Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Suggestions Box => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 26, 2005, 09:13:04 AM
-
Ok guys, Tage started it, but I think it's gotten out of hand.
I'm talking about restricitng conversations. No comments in the quotes threads? Or the grumpy or happy things threads? That's kind of lame. In entropy's words: "surely the entire purpose of a forum is... discussion"
I think he's right. We should be able to post within a thread about something. If you want to scan for cool quotes or something, go use Google.
-
While tage earns kudos for being the only person I know to cry out in (virtual) terror when faced with exploding zombies in a MMORPG, I do agree. Having no discussion makes the threads seem like a place devoid of life, just a bunch of AI's posting stuff.
-
I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a few threads with out comments and tangents, 98% of the threads here aren't affected so it's not asking too much to have 4 that are that way. Its also not that hard to make a new thread about what you want to talk about, it's not like people are limited in how many new threads they can start.
If you don't like it don't post, no one is forceing you too. JP is the forum admin and we choose him for a reason, to do his job and I think he did the right thing here. But ultimatly it's between Fell and JP on weither or not this is acceptable, the rest of us are guests on this forum.
-
the problem is it's NOT just a few threads. It keeps getting to be more and more. I'm just calling "lame" it's the suggestions box, and that's what I'm suggesting, that this sort of limitation doesn't appeal to people.
-
I don't mind conversation at all, I encourage it.
I saw a fight brewing, and wanted to stop it before it started.
That's all. I've seen too many times where I've done nothing and a fight has erupted. This particular instance looks like a fight would happen.
Comments are fine, any other comment and I'd ignore it, I just don't want to see Entropy, acting as typical entropy, and outcast, acting as typical outcast causing a big flame war. Again.
-
It appeals to me and last time I checked I was a person.
I was perfectly fine with Entropy explaineing what JP's quote was in the quote thread but after that it became pointless drivel. I rarely speak up on how much it annoys me when certain people hyjack threads to discuss things that don't have a lot to do with what the thread is. But it does upset me in certain cases (like the "comment on Rob's Bloviateing" thread when people started going of on stupid tangents) and I don't like to speak up on it becaue people are free to post how they want on most threads. However there are a few that are and should be more restictive. I personaly don't care about the happy/grumpy threads, I never read them anyway, however I like that there's a place for all the winers to go so I don't have to deal with it when someone who's not getting enough attention tries to hyjack another thread with their personal problems. So that would imply that there should be discussion there, which I don't care if there is, but I support JP's call on this and allwayse will since he's the one we chose to decide such things.
-
Note that I started a new thread for this discussion. I'm observing the rules, but supporting "leadership" never means giving in without questioning or calling lame when you see lame. So can we move away from "i support JP" because it doesn't improve your argument at all.
I'm glad that JP accepts comments. However, at least 5 or 6 comments were deleted from the quotes thread. Comments that were about posted quotes. They didn't move into any new areas. I'm calling lame there, whoever did it. Because it was lame.
-
yeah, I didn't and have nothing to do with that. I generally don't delete posts anyway. I just lock threads when I see flamage happening or imminent.
-
I noticed those comments were gone as well, though I'm not sure what happened to them. In general, I see certain threads as being blessedly devoid of conversation: stuff like Cool Lyrics and Cool things on the Internet. These are threads that I can go to and find, well, cool lyrics and cool things on the Internet, and I know that I can read them all without having to wade though a bunch of dialogue to get to them. I don't mind when the occasional person pops in and says "ooh, I like that song," but big discussions feel out of place in those threads and others like them.
That said, I don't know to what level we should enforce non-discussion, or if we should enforce it at all. For me, I'm totally happy creating a separate thread to discuss how much I hate a lyric rather than "spoiling the purity" of the lyric thread itself, but I realize that not everyone shares that opinion. I'd like to see what other opinions there are (assuming more people see this thread and make their opinions known).
-
Personally, I barely ever read Cool things on the internet or Cool lyrics, because I find them boring. (Which is why, I suppose, if I find something fun people have usually already seen it.) Occasionally I'll pop in and see what's been posted, but mainly I just ignore them. So I really don't have an opinion.
-
I don't read those threads because they're boring, on account of the fact that there's no discussion going on, which is uninteresting to me. ;D
-
Agreed. Now THIS thread--this is an interesting one. :)
-
Good then leave us our few "boring" threads; it's obviously not too much to ask since you never read them anyway. Over the past year this site has become less about gaming and timewasteing and is more of a place for people to complain about their lives. I do know certain people, who use to be permanent members here, have stopped posting and/or reading the forums because of this. I don't even read 90% of the insipid threads on this forum due to this and if it wasn't due to the fact that I write articles here I would have stopped coming to these forums a long time ago. I'm frankly shocked that we still run a gaming site, and not some psychology site, since our "community" has absolutely no interest in the gaming aspect of TWG. If I had my way, and why JP is forum admin and not me, I would have been locking and deleting threads a lot more around here and made sure people knew that people at TWG weren't here to solve other people's problems in life.
-
I just don't want to see Entropy, acting as typical entropy, and outcast, acting as typical outcast causing a big flame war. Again.
:o
Stop stereotyping meh! >_<
-
And that is why, as he himself stated, Spriggan is not a forum admin.
I am more than happy to have non-game-related stuff on the site. We have a lot of game discussions, a lot of geek discussions, and a lot of completely unrelated discussions. That's good. Non-game discussion is, in many ways, the lifeblood of this site.
