When I started reading this thread, I really thought starting over would be super fun.
I didn't realize how divided the areas were still. I mean, I knew there were probably people who only posted in the art or writing areas but I didn't realize that something as simple as One NBA or One Parenting thread would be so upsetting for people. I hope whatever the decision is won't cause folks to vanish. The only thing I'll add is that if it is decided that technically we're just backing up the old conversations and starting fresh, we (or the mods, whoever) make that decision early in the life of the new haunt.
I'm in favor of the edict. It sets a tone and expectation of behavior and I do feel the place has had a much better feeling overall thanks to it.
The two places aren't super divided, but there is a general difference of political leanings and how people post which aren't unable to be remedied with more moderation and an official 'knock it off' policy for people who are trying to set the tone themselves without letting it develop. The sports threads in the two different sub forums are largely the same people and will merge perfectly. TV and movies less so, but I think they can just develop separate threads that are more chill or about posting an essay about what a movie means.
But I think there are too many people giving feedback which isn't wrong to have opinions, but the 'mod council' is too small and we'd probably be better off by adding the people we want to be mods on the new forum to the council now so there is a larger grew working on the basics before presenting a plan and taking feedback from the community.
IMO the only changes that should be made immediately to forum structure is excising all the PA specific project subforums and more because we legally have to rather than for activity reasons.
We're gonna have big problems if we don't carry over the dedicated subforum for Camp Weedontwantcha. ;P
Responsible adults should be able to say the work 'fuck'. I firmly believe that.
They can, though. People do it all the time under the Glorious Edict! However, there's a difference, especially in a tone-neutral format like text, between saying "what you said is fucking wrong", and "you are a fucking idiot". We are all adults, yes, but it's important to remember that most of us do not know each other, not really. That's part of why I think the Glorious Edict has never been about "foul language" (fowl language?) and is entirely about personal insults. You can be crude and you can be rude and you can fight back against things people say, but you can't insult them as a person because in the end, we don't know each other. Engaging the ideas, not the people.
Honestly, a group of adults should be able to say 'fuck you' to each other. It's not really that bad.
Fuck you can be anything from a term of endearment, to an expression of exasperation, to a sincere desire to see hurt inflicted on somebody else.
The only thing that's a problem is that last one.
It's not just about the language that's used, but the intent. And the glorious edict only affects the language that's used.
The issue is forums are a text based medium with a lot of participants. I, as a poster, or someone else, as a hypothetical moderator, can't easily tell the difference between a friendly "fuck you" and a "fuck you, you're an asshole" even if the meaning is understood by the recipient. Changing that to "you silly goose" immediately de-escalates a potentially hostile exchange.
If that's still applicable is up for debate as the environment is not the same as when the edict went into place.
This is why both the edict needs to go and general "I should be able to pop off directly at a poster I don't like" also needs to go.
Just treat it like you're visiting your parents and are participating in their shuffleboard club. Maybe someone that doesn't vibe with you doesn't need to be a problem that gets called out and you can both participate in shuffle itself.
0
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited October 2024
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
Honestly, none of this is really about the Glorious Edict. Anyone is capable of being a complete jagoff without ever calling someone a name. Keep the Edict, lose it, make it do the hokey pokey, it doesn't matter.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
+12
surfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Honestly, a group of adults should be able to say 'fuck you' to each other. It's not really that bad.
Fuck you can be anything from a term of endearment, to an expression of exasperation, to a sincere desire to see hurt inflicted on somebody else.
The only thing that's a problem is that last one.
It's not just about the language that's used, but the intent. And the glorious edict only affects the language that's used.
Nah, you can be far more abusive with your language if you’re not restricted to using “goose”.
Yes, but you're missing the point of what I'm saying.
Does the glorious edict make people nicer, or does it paper over abuse by restricting people's options?
If the only thing preventing you from being abusive is not being able to say 'fuck', that's a problem.
Responsible adults should be able to say the work 'fuck'. I firmly believe that.
