can work with that approach. Obviously, you think that's ridiculous and lack basic respect for the position, but we won't dwell on that.

Hm, yes, I can see where you coming from. Hindsight: I should not have extended it. At the time I just thought it would be better connected/tied (what's the english word) with some things I wrote earlier.
It is fine by me if it was not mentioned, it does not add anything, I agree. Do you wish me to delete it?

Originally Posted by Eye
Hm, yes, I can see where you coming from. Hindsight: I should not have extended it. At the time I just thought it would be better connected/tied (what's the english word) with some things I wrote earlier.
It is fine by me if it was not mentioned, it does not add anything, I agree. Do you wish me to delete it?

Not in the slightest. You're missing the point. Your response was clearly written tongue-in-cheek with the intent to deride DArt's "honest" approach. Which is fine, I've got no problem with your approach. However, since I'd actually be 100% OK with a real doctor being completely upfront with me in that manner (until, as stated, you went completely over the top for effect) we've got a problem. Based on the positions being offered up in this thread, your disdainful treatment of a position which I agree with should be considered lacking basic respect and eligible for moderation. Can't you see how silly that is? There wasn't a damn thing wrong with your post, but by the lights you and others are shining in this thread, that post would invite moderation and censure for you. Is that REALLY what we're wanting here, because that's the functional reality of the plan.

@DTE

I'm not convinced they realise how little respect they've demonstrated time and again for minority opinions.

If Myrthos manages to inspire current or future moderators to take a more active approach - I don't think the end result will be quite what these people are expecting.

Door swings both ways and all that - and blatant disregard for the positions of other people still applies when those people aren't holding popular opinions. Well, it should.

The end result is either one where some people manage to get away with this level of obvious contempt because of favoritism - or the Watch will simply be a place where "polite" conversation is more important than getting at the heart of interesting matters.

Thing is, I actually like the personality of the place. It makes for interesting exchanges. Sure, I generally want to smash ripper's head in for being an arrogant hypocrite (and I don't doubt for a second he's had violent fantasies for me as well). Sure, Thrasher tends to get foaming-at-the-mouth wild when he gets wound up. Sure, Mike's white guilt is just oppressively overbearing. Sure, HHR's ultra-religious stances strike me as batshit crazy. Sure, DArt's walls of text make my head hurt because I actually have to pay attention to the words. Sure, I'm an extremely sarcastic bastard that will go over the top to carry the banner. What's wrong with all that?

I like the soup we make. I don't particularly want to change it just because a few people want to "right size" everyone else's tone to match their personal desires. I see disaster down that road, plain as day, and have reflected the exact words of "them" back to try to get the point across and it just doesn't seem to be working.

Well, the site has survived through the years.

Changes are inevitable.

I doubt it'll be that bad - I just felt the need to have my say.

Maybe it really will turn out a better place - I don't know. Also, I won't be here - so I shouldn't care all that much.

But it's been a kind of home away from home - and so I'd be sad if it didn't last.