But accepting different topics of discussion doesn't mean that we are required to combine them. I don't pop into a "Happy Things Go Here" thread and start laying down HeroClix strategy, regardless of how happy it makes me; I expect people to show the same courtesy in keeping their personal discussions away from the HeroClix strategy threads. That's why we have so many different categories and threads, and why they each have a title--you can read what you like, find people with similar interests, and talk and talk to your hearts' content. Everyone on this forum--including people who aren't even registered--can make their own threads; that's a pretty impressive level of freedom in communication.
-
I would just like to interject my opinion on threads such as Cool Things on the Internet, and Cool Lyrics. Most of the advocates of keeping discussion out of these threads say that people should start other threads to discuss these. I suppose we could create threads that mirrored all of the "pure" threads, but until we do, there are two problems. For one, if we create a new thread to discuss the "pure" thread, the person or people that we are discussing it with might not see the new thread, and therefore, might not reply. The other main problem that I see is that, until a permanent thread is created to mirror the "pure" thread, the threads that are made to discuss these topics are going to tend to be very short, which seems like a waste.
(By the way, I use "we" as in we of the forum, not we the people who discuss in "pure" threads, because I try not to do that.)
Secondly, and feel free to tell me if this is out of line, I mean no offense, I think this site is becoming far too political. The people who formed the forum were all friends, to my knowledge. The people who later became regular posters, such as JP, Gemm, and Entropy have entered as friends too. The way that the site has been running, it doesn't seem like it is a group of friends. It seems more and more like a government. I know that this site is serious in ways, reviewing video games, movies, and RPG's, but I don't see why that means it should be treated this way, giving it rules of conduct beyond the basics (no swearing, leet, be courteous etc.).
-
You're not out of line in asking, but personaly I don't see any of what you're saying. We only have a few rules and this "pure" thread, as you call it, has been unwritten sence we started with Cool things. We do lock more threads then we use to, but many people here have gone from being courtious in thier discussions to becomeing flamers so it's nessacary for an admin to step in and tell people to knock it off.
What else is there that bugs you? We might as well talk about specifics here and now.
-
Keep in mind, the role of mod didn't really exist until about six months ago. We'd had a huge issue with newbies, flame wars, and such, and decided that we needed to deal with it.
I am very noninterventionist - I only lock threads when I actually need to because I see Flames coming, and I try to warn first to steer the direction back on track.
We are pretty free and relaxed I feel. I think people should be allowed to talk about anything within reason.
As for discussion on threads, I don't mind a little discussion on the aformentioned threads, but it's better if either the person also posts something on topic, or if it only goes for a few posts - any longer and it probably does deserve a threa dof it's own.
That said, the list threads are IMO terminally boring.
-
Take for example this thread. In my opinion, the reason that the issue has come to making it a policy decision is that the site is becoming more centrally governed, not that violations occur more often now. Also, I agree with your statement about courteous posters to a degree. An extension of that is that people are quicker to get angry at one another and get into a large conflict. This results in an admin having to step in to resolve it. People aren't solving their own problems anymore so the "government" of the forum steps in to do it for them. This is part of what I am talking about, more and more threads are locked, people's comments are edited out, stuff like that. This shouldn't happen, and it shouldn't have to happen. Anyone in the forum who can't control their discussion really needs to learn to. Of course, tempers get carried away, and people will make comments that are out of place, but these should be occasional things. So, in essence, the "government" shows up because people on the forum are not governing themselves as well. I haven't seen a good debate that could be brought to a satisfying close in a long time, because they always have to be locked. That is why the people of the forum, I include myself, have to start acting more like friends, and less like politicians.
Mod: I just saw your comment JP. I wasn't criticizing you, JP, I don't consider you to be at fault. I am just making a generality about the forum.
-
Well people's posts getting edited issue was resolved in private discussion over a month ago, I don't know who deleated the extra posts in the "quotes" thread (probaly Tage) but that dosen't bother me as much as moderators removeing words or lines from people's posts. But again that shouldn't happen except in extreame cercomstances.
As for your other comments, you're right people aren't solveing thier problems themselfs I know JP dosen't like to lock threads or warn people, but until people here can start behaveing again (like it was 2 years ago) these things are nessacary to keep some calm.
-
I just want to clarify.
I'm not talking about off-subject posts. ie, talking about being angry about my commute to work in a Heroclix thread
i'm not talking about flamnig stuff.
I'm talking about posts that DIRECTLY relate to quotes/whatever given being hacked away.
I think when you take that route you get drops in post counts. People are inherently lazy. yes, it's only two clicks (and the typing of a subject line), but that's enough for a lot of people to decide it's not worth it. That means less posts. That means less page views. That means less to see, which ultimately means less reason to be here.
The site has to change to grow. However, changing to have more "strict" threads (where you can't do anything but post another in a sequence of discontinuous, disjointed, and unrelated quotes or whatever) isn't going to help.
We want to have "cool lyrics" and you don't want anything else. That doesn't do anything for the majority of the people, is what i'm seeing. Two people heavily for it (Tage and Sprig) and one preferring it (Fell), which 2 people heavily against it but still reading (Ent and I) and two people at least who won't even read it because the concept isn't interesting. if it's such a cool lyric, why not talk about WHY it's cool? Why not let people comment on how cool it is? Because you'll miss the next quote mark or quote box? Are you that worried about it that you want to have less discussion just so you won't have the very slight chance of missing a lyric?
And how about the "cool stuff" we want to cut commentary. Does this mean we have to stop posting the results of taking the polls? What fun is that? ultimately, this leads me to thinking creating a new thread from the start is much better than putting it into the collection, which defeats your purpose anyway. It's nto like it's hard to see where the new links are anyway. They're a different color. Scan for that. It's at least as easy as making a new thread.
Make it easier to join the community and harder to violate the FAQs and "unwritten rules." THAT'S how you increase participation and create a stronger community. Not by having more "features" that have non-intuitive, thread specific codes of conduct.