I think a part of the fundamental difference between people who like or don't like the edict is whether you want to share a space with someone who would abuse you if they had the chance but can't, or people who would not abuse you at all.
It's all well and good to say that if someone can't say something abusive then they're not a problem, but sometimes that negative vibe can leak out in other ways.
imo online conversations can suffer from lacking something that in-person conversations have as a built-in control mechanism
In person, you are seeing the other person's reactions to what you're saying, they're seeing yours, you (probably) have a desire to keep things from escalating too much and can see when the conversation is heating up to a point where people are being made uncomfortable
Online, that feedback is missing, and I think it's a large part of why people get extremely contentious about things. It's very easy to layer response after response, each one ratcheting up the heat, never experiencing the mutual discomfort that the same conversation would be producing in person
I think rules/systems to try and limit the rate of that ratcheting up are good, but I'm also very agreeable and will go along with whatever happens
The Edict is a lot of the reason I came back here, because I appreciated there was at least *one* place on the internet dedicated to maintaining some civility. Like many of you, I remember the pre-edict days. Early-mid aughts was *bad*, so much that I quit for many years and don’t even remember my original username
If I want to be called every name in the book/get told to fuck myself over nothing, I have Reddit and wow discords for that
Honestly, a group of adults should be able to say 'fuck you' to each other. It's not really that bad.
Fuck you can be anything from a term of endearment, to an expression of exasperation, to a sincere desire to see hurt inflicted on somebody else.
The only thing that's a problem is that last one.
It's not just about the language that's used, but the intent. And the glorious edict only affects the language that's used.
Nah, you can be far more abusive with your language if you’re not restricted to using “goose”.
Yes, but you're missing the point of what I'm saying.
Does the glorious edict make people nicer, or does it paper over abuse by restricting people's options?
If the only thing preventing you from being abusive is not being able to say 'fuck', that's a problem.
Responsible adults should be able to say the work 'fuck'. I firmly believe that.
I think a part of the fundamental difference between people who like or don't like the edict is whether you want to share a space with someone who would abuse you if they had the chance but can't, or people who would not abuse you at all.
It's all well and good to say that if someone can't say something abusive then they're not a problem, but sometimes that negative vibe can leak out in other ways.
It makes the conversation nicer by preventing people from being abusive. There's not some 1:1 substitution going on where every insulting post is replaced with some version that is attempting to be subtly or passive-aggressively insulting. A lot of shitty posts just don't happen. People keep it to themselves instead.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
Honestly, none of this is really about the Glorious Edict. Anyone is capable of being a complete jagoff without ever calling someone a name. Keep the Edict, lose it, make it do the hokey pokey, it doesn't matter.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
I think "don't be a dick" should take precedence even if you think you're morally righteous.
We don't need "silly goose" and we don't need "I hope you die" either. Neither is good even if you think you're right.
When I started reading this thread, I really thought starting over would be super fun.
I didn't realize how divided the areas were still. I mean, I knew there were probably people who only posted in the art or writing areas but I didn't realize that something as simple as One NBA or One Parenting thread would be so upsetting for people. I hope whatever the decision is won't cause folks to vanish. The only thing I'll add is that if it is decided that technically we're just backing up the old conversations and starting fresh, we (or the mods, whoever) make that decision early in the life of the new haunt.
I'm in favor of the edict. It sets a tone and expectation of behavior and I do feel the place has had a much better feeling overall thanks to it.
The two places aren't super divided, but there is a general difference of political leanings and how people post which aren't unable to be remedied with more moderation and an official 'knock it off' policy for people who are trying to set the tone themselves without letting it develop. The sports threads in the two different sub forums are largely the same people and will merge perfectly. TV and movies less so, but I think they can just develop separate threads that are more chill or about posting an essay about what a movie means.
But I think there are too many people giving feedback which isn't wrong to have opinions, but the 'mod council' is too small and we'd probably be better off by adding the people we want to be mods on the new forum to the council now so there is a larger grew working on the basics before presenting a plan and taking feedback from the community.
