Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

How to make post without pissing each other off (or, a "code of conduct" meta-thread)

1468910

Posts

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I am with MrMister.
    In what sense? Because I think all of us agree that he's in the right, so to speak.

    In the sense that group hugs are premature and this seems like largely feel good nonsense (this is how I read MrMr... I might be wrong).

    I think it speaks a lot about the community of D&D that this conversation is a) happening and b) hasn't entirely devolved into a pissy slap-fight yet.

    I mean this doesnt change the fact that emn is still trotting out the same old same old, but that's what mods are for, yes?

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I am with MrMister.
    In what sense? Because I think all of us agree that he's in the right, so to speak.

    In the sense that group hugs are premature and this seems like largely feel good nonsense (this is how I read MrMr... I might be wrong).

    First off, this isn't "feel good nonsense" it's about fostering better communication between people and promoting a more welcoming posting (and reading) atmosphere. Dismissing that as "feel good nonsense" without even pondering how or why it might be better to foster better communication is, incidentally, precisely what this thread is here to discuss. It's so easy to wave away personal responsibility in communication just because we perceive some slight or offense, or because we're feel we don't have any personal obligation, or whatever. And in a sense I agree with that: we are under absolutely zero obligation to engage any particular person in any particular way. However, I think when we actively choose to respond to people, there are many cases on this and other forums where we could behave a little better in an effort to make the discourse more welcoming. A lot of the time, debate threads can feel pretty unwelcome even when I agree wholeheartedly with the majority. See: dogpiling. When I see a thread where Persons A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I all ripping the shit out of Person Z, and I agree with Persons A through H, I don't avoid the thread because "oh hey people already have my position covered anyway, no point," it's because the climate in that thread is usually pretty hostile, and I don't really like or enjoy that even if the thread is in favor of my viewpoint.

    Second, even if this thread were about nothing more than good feelies, why does that get an automatic dismissal? I see that a lot around here (and in various other places), as if suggesting that feeling good is inherently wrong. I'm not suggesting a balls-out free love commune here, I'm talking about maybe toning down the dismissive rhetoric. Is it so terrible to suggest we extend the slightest leeway to ascertain whether or not someone is a troll or really just ignorant before dismissing them and their views? I'm not sure how this suggestion even remotely translates into "feel good nonsense" unless anything less than a completely hostile environment - which is what many threads devolve into in a short period of time - is your idea of the bare minimum of appropriate adult discourse. I don't agree, and it merits discussion.

    Drez on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I am with MrMister.
    In what sense? Because I think all of us agree that he's in the right, so to speak.

    In the sense that group hugs are premature and this seems like largely feel good nonsense (this is how I read MrMr... I might be wrong).

    I think it speaks a lot about the community of D&D that this conversation...hasn't entirely devolved into a pissy slap-fight yet.

    It pretty much has; seriously, we can pretend all we want that emn is the devil but I'm sure I or...anyone...can, with a bit of post history searching, dig up enough dirt to make anyone who posts here, in this thread, seem like the biggest douche ever because of "x"

    So really, we can nail him to the cross or we can step back and go "we're throwing stones from glass houses" and let shit fucking lie where they lie, in their respective threads, and not dogpile on one dude

    Rent on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    It is an option to get angry and shout him down, but I do think it's a better way to go to keep trying until you get the point across.

    Actually, an even better way to go is to put him on your Ignore list so you don't have to read his posts. You know the saying about wrestling a pig?

    It is unfortunately true that there are some posters whose primary goal in life is to piss other people off, or to be the center of attention. There are people who get drunk or high and post stupid shit they wouldn't and don't post sober. There are people whose egos are fed by making the nastiest arguments possible. There is no point engaging with such people. You ignore them, or Ignore them, and move on.

    People often make the mistake of conflating "those with whom I disagree, even profoundly" and "people who are just trying to stir up shit", and so they respond to the latter thinking they're the former. They're not. There's no point in feeding them. All they do is drag the discourse to the lowest level and ruin things for everyone else. Which, of course, is their goal.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I only really participate in the philosophy threads here, which have been, in my opinion, the most intellectually-honest and civil threads in D&D, but I suppose that's because it's usually non-emotional topics. I guess the ethics ones can get a little testy at times.