-
I agree with SE. I also agree that our posters (myself included) have a tendency to go off on unrelated tangents that can sometimes last way too long. There's a middle ground somewhere, and I'd like to think that we can reach it without getting too rabbinical. If we all just try policing ourselves, we can hit a happy medium without too much fuss and no need for admin intervention or Big Government.
-
My problem with cutting comments in threads like Grumpy things go here is that the thread is all about getting sympathy and not just a thread for spouting off.
Editing peoples posts is also pretty lame. But If its going to be done the mod editing it should have to say that they edited it. Either to the person who has their post changed or to the forum in general. Just my opinion. Id actually rather have a post deleted than altered, because I dont want someone else changing my meaning.
Timewasters has gotten more rules oriented, and it has scared away some people. We do need to grow readers.
I think we also need to discuss giving noobs more and better leeway. We are way way way too hostile to noobs here and its a very bad thing.
I realize that TWG is like a big dysfunctional family, but new folks need a chance.
-
We've been remarkably nicer to newbies recently than ever before, and I think we're improving quite a bit in that area.
-
Much of which can be attributed to me not doing it anymore :p
-
Entropy's new title "Master of the Obvious" ;D
-
I'm with MasterJeffe on the Noob treatment. Maybe we are nicer now than ever before. That doesn't mean we're nice enough.
On several occasion I've seen new folks, who are going through a lot of the old threads looking for interesting material and then commenting on it, blasted mercilessly for "resurrecting old threads." That's ridiculous. It's perfectly reasonable for a noob to go through old threads looking for interesting things (enjoyably wasting time for heaven's sake), and it's also perfectly reasonable for that noob to want to comment on things he finds interesting.
As for the whole "tangent" discussion on a pure thread problem, why can't the forum admins move a lengthy discussion to a new thread if it gets appropriate to do that? If they put a marker/link in the original "pure" thread saying where they've moved the tangent to, then the pure thread maintains its integrity with only a single extraneous post and everyone who wants to participate in the tangent can with only a single extra click.
-
for once, I think that Skar and I are in near total agreement. The problem with resurrecting threads in the past has been that they are resurrected for a "me too" post or to show a complete disregard for how a fight/flame war was stopped or to rehash something that's already hashed to heck (not to beat a dead horse or anything).
The principle of resurrecting a thread itself is not bad though. If that's the only reason you're yelling at someone, just stop. If they're showing a complete unfamiliarity with forum culture, gently explain to them that this was a bad idea and point them at the FAQ and the introductory thread. If they KEEP doing it. Let Jam and Fell know.
and I think Skar has a great solution to the extended discussion problem. It's hard to move just a couple posts, but the mod could point to the new thread and tell them to carry on that way, maybe quoting a couple posts if necessary. Further posts in that vein on the original thread could be deleted (fair warning was given) for propriety's sake, i think, but preserve the discussion.
-
I think that could work. But again, I think that the first line of defense should be our own common sense, rather than relying on a mod to do it for us. Mods can step in if a tangent gets way too long, as mentioned, but for the most part I think we can do this on our own.
-
and made sure people knew that people at TWG weren't here to solve other people's problems in life.
Yeah! Down with friendship!
*Fish giggles
Honestly, it makes me very very sad when everyone starts snapping at each other. Couldn't we just have civil discussion and actually learn from each other rather than being hostile?
*Fish looks up the price of real estate in utopia
-
Should be pretty cheap seeing that no one lives there.
-
One can only hope.
-
I saw a fight brewing, and wanted to stop it before it started.
I mod another forum and that is just a foreign concept to me
People fight
People CAN have fights w/o it turning into uninteligable flame wars
HOWEVER
Here, I feel reluctant to post a contrasting opinion because I might get modded.
I have seen threads locked JUST as they grew intrestig. I have OFTEN wanted to put my 2 cents in only to find the thread locked...
I have seen people take offense at commentsa I would never have thought twice about.
Maybe I am from a rougher internet neighborhood, But I did think some of the mod-choices here were excessive
-
It's a sad fact here on the boards that disagreements turn very quickly into flame wars. Until we can calm down as posters, I think Jam was modding well to head it off in that manner.
-
gotta agree with Osleon, yeah we fight, but our flame wars are actually really tame compared to 95% of the BBS's Ive been on. Kenzerco's Hackmaster board was downright hostile and frightening. It makes more sense to stop the fight after it happens instead of assuming it will happen. I think a lot of the drop of in discussion stems from rabid modding as of late. It certainly makes me want to visit less. That could be because I have strong opinions I want voiced, but I dont think it is.
-
I think "rabid modding" is a gross exageration. Maybe I've missed something, though -- name the threads that have been locked or threatened with locking. Unless it's only on the threads I never read, it's really, really uncommon.
-
compared to a how it used to be one thread locked is rabid. But there have been a few locked in the last 3 months... the one that leaps out at me is the cookie monster thread there were however more.
Cookie Rehab?
Urge to Kill rising!
I remember others but cant seem to find them right now.
the other stuff I cant show you because it has been edited posts and the like. Mainly Im just getting tired of the threats. Threats mainly levelled at noobs for no reason.
-
Yeah, ok, I suck as mod and officially step down.
Happy now?
-
I, for one, would not be. Jam, I don't think that people are knocking you directly. You did what was expected of you, and you did it well, in my opinion. What I think people are saying is that we should start expecting something else in a mod. I don't know if you like that any better, but that is my impression.
-
exactly, your a good mod, as the rules exist now... but we need a little change.
If you were a bad mod you would have locked this thread. ;D
-
First off...