Very much this
I dont think we need 10 sub forums, we pretty much need 3
Games and Tech
Debate and Discourse - explicitly for serious stuff like world events and such and whatever you wanna have longer conversations about
General Bullshit
maybe Games and Tech has a subforum for larger communities like a MMO or Destiny but still have new threads in the main forum when news happens.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
"I Needed a Forum to Post"
I like the Arcadia options because they remind me of The Longest Journey.
I do think that a big part of choosing the name involves the branding. For the logo we probably want something that abbreviates well to two-three letters that on their own don't step on anyone else's toes, or end up too similar to gross horrible types (as hinted at earlier).
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
If they were actually doing specifically that, that would warrant a total forum ban IMO
Monster Hunter Wilds ID: 3L7DS7YF
+10
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
It all boils down to respect.
Just today I saw an individual post that many here do not respect. Replies immediately came in that ranged from name calling to passive aggressive sniping, all setting the tone of "get out, you aren't welcome here." While I also do not agree with that individual, I have to question if the ultimate desire is for them to leave or not. That is where I see respect coming in - who we want in this community, and what ideals we uphold.
The blow up that started this was because of respect. "I have a right to say whatever I want in this space no matter how it makes people feel" appears to have won out, with people disagreeing with that sentiment being accused of all number of things. I highly doubt anyone truly thinks the other side of the forum fence is a Nazi bar, but I have seen those comments get made by people on both sides of the ideological divide... And I have talked to people it has hurt.
The only way this forum survives is on respect. Maybe that respect is everyone going into their silos and ignoring each other. i personally hope not. I feel that there is a hell of a lot more that brings us together, even if not everyone is on the same page of how far they are personally willing to go. But until respect is restored... Well, we aren't getting anywhere.
(And while I called out forum beefs, I want to make it clear that this is also a vertical issue. From users to mods to admin to leadership, everyone needs to respect up and down. Doesn't mean like them.)
... Blah, this is exactly the convo I was hoping to wait to engage in until after a few weeks had passed, but I guess the accelerated timeline moves everything up.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
No it wouldn’t if it were only applied to a small handful of bad actors.
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
Eh, firewalling off sections of the forum to users seems counterproductive. I used to post in both more back in the day, it’s not a big deal to just read the room wherever you’re posting and follow the rules
As for one forum banning certain shitheels from shitheeling, that basically describes moderators’ jobs
Vitari on
Switch: SW-1909-0466-9585
+1
surfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
No it wouldn’t if it were only applied to a small handful of bad actors.
If you are that childish to do stuff like that then I'm sorry that person can get the fuck out.
Like I said before we want to make a new place work we need to collectivley unfuck ourselves and drop the preconceived notions of each other from a stupid fucking forum beef that should never of happened in the first place.
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
No it wouldn’t if it were only applied to a small handful of bad actors.
If you are that childish to do stuff like that then I'm sorry that person can get the fuck out.
Like I said before we want to make a new place work we need to collectivley unfuck ourselves and drop the preconceived notions of each other from a stupid fucking forum beef that should never of happened in the first place.
I am in agreement that subforum bans should be unnecessary.
If a person is so much of an asshole they can't manage the bare minimum of civility in one space in our community they should be shown the door. Regardless of how they may act in other spaces and it's irrelevant if the reason they are 'fine' in the other space is because they CAN behave themselves in that other space or if that other space has a culture that is more tolerant of them being a jackass.
+10
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
every user should be allowed to send a list to the moderators of every user they think should be banned and if you appear on two lists you die
Joking aside, I feel this is the undercurrent of a lot of the conversation, dating back to the "Festivus airing of grievances" from a few years ago. People have held grudges for a long time, and yet everyone knows it is a bad idea to list specific names because it basically removes plausible deniability. I mean, how much of the conversation earlier in the year centered around removing certain mods, because the perception was that they were abusing their mod status and directly targeting people? And no, my choice of words is not meant to be a comment on if those perceptions were accurate or not. I'm just trying to point out the way the conversations went. At its core, that is a situation where the laypeople lost respect in the mods because they perceived that the mods did not respect them. Well, that and a general attitude of not respecting "cops" or any figure of authority, which I fully understand people using as a blanket statement.
