Change in moderator policies

There is a tendency to make more of it than it will be I think. The primary purpose is that the discussion should be an actual discussion and not done in such a way that people are signing off because of the way one ore two individuals communicate. That would kill any debate.

I've seen threads in which the last 2 pages there were only two persons going back and forth with each other and have lost all the other people that were active in the thread before that. That is quite pointless. It killed the discussion rather quickly and if needed should have been taken to PM.

I've seen threads where people are told their opinion is invalid because….. And those dots are usually filled in with them being a woman, gay, sensitive, liberal or whatever. And usually a lot stronger (and negative) language is used to word that. What is the point to deliberately shut someone up in a discussion? How does that help that discussion? (unless it is a moderation action )

There are threads where just two persons are going back and forth with each other in such a way that it actually inhibits others from joining. It adds nothing to this site.

This is a forum with a community of people, it is not someone's personal soap box. Discussions should take place in a way that helps the discussion and not block it.

Originally Posted by dteowner
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.

I hate to talk about DArtaganan without his presence, but he has put me on ignore not v.v., and I definitely feel the urge to explain myself to this point you're making against me, although I am quite aware it can be a bore to read for others not involved.

I wrote to DArtagnan that I think he talks a lot about himself, about others, and specifically about the flaws of others, I see few things that actually deal with the topic at hand:

Originally Posted by Eye
Well, that's a lot of words about you, yourself and you. I am not interested in you. I am not interested in the way you handle things nor in the way I should handle you. I am not interested in the terms of how to adress/interpret someone named DArtagnanan - I am interested in the topic at hand.

If it is not about you, it's about others, specifically the things that they seem to lack according to you.

So, if I imagine DArtagnan being a doctor, I imagine those things I said in #222.
I really don't think he is sticking to the topic at hand and thanks to the things he does focus on he clearly shows, imo, a lack of respect to the one who's receiving the bad news.

=======================

Back to other things you said.

You gave me the impression, dteowner, you are keeping an eye on me and on others sharing my view to see whether you're assumptions/fears might be true.

I don't think there is anything I can do or say to change any assumptions/fears.
I think generally speaking people do not like change, and often fear their worst fears will come true.

I have advocated several times the debate can be enhanced if people focus on the ball and do not hinder the debate by playing on the man. I think insults are a quick way to make people misunderstand the message and to make them focus on the insults made or on the man uttering the insults instead of the topic at hand.

Really, I am not interested in what any of you think of me personally. Nor whether I am acting according to the new rules - the new rules are not even presented.
The only thing that has held me back and has made me to try ignore personal attacks up to now has been my self esteem. I have managed well I think - you may well think I haven't.

Who cares? Does it prove anything?
People make mistakes, me included. It does not mean that because people are bound to make mistakes, because it is a difficult touchy subject, we should do nothing at all and have no rules at all.

I have said all I wanted to say in my first post in this thread that was not a one liner:

Originally Posted by Eye
I do not think freedom of expression is a bliss without certain limits.

Myrthos agreed and said he wanted to change the policy.
Since then different people have been trying to debate with people who are in favor of the announced change - those against it seem to have been ignoring the fact that as far as I can see we're only defending Myrthos' directions.

It's Myrthos that actually matters. Mod policy will change - his words.
You'll have to wait and see, no matter what you think of me, no matter my opinion, my behaviour, no matter how often you think "Is that REALLY what we're wanting here".

Personally, I don't see the problem with two people going at it - as long as they feel they have something to say.

They're not hurting anyone - and people tend to blow the issue way out of proportion. There's always room for additional input - and you can always start another thread.

Usually, the back-and-forth bickering dies out all by itself.

I have no idea why moderation would make it any better. All you'll do is make people feel like they can't explain themselves sufficiently.

Not unlike many other sites, mind you.

Yes, I've been a very guilty party in that kind of exchange - but I'm pretty reasonable when people start hinting at the nature of what we're doing. So are most people, I find.

I think that's a much more reasonable way to moderate, but that's me.

I've seen threads where people are told their opinion is invalid because….. And those dots are usually filled in with them being a woman, gay, sensitive, liberal or whatever. And usually a lot stronger (and negative) language is used to word that. What is the point to deliberately shut someone up in a discussion? How does that help that discussion? (unless it is a moderation action )

That's interesting, because I've experienced quite the opposite.