Isn't there a way to make sub-threads; I mean, have a thread that is under another thread, like a thread in a folder as we have it now? Can't we just make it so all of the 'pure' threads have a little button below the posing window that says 'creat sub-thread' and automatically quotes the post that the person is replying to? That would solve the pure threads problem--nobody would have to make a new thread, they wouldn't get to numerous or hard to find because they would only be choosable once the master thread was highlighted. I've seen such on other forums, can't we encorperate that into the new TWG?
I, too, have found myself visiting way less these days, since nothing interesting ever comes up anymore. Most of the stuff that remains unlocked remains mindless dribble or small talk because anything that becomes a debate or an argument is immediately locked, modded, threatened or otherwise massacred.
Flame wars at TWG rarely, if ever, succumb to personal attacks, and when they do, the attacks are coupled with opinions, so it isn't even half as bad as at most forums. I think that until a debate or argument turns into personal attacks, it should remain unlocked. If there is a 'flame war to be,' it should be left up UNTIL it becomes a flame war--opinions, especially conflicting opinions, are getting so rare here at TWG it makes the site much less appealing. I always have TWG open, I'm here all the time, but because nothing ever interests me I hardly even browse anymore.
And the Noob treatment now is not too harsh, I think. I came in pretty rough, and I didn't resurrect old threads, I just turked a few people off with my opinion(s), which DID turn into a flame war (one which was not locked or edited, which goes to show how much more censored TWG is today compared to a year or so ago). And now I'm, or I would like to think I am, a productive member of the board--at least I'm not detrimental. If nobody has to deal with some stressors when they join the board, they'll never loose those Noob habits--I think that where the bar is now is about as 'nice' as we should get--give them a few warnings, but don't make it excessive, lay them in line if they're out of it.
-
/me brandishes noob stick
I'll learn you good noob!!!!
(does that bring back memories) :D
I didnt mean to say we were worse as far as treatment went, just that we have a way to come. But yeah it seems like discussion has dried up in favor of safer pastures.
-
Which is a shame. Because the interesting conversation is what lured me to TWG in the first place. That and the fact that there were other people who liked Fantasy as much as I did.
-
I don't care if 95% of the other sites are worse then us or "tougher", just becasue another site dosen't see any problems with it dosen't make it right. The Cookie thread that Jeffe mentioned was getting really personal and some people were personaly trying to attack others. Personal attacks are NEVER acceptible here and all most all the threads that get locked is becasue of this. I don't care if it, or another thread, was just "Getting Intersting" to some people such personal things, or purposly posting things to make others mad, is not what frends do. In the early days of TWG there would be lots of discussions that would go on for pages without someone trowing a flame and, if by chance, one did start up the other forum posters stepped in and calmed things down. Problem is now a days it's allwayse the same people causeing threads to be locked, if you ever go back and read them you'll see the same 2-3 people that were being rude and abrasive, the fact that this has been going on for quite some time shows that these people do not care or have not realised that they're the problem (which seams kind of hard since they allwayse get chastised for causeing said problems).
JP rarely locks threads and only when things start getting personal, if you don't want threads to get locked anymore then tread people how you'd like to be treated. And if you like to get yelled at by others, called names and be disrespected then don't post here anymore, that's all there is to it.
-
I don't care if it, or another thread, was just "Getting Intersting" to some people such personal things, or purposly posting things to make others mad, is not what frends do.
Exactly. But I hope that you don't think that we thought threads were interesting because of personal attacks. I, for one, think that they were more interesting because people had strong opinions and the debate was somewhat competitive. This is a far stretch from making personal attacks, and I agree that crossing over that line is not something a friend should do, and is ridiculous.
and, if by chance, one did start up the other forum posters stepped in and calmed things down.
Another good point, people should stop relying on mods to step in to resolve conflict. First of all, people should check themselves carefully, but also, if you want lively conversation to continue, then resolve conflicts when you can, to keep people from crossing the line.
-
I'm sorry, but I just went back through "Cookie Rehab" and "Urge to Kill"
I really dont see why they were locked
"Cookie Rehab" seemed to be people assuming personal attacks when none took place
and "Urge to kill"...
I have no clue why that was locked. It was an intresting thread.
-
I'm leaning toward sprig on this. I like less fights. Fights were why I stopped hanging out at Geek Culture right as I was becoming one of the "In Crowd." It wasn't fun.
Fights should be modded.
Posting something that doesn't fit a strictly defined format should not be modded unless it's completely off subject.
Cookie was a lot of misunderstanding. But when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a conversation stopped due to a misunderstanding rather than have the bad feelings continue.
I"m not sure about urge to kill. We had a few linguists discussing linguistics... and... some other people making comments and being corrected. I'm not sure about that one.
Now, I think JP is doing his job right. I think we have far too many fights and I'd much rather see Urge to Kill die than have all the other fights continue. There have been a lot of fights. And I don't want fights, even if they're mil compared to Kenzerco or Geek Culture or anywhere else.
But what Fell said, it starts with policing ourselves. If someone says something, why not assume it DOESN'T mean the most offensive thing but instead means something more innocuous. I don't think there's been a single comment that has contributed to a thread escalating to a fight that couldn't have been taken in a much less offensive manner than it was. The problem is not people making offensive comments (ok, yeah, that's part of it), but it is more that people are taking offense at comments that they shouldn't. I'm appaled that you can't call something stupid anymore, even if it bears absolutely no relation to anyone here, their interests, or the interests of their third cousins. THAT is taking too much offense.
-
I agree. This site is joining the trend of being super politcally correct, you can't call something stupid or say that something is better than something else without it offending somebody. I think everybody, myself included, should make sure that there has been something offensive if they are going to act offended.