Social interactions are nuanced and tough. If they weren't, if the world were truly simple, then it would align much more with conservative views on the topic of humanity... and I cannot fall into that kind of simple rhetoric.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
No it wouldn’t if it were only applied to a small handful of bad actors.
If you are that childish to do stuff like that then I'm sorry that person can get the fuck out.
Like I said before we want to make a new place work we need to collectivley unfuck ourselves and drop the preconceived notions of each other from a stupid fucking forum beef that should never of happened in the first place.
I'm not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is but if we resolve a solution where D&D and SE remain separate I wish we could pick one, and you don't post on the other.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
No it wouldn’t if it were only applied to a small handful of bad actors.
If you are that childish to do stuff like that then I'm sorry that person can get the fuck out.
Like I said before we want to make a new place work we need to collectivley unfuck ourselves and drop the preconceived notions of each other from a stupid fucking forum beef that should never of happened in the first place.
I'm gone for like half an hour, and we're Hatfield and McCoy'ing this forum?
I mean, sure, we needed a Unique Selling Point, or as the people in the Bizzz call it, USP. Let's make it 2Forts with posts.
I'll be heavy weapons guy.
every user should be allowed to send a list to the moderators of every user they think should be banned and if you appear on two lists you die
Joking aside, I feel this is the undercurrent of a lot of the conversation, dating back to the "Festivus airing of grievances" from a few years ago. People have held grudges for a long time, and yet everyone knows it is a bad idea to list specific names because it basically removes plausible deniability. I mean, how much of the conversation earlier in the year centered around removing certain mods, because the perception was that they were abusing their mod status and directly targeting people? And no, my choice of words is not meant to be a comment on if those perceptions were accurate or not. I'm just trying to point out the way the conversations went. At its core, that is a situation where the laypeople lost respect in the mods because they perceived that the mods did not respect them. Well, that and a general attitude of not respecting "cops" or any figure of authority, which I fully understand people using as a blanket statement.
Social interactions are nuanced and tough. If they weren't, if the world were truly simple, then it would align much more with conservative views on the topic of humanity... and I cannot fall into that kind of simple rhetoric.
no yeah a tangible problem is that people feel that some other users have made transgressions that are banworthy and to an extent that the fact that moderators do not ban them is not taken as a "well i guess i'll have to live with it" but instead a weakening of trust in the moderators
It's weird to see the split between people thankful tube helped change this place and those who blame him for its current state. I guess maybe he did both? I don't know enough about the forum beefs to really judge. It really genuinely surprised me when all that stuff came out several months ago.
objectively, changing the place does render it into its current state. qed
0
SolyspPreviously Kane Red RobeRegistered Userregular
If the consensus is we need more Mods can I request a separate thread be made for that? That's something we can act on fairly quickly and I have thoughts.
It's weird to see the split between people thankful tube helped change this place and those who blame him for its current state. I guess maybe he did both? I don't know enough about the forum beefs to really judge. It really genuinely surprised me when all that stuff came out several months ago.
He did do both, from my perspective at some point a line in the sand was drawn long before I ventured out of G&T back in the days of its chat threads. But when those got shut down and they stopped the GnT mega threads and folks were told to go to SE++ for whatever the reasons were at the time. I had preconceived notions of what SE++ and D&D folks were like, and vice versa. Instead of telling folks to grow up the staff let that shit fester and we have what we got today.
It's weird to see the split between people thankful tube helped change this place and those who blame him for its current state. I guess maybe he did both? I don't know enough about the forum beefs to really judge. It really genuinely surprised me when all that stuff came out several months ago.
I think it's complicated.