As soon as someone dares to support the minority opinion - people pile up on them immediately.

That's why people like HHR and Damian were constantly attacked, even though they weren't particularly aggressive themselves.

You can tell yourself it was the right thing to do - because they're extreme in their opinions - but you'd be deceiving yourself.

This idea of forgetting your own part in these things is, frankly, pathetic.

If you can't see the issue with having a discussion between a group of people and then two people taking over the entire discussion, with the rest leaving it because of that, there is no further way I can explain it to you.

We also disagree about HHR and Damian not being aggressive. They are not the only ones, but they are certainly not harmless and both show no intention to be that either.

Many topics can be discussed, also by HHR and Damian. In your opinion they can be discussed in any way that suits the participants. I have come to belief that this is to be restricted.
As the reasons for that have been given already in this thread, there is no point in reiterating them again.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
If you can't see the issue with having a discussion between a group of people and then two people taking over the entire discussion, with the rest leaving it because of that, there is no further way I can explain it to you.

No, that's not quite what I'm saying.

I'm saying that because two people are going at it - it doesn't prevent other people from contributing.

Usually the discussion is already dead if only two people remain. That's my experience.

The typical scenario is that people who want to speak have their say - and only the people who're really invested bother to go at it extensively.

Based on the last 10 years here, I don't see a lot of two people driving others away. I see people bitching about bickering that they're not, personally, invested in - but that's not the same thing.

As soon as people become invested - they go right ahead. You can see that in this very thread from people who're otherwise not like that - including Eye.

That's what happens when you're invested. Not necessarily so bad.

We also disagree about HHR and Damian not being aggressive. They are not the only ones, but they are certainly not harmless and both show no intention to be that either.

I don't know what you mean by harmless. Personally, I don't feel qualified to make that determination - and I don't promote paranoia because people are being silly.

They're clearly extremists - but they're also human beings. There's a reason they believe what they believe - and it's not enough to simply dismiss them as "boring" or fools.

But that's me.

I like to understand people - even if they might seem alien at first. I don't feel this need to dismiss them out of hand.

Many topics can be discussed. In your opinion they can be discussed in any way that suits the participants. I have come to belief that this is to be restricted.

Not at all.

If I was a site admin, things would be much more restrictive.

That's because I don't have the patience you have.

That has nothing to do with what I believe to be ideal or appropriate.

I think whatever you, as site admin, decide is what can be discussed.

If I have a problem with your position, it's that you've moved away from a position of tolerance - to a position of anti-minority.

I never expected that from you, but so what. It's nothing but my opinion.

Originally Posted by Eye
Back to other things you said.

You gave me the impression, dteowner, you are keeping an eye on me and on others sharing my view to see whether you're assumptions/fears might be true.

I don't think there is anything I can do or say to change any assumptions/fears.
I think generally speaking people do not like change, and often fear their worst fears will come true.

I find your characterization of my well documented and clearly defined position as "assumptions/fears" to be decidedly lacking in respect. Your choice of words indicates clear dismissal of my argument, and by association, my person. I demand immediate moderation to protect my delicate sensitivities.

See how stupid this gets? Seriously, this is a completely predictable outcome of the proposal. It doesn't generate discussion. It doesn't fix anything. I'm absolutely 100% fine with this silliness should Myrthos choose to embrace it because it's his site to do with as he pleases. The other completely predictable outcome is that there will be no way for it to be imposed uniformly and will degenerate into tyranny of the masses. Being part of said masses, you are either blind to that basic fact or you just don't care because you're on the right side of the fence. That's also perfectly fine, but I think everyone knows hypocrisy is one of my favorite soapboxes to drag out and I won't hesitate for a second to force the majority to face it when it happens. And it will happen.

In addition to my previous post, I should have added that Damian and HHR are not the same. Damian has an Interest to debate, whereas HHR has most of the time none.

We are both starting to repeat ourselves.
In the end what I mentioned in the beginning still stands. This site did not turn out the way I had envisioned it. I mostly compensated for that by having a low presence for longer period of times and perhaps not caring too much. You can call that tolerant if you like. Perhaps that was even the reason it did not turn out the way I had envisioned it.
This I want to change.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
In addition to my previous post, I should have added that Damian and HHR are not the same. Damian has an Interest to debate, whereas HHR has most of the time none.

I agree that HHR seems very convinced he's in the right.

Doesn't change my point, though.