And I didn't mean to say, and lo siento for doing so if I did, that fights were okay. I meant as soon as there are personal attacks, take measures necissary to stop the attacks, locking included. I do not think, though, that 'impending flame wars' are a good enough reason to lock a thread. Until the first match is dropped, there is no fire, so there should be no firemen.
-
Could someone please link to Cookie Rehab?
Either I can't figure out how to search for a particular thread and am stupid or the search engine for the forum sucks.
-
http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=other;action=display;num=1112910873
-
http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=other;action=display;num=1112910873
-
I still think you're making mountains out of molehills. Jeffe listed only two threads that had been locked in the recent past, and no one else has specified any others. Two locked posts, and other, uncounted threats of locking hardly constitute rabid modding, or, as Gorgon says, the forum becoming super politically correct.
Gorgon's phrase: "Until the first match is dropped, there is no fire, so there should be no firemen" could apply just as well to this discussion. Where's the fire? Where is all of this strict fascist modding?
-
Just for the record I never said fascist, and maybe using rabid was a little exaggerated, but modding doesn't stop at just locking threads anymore, it also has deleted posts and edited posts. I dont like that. I agree with saint that people need to stop seeing the worst in what people say and not throw gas on the fire when they get mad.
-
again, as I've said at least 2 other times in this thread, the edited posts situation has allready been delt with, the only times it should happen is when people post links to illegal content or other extream situations. As for deletating posts, that only happens in threads like Cool Stuff and Quotes, it dosen't happen on normal threads. If it has happened recently please let me know since I'm want to be aware of it all.
-
I just read Cookie Rehab and frankly I think the answer to that particular problem was for SE to calm down.
Now, I've been accused of taking offense at SE's posts when none was reasonable so my opinion is suspect. However, I see a pattern. SE's posts are often, in my opinion, the equivalent of walking into a room of people making a quilt and saying loudly, "Quilt making is stupid and a waste of time!" Then denying loudly ever having called anyone in the room, personally, stupid. And claiming, again loudly, that anyone who takes offense has a problem, and may be stupid. Then, when the people in the room object, pointing out that they are the ones taking offense and therefore it's not your problem.
The effect is the same and the behavior is unreasonable.
Sorry if I've offended. I call them as I see them.
-
My personal opinion is that the only requirement to solve the problem is...
Thicker Skin
Honestly, saying "quilting is stupid" is diffrent than saying "people who quilt are stupid"
Lots of smart people do dumb things.
Taking such rich offense is just going overboard.
Fact is, around here
I feel like I can only add a "me too" post to any topic, otherwise, I would inadvertantly offend someone for some ODD reason and cause some lockage.
As it stands, I would never attempt to discuss
Terri Schivo
Secular Europe
US Foreign Policy
Papal polotics
Michael Moore
Anne Coultor
Star Wars Cannon (EU vs Movies)
and others..
On this board. The chance of someone manufacturing a reason to be offended is too great. My personal opinion is to not lock the threads when they get heated unless the content is OBVIOUSLY offensive, not just what ONE person CLAIMS is offensive... as it stands now we have threads locked out of fear of the Tyranny of the minority
-
My personal opinion is that the only requirement to solve the problem is...
Thicker Skin
No doubt.
Honestly, saying "quilting is stupid" is diffrent than saying "people who quilt are stupid"
Hardly. It is impossible for quilting to be stupid. The activity itself does not have cognitive ability and therefore that cognitive ability cannot be lacking. When you are in a room(or forum) full of quilters the implication that it's actually the people who indulge in quilting who are being called stupid is unavoidable.
It's simply a case of the speaker not having the courage or the clarity of thought to just come right out and say it.
That said, I think it's correct that a thicker skin is usually the best solution to avoiding contention on the board. But when you call someone stupid, through backhanded implication or straightforward insult, don't be surprised when they object.
-
That's a really pedantic perspective, Skar, and I enthusiastically disagree. It is neither technically nor grammatically incorrect to call an activity stupid. It is common and accepted usage. The fact that I think that activity is stupid by no means says that I called an individual who does it stupid.
My wife thinks a lot of things I do are stupid. I don't like that she thinks they're stupid, but I would never go so far as to say that my wife thinks I am stupid. There is a universe of difference.
Btw, It's awfully hard to calm down when you're constantly accused of offending people. In cookie rehab? What did I say that was offensive BEFORE anyone told me I was out of line? Yes, I was excited, but that does NOT mean offensive. If you're not allowed to be passionate here, there's really no point in hanging around, because I do not spend my time, wasted or no, doing things that I don't have strong feelings about.
-
OK.
It is neither technically nor grammatically incorrect to call an activity stupid. It is common and accepted usage.
Given. However, the implication that the person performing the "stupid" activity must therefore be stupid is just as common and accepted since the statement is nonsensical otherwise. You must remember that the only medium by which we communicate is text. Nuance, such as body language and tone is uncommunicable by it. So, whatever nuance you would add to your statement that quilting is stupid in a room full of quilters that would prevent them from being offended is lost in this medium.
The fact that I think that activity is stupid by no means says that I called an individual who does it stupid.
I beg to differ and I appear to be in fairly numerous company considering how many of your "stupid activity, stupid point of view, stupid whatever" posts are reacted to with offense and displeasure and eventual locking.
But I suppose that when the whole world thinks your posts are offensive, the whole world must be stupid, since your posts are not offensive. Continue as before.
I hope you realize that a standard PM to noobs on this board is to not let SE/e get under their skin, since it's just his "way"
-
See, now, THAT post seems calculated to make people (read: me) feel bad.
The other difference is I have REPEATEDLY stated that I intend a difference between the two statements. Continuing to take offense at that point IS a problem with the reader. By doing so you DELIBERATELY choose to say that your interpretation of the comment matters much more than the actual poster STATING that he did not intend it that way. That, frankly, is NOT my problem. It is the problem with the person taking it.