Tube was a community manager for a long time and did a lot of good things in that time that made this forum a place that we all call home. He generally didn't tolerate abuse or hate, and him stamping out the nascent GG crowd and booting them right the fuck out of here should be lauded.
He also made some missteps and didn't address some things that have festered and led to the current state of the forums. There were a few legitimate personal complaints about his moderation style as well.
Overall I think his tenure was overall positive with some glaring flaws.
It's weird to see the split between people thankful tube helped change this place and those who blame him for its current state. I guess maybe he did both? I don't know enough about the forum beefs to really judge. It really genuinely surprised me when all that stuff came out several months ago.
He's fallible like any human.
He was the one who didn't really care for structured debate but understood why it shouldn't be his problem.
He's also the one that came up with the edict then let people pop off with all sorts of silly shit as long as it didn't cross some invisible line ("the rules are unfair, this is life").
Unequal moderation is what causes rifts and schisms between two groups. But at the same time you really, really are going to need to take a step back and realize maybe the person on your side is a problem even if you like them. Or maybe that poster while still being technically within the rules is probably causing issues in a thread.
nsfw/triggering stuff for this example that was personally directed at me probably 6ish years ago by someone who no longer posts here:
Maybe someone is so toxic that them threatening to cut off someone's dick and leave them to die in a ditch should be gotten rid of right away instead of letting that wound fester for a year until they are just too toxic to keep around even if it might upset a few people who they are still friends with and might hurt a subset of the community
If the consensus is we need more Mods can I request a separate thread be made for that? That's something we can act on fairly quickly and I have thoughts.
Well echo has stated they are not going to mod the new place so we have at least one spot that will need to be filled, even if we don't end up with more mods.
Gamertag: KL Retribution
PSN:Furlion
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
every user should be allowed to send a list to the moderators of every user they think should be banned and if you appear on two lists you die
Joking aside, I feel this is the undercurrent of a lot of the conversation, dating back to the "Festivus airing of grievances" from a few years ago. People have held grudges for a long time, and yet everyone knows it is a bad idea to list specific names because it basically removes plausible deniability. I mean, how much of the conversation earlier in the year centered around removing certain mods, because the perception was that they were abusing their mod status and directly targeting people? And no, my choice of words is not meant to be a comment on if those perceptions were accurate or not. I'm just trying to point out the way the conversations went. At its core, that is a situation where the laypeople lost respect in the mods because they perceived that the mods did not respect them. Well, that and a general attitude of not respecting "cops" or any figure of authority, which I fully understand people using as a blanket statement.
Social interactions are nuanced and tough. If they weren't, if the world were truly simple, then it would align much more with conservative views on the topic of humanity... and I cannot fall into that kind of simple rhetoric.
no yeah a tangible problem is that people feel that some other users have made transgressions that are banworthy and to an extent that the fact that moderators do not ban them is not taken as a "well i guess i'll have to live with it" but instead a weakening of trust in the moderators
I 100% agree, but the thing is, what are those transgressions? The biggest one I keep seeing get brought up is "Driving away members of the community because they are [X]." This, IMO, sucks - people shouldn't feel like they are not welcome here, on any side of the ideological divide. But poorly implemented moderation has definitely contributed to things. Some people want a stronger hand, some people want a lighter hand.. and everyone differs on where the line is. It's why it is so incredibly tough being a community manager, and why PA Corp didn't really succeed in finding one after Tube (though their payscales didn't help in that instance).
I want to make it clear: I do not have enough knowledge to declare a "right" or "wrong" in this. Lord knows I keep annoying the heck out of my friends with how much I attempt to see the arguments from both sides, empathize with others, and generally try really hard to interrogate my own beliefs to see if they are sound. I know that comes across as two-sided or unsupportive or the like. I don't know how to help that, as I personally am scared of accelerationism and running out of time to fix things. But the "Debate" continues apace of my own personal beliefs and speed, and is further broken up by the fact that everyone has different thoughts and views on the subject. It's probably why all I've wanted to do for the last week is stick my head in the sand and ignore the world, and yet I can't look away or walk away.