    One thing I have noticed -- and I think that this has effected [chat] in a big way -- is that some people, myself included and I indite myself in the situation -- have been around so long that they dismiss other posters based on posting history. Lots of times, certain posters will just use posting history as an ad-hominum "Oh well you would say that because you're just broken" as a way to avoid addressing the arguments in general.

    As a more general trait, we should keep Tube's dictum in mind and always remember to be "excellent" to each other.


    edit* Yes, I can't STAND the use of emoticons as replies. I hate the "THIS IS SO STUPID LET ME SHOW YOU HOW STUPID IT IS!" If you really want to show someone how stupid they are, let them show it themselves and make them bring out the contradictions in their arguments. If there are you cannot bring out the contradictions from an argument, it can't be stupid enough to warrant humiliation.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't read emnetc. as doing so, though. Sometimes he says useful things! He's not so much trolling as being incautious about how his writing will be received.

    Or other people's spats with Evander, etc.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Good morning, PA civility thread. What's new?

    *reads*

    Hrrmm. I could waste time defending those old posts with context but it would turn into a sad spectacle and wouldn't address the two big problems - they weren't written in a civil manner and they offended some people. I'm also not going to make a guarantee I won't make comparisons to pedophiles in the future unless MrMister asks for it. He's the most vocally disturbed by the comparison and he won't accept a guarantee from someone he considers a troll at best and a 'persona non grata' at worst. If MrMister doesn't want a promise I will behave, making one in this thread would just be theater to impress all the other posters in the civility thread. What I will do, though, is apologize if I have offended. What I did was wrong but I never thought it was that wrong since I was making worthy points. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

    emnmnme on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I don't read emnetc. as doing so, though. Sometimes he says useful things! He's not so much trolling as being incautious about how his writing will be received. .

    YMMV, of course; I'm not calling for everyone to put a particular poster on Ignore.

    But when somebody has made it clear that useful, interesting or productive comments will come out of their keyboard with about the same odds as your winning a Powerball jackpot, it's no longer worth my time to bother reading them, even inadvertently.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Good morning, PA civility thread. What's new?

    *reads*

    Hrrmm. I could waste time defending those old posts with context but it would turn into a sad spectacle and wouldn't address the two big problems - they weren't written in a civil manner and they offended some people. I'm also not going to make a guarantee I won't make comparisons to pedophiles in the future unless MrMister asks for it. He's the most vocally disturbed by the comparison and he won't accept a guarantee from someone he considers a troll at best and a 'persona non grata' at worst. If MrMister doesn't want a promise I will behave, making one in this thread would just be theater to impress all the other posters in the civility thread. What I will do, though, is apologize if I have offended. What I did was wrong but I never thought it was that wrong since I was making worthy points. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

    I guess the point is this.

    I believe in free speech. "Free speech" in a wholly unlimited capacity doesn't, and probably shouldn't, exist, either in public or in private. And in private, the owners of a property are, I believe, entitled to restrict speech in various ways. I think that's okay. But I still believe that people should be able to express themselves as freely as possible.

    I also believe, though, that some people use "free speech" as an excuse to excuse themselves of any personal responsibility. You may have the freedom and maybe even the right to call me a "fuckmuppet," or to use an analogy that even tangentially compares my situation to that of a pedophile's, but that doesn't preclude me from being offended by it either. "Free speech" doesn't wipe away the weight of your words.

    So while I do believe in free speech, I don't believe that you have no responsibility for the things you say. Maybe your point wasn't to compare pedophiles to homosexuals. Maybe your point was, legitimately, to discuss the way prejudice pervades just about everything. Making such an argument is fine, but it doesn't mean that the framework of your comparison wasn't insensitive and that you could have, perhaps, chosen a much better, less potentially-inflammatory one.

    Drez on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Making such an argument is fine, but it doesn't mean that the framework of your comparison wasn't insensitive and that you could have, perhaps, chosen a much better, less potentially-inflammatory one.