Btw, I am also in plentiful company separating the two ideas and finding that there is no logical inconsistency between them. So that hardly makes it the rest of the world. I'm sorry, but disagreeing with you does not mean I disagree with the whole world. I hope that doesn't deflate your ego too much -- remember, I am not even the one who brought up that thread as an example. nor was I the first to agree that it shouldn't have been locked. In fact, I was the first to say that it was better to have locked it than to let all fights continue.
I return back to my question. You say the Cookie Rehab thread was me needing to calm down. Again, was there anything I said that was offensive before other people were telling me to cross the line? Or was it just something I had strong feelings about? If the former, THEN I'll accept it was my fault (conditional on my belief taking offense to the point was a rational decision). If the latter, why is expressing strong feelings such a problem? Who here honestly wants to continue to visit a place where no one is allowed to talk about what interests them?
Now, before you decide to focus on that last statement: I am fully aware that "no one" is an exaggeration. The point remains. There are several people here who feel that there is enough censorship to prevent them from entertaining several topics of conversation. I personally would really be interested in hearing what Oseleon says about Papal politics, since he's one of the few active Catholics I know and would be in a much better position to comment on it than most people I know. I think our forum would benefit from opening up a little more to some tolerance of saying things strongly.
-
I think one of the problems with this thread is that we keep using the word "offend". Personally, I can't remember the last time I've gotten offended by something, and I think most people on the boards are not getting offended either.
"Annoyed" might be better, or "irritated".
Look at the locked threads again and see if they follow the forum guidelines:
FOURTH ITEM: Be polite.
I can't stress this enough. Being insensitive to others' opinions is a failing of both newcomers and long-time posters. Try not to contribute to this atmosphere. It is good to have strong opinions, and it's even better to have opinions that are different from those of other posters. The forum experience is about discussion and disagreement. However, you can disagree with someone without calling them names or otherwise insulting them. Be nice and respect people's differences.
I don't think the Cookie Rehab thread, or others, were offensive, but they were unnecessarily rude.
(I'm not saying that I'm perfect here, either, by the way.)
-
see, I disagree. Not with being polite, but I am accused repeatedly of being offensive. Yes, that word has been used. Frequently. And often without provocation I can understand when you look at how I explain myself. I don't think saying that a debate is stupid is rude. Sorry, I don't. I would be just fine saying that in high-brow company. Until I was accused of going too far and saying unnecessary things, that was the furthest I went.
-
Yes, SE, that post WAS designed to make you feel bad. But I followed all of the rules you claim to follow. I never called you, specifically, stupid. I made sweeping implications (that disagreeing with me was equivalent to disagreeing with the whole world) etc... Yet you were bothered enough to comment on it. So when you are on the receiving end of your own rules of engagement you don't like it anymore than anyone else.
SE, when you tell someone that their opinion is stupid it's offensive, no one likes it. It bothers people.
You yourself admit that you have been often and repeatedly accused of being offensive. Doesn't this give you a signal?
On the cookie rehab thread in your second post you implied that the posters who were bugged by the change to the cookie monster thought the entire purpose of Sesame Street was to entertain them (condescending) you said you couldn't understand how a "mature" person could come to the conclusion that they had, and you referred to Archon as "some teenager." So, those who disagreed with you were self-centered, immature, and too young to take seriously. All this before anyone had accused you of being offensive.
And frankly no one else on that thread lost it. They all maintained their civility just fine.
I personally and, I think I'm safe in making a sweeping statement here, everyone else here thinks that passion in discussion is just fine and very desirable. When passion is replaced with vitriol is when it's not OK.
I make no claims to perfection. I have lost it on occasion. I try not to, so do we all. No one is deliberately being offensive or offended.
My sole point is encapsulated in my quilt analogy, which I won't bother to repeat.
You say it's hard to remain calm when people are accusing you of being offensive. It's hard for some of us to remain calm when we or our ideas are called stupid or immature or too insignificant to notice.
-
THen you misrepresent me. I have neither established rules nor said that "stupid" was the only way to offend someone. Please stop oversimplifying my point. It doesn't show an understanding of what I"m trying to say. And it just goes to show that you think it's a vaid argumentation technique to offend people. If you truly wanted to hold your point, you would stay away from offending people even when proving a point.
Btw, is this (http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=other;action=display;num=1114996497;start=5) offensive? That's all I've done. I didn't call any poster's opinion stupid. In fact, I called an opinion stupid that everyone else specifically separated themselves from. How is that offending them?
Your quilting analogy doesn't work for me, because it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of what we're talking about.
As for you thinking I need a clue, no I don't think that really targets me, because you are the primary source of those comments. And you have been involved in just about every argument I've been in -- the only exception (though there may be a few others) I can think of is the Cookie Rehab thread. Maybe you need to look at that as well when you want to blame me for any troubles around here. Besides, there are always a few people who agree that I haven't said anything offensive.
Now, what are you trying to do? Drive me away? Force me to change a behavior I don't feel is incorrect? If the first, it won't work, I've put too much into TWG to abandon it like that, and my respect for you would drop. Fortunately, I don't believe that's what you are trying to do. If the latter, then you should just lay off. Never in my life has the constant accusation from someone, especially when that accusation is limited as it is here, forced me to change behavior when I don't think I'm wrong. If I'm truly wrong, I will most likely recognize it a while after everyone stops trying to guilt trip me into changing. If I'm not wrong, well, then you're just picking another fight, aren't you? It's obviously not accomplish anything by constantly picking at it.