I dunno. I don't want this discussion to turn into a trash fire or another circular firing squad. I just want everyone to acknowledge we are working for the same thing, and that this community is more than the sum of its parts. But sadly, I think that is impossible because no, what we all want is not the same. And that might be insurmountable. I believe it isn't... but others may disagree.
Side note: I know it's a joke, but right now might not be the best time to be cracking jokes about killing others (or having them die though unspecified means). This is absolutely not meant to call out INATP for what they typed or the sentiment behind it... Only that there's a lot of death in the world right now, and moreso there is a lot of fear of death in the near future. While my personal thoughts haven't gotten bad enough to be suicidal over this situation, it definitely can easily feel like the community is dying and people are losing their worth. I'm not trying to tone police, really.. but just.. keep in mind that there are people on the other side of the screen. That's why I keep going on about respect. No one here truly wants to see harm come to any other member of this community, I hope.
Athenor on
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Posts
The two places aren't super divided, but there is a general difference of political leanings and how people post which aren't unable to be remedied with more moderation and an official 'knock it off' policy for people who are trying to set the tone themselves without letting it develop. The sports threads in the two different sub forums are largely the same people and will merge perfectly. TV and movies less so, but I think they can just develop separate threads that are more chill or about posting an essay about what a movie means.
But I think there are too many people giving feedback which isn't wrong to have opinions, but the 'mod council' is too small and we'd probably be better off by adding the people we want to be mods on the new forum to the council now so there is a larger grew working on the basics before presenting a plan and taking feedback from the community.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
We're gonna have big problems if we don't carry over the dedicated subforum for Camp Weedontwantcha. ;P
They can, though. People do it all the time under the Glorious Edict! However, there's a difference, especially in a tone-neutral format like text, between saying "what you said is fucking wrong", and "you are a fucking idiot". We are all adults, yes, but it's important to remember that most of us do not know each other, not really. That's part of why I think the Glorious Edict has never been about "foul language" (fowl language?) and is entirely about personal insults. You can be crude and you can be rude and you can fight back against things people say, but you can't insult them as a person because in the end, we don't know each other. Engaging the ideas, not the people.
This is why both the edict needs to go and general "I should be able to pop off directly at a poster I don't like" also needs to go.
Just treat it like you're visiting your parents and are participating in their shuffleboard club. Maybe someone that doesn't vibe with you doesn't need to be a problem that gets called out and you can both participate in shuffle itself.
I've maybe posted 10 times in SE in 15 years and my understanding is more than a few people are active in both but it feels like the raiding, to call a spade a spade, goes one-way. I think some SE folks would desire separate sub-boards under a unified site, too, because that's a feature and not a bug.
Honestly, none of this is really about the Glorious Edict. Anyone is capable of being a complete jagoff without ever calling someone a name. Keep the Edict, lose it, make it do the hokey pokey, it doesn't matter.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
In person, you are seeing the other person's reactions to what you're saying, they're seeing yours, you (probably) have a desire to keep things from escalating too much and can see when the conversation is heating up to a point where people are being made uncomfortable
Online, that feedback is missing, and I think it's a large part of why people get extremely contentious about things. It's very easy to layer response after response, each one ratcheting up the heat, never experiencing the mutual discomfort that the same conversation would be producing in person
I think rules/systems to try and limit the rate of that ratcheting up are good, but I'm also very agreeable and will go along with whatever happens
If I want to be called every name in the book/get told to fuck myself over nothing, I have Reddit and wow discords for that
The Edict still serves a purpose
It makes the conversation nicer by preventing people from being abusive. There's not some 1:1 substitution going on where every insulting post is replaced with some version that is attempting to be subtly or passive-aggressively insulting. A lot of shitty posts just don't happen. People keep it to themselves instead.
I think "don't be a dick" should take precedence even if you think you're morally righteous.
We don't need "silly goose" and we don't need "I hope you die" either. Neither is good even if you think you're right.