We are both starting to repeat ourselves.
In the end what I mentioned in the beginning still stands. This site did not turn out the way I had envisioned it. I mostly compensated for that by having a low presence for longer period of times and perhaps not caring too much. You can call that tolerant if you like. Perhaps that was even the reason it did not turn out the way I had envisioned it.
This I want to change.

Please don't create a strawman.

I never said your low presence was tolerance.

We've had similar debates more than once in the past - and you've been right there defending your policies.

Aubrielle and Fluent tried to promote a similar change - and back then you didn't think it was appropriate.

So, no, your low investment is not what I'm talking about.

Anyway, the site is yours to change - and obviously it should change according to your desire.

Originally Posted by dteowner
I find your characterization of my well documented and clearly defined position as "assumptions/fears" to be decidedly lacking in respect. Your choice of words indicates clear dismissal of my argument, and by association, my person. I demand immediate moderation to protect my delicate sensitivities.

See how stupid this gets? Seriously, this is a completely predictable outcome of the proposal. It doesn't generate discussion. It doesn't fix anything. I'm absolutely 100% fine with this silliness should Myrthos choose to embrace it because it's his site to do with as he pleases. The other completely predictable outcome is that there will be no way for it to be imposed uniformly and will degenerate into tyranny of the masses. Being part of said masses, you are either blind to that basic fact or you just don't care because you're on the right side of the fence. That's also perfectly fine, but I think everyone knows hypocrisy is one of my favorite soapboxes to drag out and I won't hesitate for a second to force the majority to face it when it happens. And it will happen.

I think most are able to see the difference between 'You're a rotten, nasty child', and 'That trick you played him was a rotten one'.
Every parent knows about that difference, I hope.

Of course there are always things one can debate about for hours, in the end someone makes a decision. Here it will be a moderator.

@Dart. I wrote that too quickly as I did not mean to create a straw man. I think it was more not caring too much from my side, which might have been seen as being tolerant.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
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:



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.

No, actually, I hate massage chairs, so I'd rather go for the ugly one than the one you posted as what you obviously thought everyone likes better, so stop being so righteous!

I find those massage chairs restrictive. I can't move. I change positions every few minutes. I would hate having one of those at home.

I do admit trying them out in stores for three minutes because I like massages. However those chairs are horrible in my opinion.

So no, they are not objectively better !

AAAHHHHH!!!

I don't mind being called an arrogant tosser, but can we please, for the love of god, drop the sideline on the objective nature of chair quality?!!

Originally Posted by Ripper
AAAHHHHH!!!

I don't mind being called an arrogant tosser, but can we please, for the love of god, drop the sideline on objective nature of chair quality?!!

For (I believe) the second time in recorded history, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Pladio
No, actually, I hate massage chairs, so I'd rather go for the ugly one than the one you posted as what you obviously thought everyone likes better, so stop being so righteous!

I find those massage chairs restrictive. I can't move. I change positions every few minutes. I would hate having one of those at home.

I do admit trying them out in stores for three minutes because I like massages. However those chairs are horrible in my opinion.

So no, they are not objectively better !

For the last time…

Objectivity has nothing to do with what you personally 'like'. What you personally 'like' is called 'subjectivity'.

'Objectivity' is the factual difference between the qualities of an item - regardless of personal taste. That is why they are different words. That is why you don't understand words. That is why you're wrong.

'Pladio likes' = subjectivity.
'what's better' = objectivity.

Got it yet?

It's fine lb. you are right.

Remind me not to argue with you in the future because you seemingly do not understand what I say and I don't understand what you say.

Ohhhh, I understand exactly what you're saying. Every word. But please feel free to refuse to understand what I'm saying… because it challenges your fanatical stance…

Why do you think the concept of 'refunds' exist?

Is it because people simply don't understand that a broken toaster is just as good a functioning toaster? Those silly consumers, don't they know that their failure to appreciate their broken toaster is a purely subjective position? Why, I've no doubt Pladio could reassure them that Pladio actually prefers broken toasters because he doesn't even eat toast but likes to use them to grow marigolds out of… So, heck, why should anyone complain when they buy an objectively worse toaster? It's just subjective, everything's subjective…

Who pressed play on lackblogger?

^ personal attack ^

More like a demonstration of why, after a certain amount of provocation, one is inevitable.

You mean what happens when someone other than you attempts to get a word in edgeways…