-
Skar, I think continuing to use the Cookie thread as an example is losing it's effectiveness, since SE has already agreed that the topic should have been locked.
Thanks for quoting the FAQ, HoM, I had forgotten about that item. Reading it makes me glad that EUOL spent the time to write it. It is well-thought out.
Sometimes I think the biggest problem is that people have a hard time uttering (or typing for that matter) words like "I was wrong," or "Sorry, I was out of line." There seems to be a lot of energy expended to avoid anything that might be construed along those lines. I can think of one instance in particular in which I offended Tage and tried to laugh it off rather than just doing the stand-up thing and apologizing. I guess it worked because Tage didn't respond to it, but given Tage's posting habits I can't be sure.
Skar, I think, if you're really interested in showing SE the validity of your point of view, you're going to have to use a different tact than making him "feel bad." It requires a logical frame of mind to admit the validity of an argument against your own. Being put on the defensive is not conducive to such thinking.
Along with Fell's earlier admonitions to us to police our own posts, I would like to add this request, look to yourself for part of the blame. Once you've acknowledged your own piece of the situation, you will be better able to peacefully resolve the disagreement. You only have the power to change what you yourself have control over. If you don't admit to a level of culpability, you make yourself powerless to affect change.
And Tage, I am sorry. I was out of line.
-
THen you misrepresent me. I have neither established rules nor said that "stupid" was the only way to offend someone.
Sure you did.
I don't think saying that a debate is stupid is rude.
Btw, is this offensive?
Huh? That link goes to a page where you didn't say anything at all. What's the connection?
Your quilting analogy doesn't work for me, because it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of what we're talking about.
What's the difference? You have yet to say.
If you think I'm the only one you've offended on this board...well, I have no response to that. Perhaps it's true.
I'm not trying to drive you away. I'm just trying to get to a place where people can post on a thread and not expect you or anyone else to call them or their opinion stupid, immature, simplistic, or disgusting. If I thought I was the only one who felt this way about your posts I would have said nothing, we've had this discussion off line. Since then you've been getting threads locked without me just fine.
No comment on my examples from the cookie rehab thread? They're germane to the point...
-
MoD. I agree that making someone feel bad is an invalid tactic. I was not trying to make SE change his behavior by making him feel bad I was trying to demonstrate that using the same brand of language he defends would make HIM feel bad, thus illustrating that his argument that people shouldn't reasonably feel bad when he calls their opinion stupid was invalid. Since he had the same reaction they did.
-
You know what I think would nip a lot of fights in the bud? Less defensiveness, and less of a focus on semantics. It seems like a ton of discussions in the last few months have stopped being about the topic at hand, and started being about "you're quoting me wrong," "I never said that," "please read what I wrote instead of interpreting it wrong," and so on. There's been a ton of that, from almost everyone. On the one hand, I think it's important that we make our points clear and try to correct someone who obviously misunderstood our intention--but on the other hand, I think there are better ways to do that than to retread the same lines over and over, and focus on how the other person just "isn't getting it." If you feel that you have been misunderstood, don't get defensive and pick each other's posts apart--just restate what you've said in a very different way, so that you're adding something new to the conversation instead of dwelling on past and inherently imperfect statements. I think that could help.
-
Tell me, how, exactly, saying "I don't think calling a debate stupid" is the same as stating that "stupid is the only way to offend someone" or establishing a "rule" of debate. I really cannot see how that logical sequence progresses.
Huh? That link goes to a page where you didn't say anything at all. What's the connection?
The word stupid is used quite a bit there. I suspect you don't find it offensive. Yet if I call an opinion that no one holds "stupid" I'm offensive. Double standard?[/quote
What's the difference? You have yet to say.
Au Contraire. I said quite clearly:
"The other difference is I have REPEATEDLY stated that I intend a difference between the two statements"
In addition, In the quilting example, you are intentionally saying something that denegrates the activity people there are KNOWN to have. Whereas, as I have pointed out, again repeatedly and clearly, I have only called stupid tastes and opinions that no one around appears to have.
I'm not trying to drive you away. I'm just trying to get to a place where people can post on a thread and not expect you or anyone else to call them or their opinion stupid, immature, simplistic, or disgusting. If I thought I was the only one who felt this way about your posts I would have said nothing, we've had this discussion off line. Since then you've been getting threads locked without me just fine.
One more time folks, all together I have not said that about any opinion someone here actually HOLDS. That would be a SINGLE thread, Skar. Thank you. I've also not risen to your bait several times.
No comment on my examples from the cookie rehab thread? They're germane to the point...
I did comment on that. I pointed out that the example you pulled did not actually describe an opinion anyone on the board claimed to have. If you think I haven't said these things, I invite you to read this thread again. I hate to repeat what Fell just invited us not to do, but you are trying to make points about me doing something that I simply haven't done. I am completely mystified about how I have offended you by doing something that I quite clearly have not done. I can't think of another way to re-frame it.
I just have to assume then, that you ARE arguing for the sake of arguing, because that's the only way I can describe what you are doing. Feel free to clarify the matter. You're not trying to drive me away, you're not trying to get me to change something I've actually done. I don't get what your actual goal *is*.
-
Really,
Semantics is the last refuge of a lost argument.
SE, I welcome you to come at me full bore in any topic I post. I doubt you or anyone here has what it takes to get "under my skin"
I do wonder HOW someone could let an internet post get under their skin at all...
-
MoD. I agree that making someone feel bad is an invalid tactic. I was not trying to make SE change his behavior by making him feel bad I was trying to demonstrate that using the same brand of language he defends would make HIM feel bad, thus illustrating that his argument that people shouldn't reasonably feel bad when he calls their opinion stupid was invalid. Since he had the same reaction they did.