Very much this
I dont think we need 10 sub forums, we pretty much need 3
Games and Tech
Debate and Discourse - explicitly for serious stuff like world events and such and whatever you wanna have longer conversations about
General Bullshit
maybe Games and Tech has a subforum for larger communities like a MMO or Destiny but still have new threads in the main forum when news happens.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
my lawyers will be in contact.
I don’t know if we would need people to elect one or the other, but it would be good if the new forum would have the ability to ban users from individual subforums. If a user basically only ever visits one of them to shitpost and troll people they dislike, they simply shouldn’t be allowed to post there.
Banning people from subforums would be stupid and it's basically creating two subforums on the same place that don't talk to each other. If you don't want somebody on one of the sub forums why would you even want to share a space with them at all?
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
I like your proposal! You should run for mayor!
Just today I saw an individual post that many here do not respect. Replies immediately came in that ranged from name calling to passive aggressive sniping, all setting the tone of "get out, you aren't welcome here." While I also do not agree with that individual, I have to question if the ultimate desire is for them to leave or not. That is where I see respect coming in - who we want in this community, and what ideals we uphold.
The blow up that started this was because of respect. "I have a right to say whatever I want in this space no matter how it makes people feel" appears to have won out, with people disagreeing with that sentiment being accused of all number of things. I highly doubt anyone truly thinks the other side of the forum fence is a Nazi bar, but I have seen those comments get made by people on both sides of the ideological divide... And I have talked to people it has hurt.
The only way this forum survives is on respect. Maybe that respect is everyone going into their silos and ignoring each other. i personally hope not. I feel that there is a hell of a lot more that brings us together, even if not everyone is on the same page of how far they are personally willing to go. But until respect is restored... Well, we aren't getting anywhere.
(And while I called out forum beefs, I want to make it clear that this is also a vertical issue. From users to mods to admin to leadership, everyone needs to respect up and down. Doesn't mean like them.)
... Blah, this is exactly the convo I was hoping to wait to engage in until after a few weeks had passed, but I guess the accelerated timeline moves everything up.
No it wouldn’t if it were only applied to a small handful of bad actors.
Eh, firewalling off sections of the forum to users seems counterproductive. I used to post in both more back in the day, it’s not a big deal to just read the room wherever you’re posting and follow the rules
As for one forum banning certain shitheels from shitheeling, that basically describes moderators’ jobs
BRB just need to finish registering my alt.
Please help my sick dog
If you are that childish to do stuff like that then I'm sorry that person can get the fuck out.
Like I said before we want to make a new place work we need to collectivley unfuck ourselves and drop the preconceived notions of each other from a stupid fucking forum beef that should never of happened in the first place.
I don’t disagree
If a person is so much of an asshole they can't manage the bare minimum of civility in one space in our community they should be shown the door. Regardless of how they may act in other spaces and it's irrelevant if the reason they are 'fine' in the other space is because they CAN behave themselves in that other space or if that other space has a culture that is more tolerant of them being a jackass.
Joking aside, I feel this is the undercurrent of a lot of the conversation, dating back to the "Festivus airing of grievances" from a few years ago. People have held grudges for a long time, and yet everyone knows it is a bad idea to list specific names because it basically removes plausible deniability. I mean, how much of the conversation earlier in the year centered around removing certain mods, because the perception was that they were abusing their mod status and directly targeting people? And no, my choice of words is not meant to be a comment on if those perceptions were accurate or not. I'm just trying to point out the way the conversations went. At its core, that is a situation where the laypeople lost respect in the mods because they perceived that the mods did not respect them. Well, that and a general attitude of not respecting "cops" or any figure of authority, which I fully understand people using as a blanket statement.
Social interactions are nuanced and tough. If they weren't, if the world were truly simple, then it would align much more with conservative views on the topic of humanity... and I cannot fall into that kind of simple rhetoric.
we can just blame tube for that shit anyways
it's probably tube's fault
I wasnt naming names but yeah
I mean, sure, we needed a Unique Selling Point, or as the people in the Bizzz call it, USP. Let's make it 2Forts with posts.
I'll be heavy weapons guy.
no yeah a tangible problem is that people feel that some other users have made transgressions that are banworthy and to an extent that the fact that moderators do not ban them is not taken as a "well i guess i'll have to live with it" but instead a weakening of trust in the moderators
PSN:Furlion
He did do both, from my perspective at some point a line in the sand was drawn long before I ventured out of G&T back in the days of its chat threads. But when those got shut down and they stopped the GnT mega threads and folks were told to go to SE++ for whatever the reasons were at the time. I had preconceived notions of what SE++ and D&D folks were like, and vice versa. Instead of telling folks to grow up the staff let that shit fester and we have what we got today.
I think it's complicated.
Tube was a community manager for a long time and did a lot of good things in that time that made this forum a place that we all call home. He generally didn't tolerate abuse or hate, and him stamping out the nascent GG crowd and booting them right the fuck out of here should be lauded.
He also made some missteps and didn't address some things that have festered and led to the current state of the forums. There were a few legitimate personal complaints about his moderation style as well.
Overall I think his tenure was overall positive with some glaring flaws.
He's fallible like any human.
He was the one who didn't really care for structured debate but understood why it shouldn't be his problem.
He's also the one that came up with the edict then let people pop off with all sorts of silly shit as long as it didn't cross some invisible line ("the rules are unfair, this is life").
Unequal moderation is what causes rifts and schisms between two groups. But at the same time you really, really are going to need to take a step back and realize maybe the person on your side is a problem even if you like them. Or maybe that poster while still being technically within the rules is probably causing issues in a thread.
nsfw/triggering stuff for this example that was personally directed at me probably 6ish years ago by someone who no longer posts here:
Well echo has stated they are not going to mod the new place so we have at least one spot that will need to be filled, even if we don't end up with more mods.
PSN:Furlion
I 100% agree, but the thing is, what are those transgressions? The biggest one I keep seeing get brought up is "Driving away members of the community because they are [X]." This, IMO, sucks - people shouldn't feel like they are not welcome here, on any side of the ideological divide. But poorly implemented moderation has definitely contributed to things. Some people want a stronger hand, some people want a lighter hand.. and everyone differs on where the line is. It's why it is so incredibly tough being a community manager, and why PA Corp didn't really succeed in finding one after Tube (though their payscales didn't help in that instance).
I want to make it clear: I do not have enough knowledge to declare a "right" or "wrong" in this. Lord knows I keep annoying the heck out of my friends with how much I attempt to see the arguments from both sides, empathize with others, and generally try really hard to interrogate my own beliefs to see if they are sound. I know that comes across as two-sided or unsupportive or the like. I don't know how to help that, as I personally am scared of accelerationism and running out of time to fix things. But the "Debate" continues apace of my own personal beliefs and speed, and is further broken up by the fact that everyone has different thoughts and views on the subject. It's probably why all I've wanted to do for the last week is stick my head in the sand and ignore the world, and yet I can't look away or walk away.
I dunno. I don't want this discussion to turn into a trash fire or another circular firing squad. I just want everyone to acknowledge we are working for the same thing, and that this community is more than the sum of its parts. But sadly, I think that is impossible because no, what we all want is not the same. And that might be insurmountable. I believe it isn't... but others may disagree.
Side note: I know it's a joke, but right now might not be the best time to be cracking jokes about killing others (or having them die though unspecified means). This is absolutely not meant to call out INATP for what they typed or the sentiment behind it... Only that there's a lot of death in the world right now, and moreso there is a lot of fear of death in the near future. While my personal thoughts haven't gotten bad enough to be suicidal over this situation, it definitely can easily feel like the community is dying and people are losing their worth. I'm not trying to tone police, really.. but just.. keep in mind that there are people on the other side of the screen. That's why I keep going on about respect. No one here truly wants to see harm come to any other member of this community, I hope.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!