I didn't have the same reaction though. I didn't tell you to stop it or that you were out of control. I posted that it was a weak and invalid argumentation tactic, yet all this time you INTENDED to be offensive, whereas I have not.
-
OK. You're right. I'm wrong.
-
/me applauds
-
*Skar applauds ???
-
I would just like to say that I am exceedingly exceedingly annoyed that our conversation on the superfly thread got locked for absolutely no visible reason. I didn't realize that being too "girly" was against the FAQ. This makes me never want to come back to the site, because I don't want to deal with it anymore.
-
Actually ir was locked for being long, and the girly thing was mostly a joke. Old superfly threads get locked.
You can continue talking girly on the new thread too, that's why there's a new one.
-
They get locked around 20-25 pages historically. not 15.
-
And it was restarted by people who aren't involved in the nightcrew. Which was rude and unneccessary.
-
God it was a JOKE people! Get a life and move on with it.
-
I thought it was a joke. I figured it was just getting long.
-
God it was a JOKE people! Get a life and move on with it.
FOURTH ITEM: Be polite.
I can't stress this enough. Being insensitive to others' opinions is a failing of both newcomers and long-time posters. Try not to contribute to this atmosphere. It is good to have strong opinions, and it's even better to have opinions that are different from those of other posters. The forum experience is about discussion and disagreement. However, you can disagree with someone without calling them names or otherwise insulting them. Be nice and respect people's differences.
NINETH ITEM: No swearing.
Duh. If you swear, the admins will delete your post. If you do it a lot, they'll delete your profile.
-
1) Where's the swearing?
2) I agree with Spriggan. It was a joke, you people do need to get over it. It wasn't a huge challange to anyone's authroity or gender. 15 pages is pretty long, and they started a new one right after. Hence, it's funny.
First item (Jam's Ammendment): Have a sense of Humour. If you don't have a sense of humour, Jam will hurt you. (Jam is of course joking, so if you're offended or intimidated by this you'll be hurt)
-
yeah, this was not targeted at anyone. It was not locked to stop you from talking. Sometimes threads get locked earlier than others.
If you seriously think I was trying to make anyone angry, get over it, because I wasn't. But I'm *really* tried of people making me out to be someone trying to be offensive. I can't stop you from doing that, but I can certainly ignore you. If that's the manner of your complaint, it will fall on deaf ears.
As for "not being involved in the night crew" -- I was under the impression that ANYONE was part of the night crew. ESPECIALLY since there are always a few posts added to it during the day.
-
But I'm *really* tried of people making me out to be someone trying to be offensive.
I personally never think you're trying to be offensive, but given the amount of times you're accused of doing it? Hmm, maybe that should tell you something.
Ok, it was a joke. The people the joke was played on found it luke-warm humor at best. Just don't keep doing it and we'll be fine.
-
if you don't think I'm trying to be offensive, then why don't you start off by assuming I'm not?
-
Because it's possible to offend without meaning to.
And when you do offend without meaning to, you seem to go straight into defensive mode (which is fair), but it would help a lot more if you just said, "Hey I'm sorry I offended you - it was supposed to be just a joke." instead of "It was a joke, you guys are so sensitive!"
-
wouldn't it *also* help for the offended person to actually BE less sensitive, realize that the offender didn't do it on purpose, and that maybe, just maybe, instead of threatening to leave the message boards, you could kindly point out that you didn't think it was in good taste?
I'm not arguing anymore about whether it was offensive. I'm arguing about the self-righteousness of the offended who never think that they could possibly do anything wrong when they get so indignant. It is my view that the person who finds a reason to be offended by an action, even after the first few arguments have been averted, has at least as much a problem than the original "offender."
-
Okay, here's my two cents.
In a forum environment, it seems that it is not always easy to ascertain what people are saying. We don't have voice inflections and facial expressions to accompany actions/comments, so it is hard at times to determine if someone is joking or attacking--since humor, and particularly sarcastic humor, often plays along this fine line.
MsFish, I think I can say from her post, felt affronted. For that matter, I did to. I was enjoying the conversation stacer, MsFish, and I were having, and I felt put out that it suddenly got cut off. (However, I also can recognize that I was incredibly moody yesterday. I was very cranky on the phone with MsFish, so perhaps some of my crankiness rubbed off on her.) But I think now we can all see that it was a joke meant in a fun and not a vindictive manner, so why don't we all kiss and make up? :) :-*
I guess I'm a peacemaker. I like everyone on the board, and I hate when people fight. Can't we all get along?
-
Also, for the love of digital text, can we only have *one* active Superfly thread at a time?
-
No, because only one is the real superfly thread :)
What about those of us who don't pick up on voice inflections and body movements?
-
What about those of us who don't pick up on voice inflections and body movements?
I fear that you subsequently suffer in social circles. ;D But, even though I am immortal, I can only do so much, so I can't help you with your interactions in "the real world." You're on your own there. ;)
-
I would like to apologize for overreacting. I still don't appreciate what was done or the accusations that followed, but that's not an excuse for me to be a jerk about it, so I'm sorry.
-
I too am sorry to have done something that offended. Please realize that what was done was not to shut people up, nor to make them angry.
-
I apologise for the excessive amount of lovey-dovey stuff in here.
/me lets off a teargas grenade
-
/me lets up a fragmentation grenade while Ent isn't looking.
-
/me flees in the vertical axis
-
oh come on. you guys just need a hug
-
Hey, don't have all the fun without me!
*Archon racks his MP5*
-
Spread the love!
*Chimera passes out Hugs and Kisses (the candies) to everyone*
-
this ranks about a 15 on the cootie-meter.
-
Only a 15? I'll have to try harder to be more girly. ;D