    You tell me another sexual orientation (not a fetish) that everyone is prejudiced against and I'll use that one.

    Or not. I like Loren's idea of comparing the discomfort to a bashful person being naked in public. People can relate to that.

    emnmnme on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    I believe in free speech.

    What does this mean, though? "Free speech", in the US, really just means that for the most part the government cannot tell you what you can say - that you are free to criticize the government, make bad jokes about Obama, mock the Catholic Church, whatever. This doesn't free you of legal responsibility for your words, which is why "free speech" doesn't protect you from a libel suit.

    But "free speech" as a phrase is pretty meaningless, which is why so many people act like it means "freedom to say whatever crosses my little pea brain, and nobody is allowed to tell me they're offended", and why they screech about censorship when they get modded.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ArlingtonArlington Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Homosexuality used to be (is?) synonymous with pedophilia, which is why that analogy is particularly offensive.

    I can't figure out if I'm stating the obvious, or if this is no longer the case (I'm old).


    As to the original topic. It seems like Bitter Vet Syndrome(tm) is the cause of a lot of the behaviors discussed in this thread.

    If you've seen the topic five times before, and don't want to go over it again... then don't.

    Arlington on
  • Raybies666Raybies666 A bedroom in IrelandRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Agreed. Civility achieved, LM.
    :^:

    Mind blown. Now all we need is a thumbs up from MrMister.*

    I also move that we adopt emn's "Civility Achieved!" as a meme.

    *
    I really wanted to write "a big pedo thumbs up from MrMister." Then I remembered we had achieved civility.

    Just back from 12 hours of work, and that made my day.

    Its been a slow day, but yeah. I like that it worked out.

    Edit: and then I kept reading. Dammit.

    Raybies666 on
    Beat me on Wii U: Raybies
    Beat me on 360: Raybies666

    I remember when I had time to be good at games.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Raybies666 wrote: »
    Edit: and then I kept reading. Dammit.

    Eh. I'm not partial to lots of hugs & kisses, I prefer to keep feel-good instincts and butthurt-instincts out of conversations when I can, but I'm satisfied with emnmnme's clarification, I think emnmnme's satisfied with the approach I took.

    I can understand MrMister's dissatisfaction in one respect, I think the offense taken is valid and genuine, but I don't know how exactly it's been addressed in the past, how, in MrMister's words "it has been explained to him". I do think this thread is a testament to the fact that the way we often attempt to address these kinds of things are not sufficient, not really useful.

    I'm interested in giving people the benefit of the doubt, as well. I see that emnmnme is willing and capable of talking about what he said in a civil, lucid manner and I'm personally satisfied as to his honesty and integrity as a result. I'm sure that my involvement in this way colors my understanding of emnmnme, and my disengagement from the initial disagreement colors my understanding again, so I know that a conversation that I regard as fruitful isn't going to necessarily sway people who weren't involved, or people who were involved in a different capacity. I don't know how to resolve this problem.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I'm somewhat unhappy with the personal turn this thread has taken. I like talking about the nature of conversation and civility, of optimizing communication and argument and such. I don't want this to be a discussion about who offended who and why, who serial trolls are, or whatever. That seems like it will lead nowhere good. I don't like putting people on the spot when it can be avoided.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I believe in free speech.

    What does this mean, though? "Free speech", in the US, really just means that for the most part the government cannot tell you what you can say - that you are free to criticize the government, make bad jokes about Obama, mock the Catholic Church, whatever. This doesn't free you of legal responsibility for your words, which is why "free speech" doesn't protect you from a libel suit.

    But "free speech" as a phrase is pretty meaningless, which is why so many people act like it means "freedom to say whatever crosses my little pea brain, and nobody is allowed to tell me they're offended", and why they screech about censorship when they get modded.

    That makes three. Stupid statements, Power Ball, little pea brain - it figures I could visit the civility thread to get a daily dose of grossly exaggerated insults. Dial it back, mythago.

    emnmnme on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I believe in free speech.

    What does this mean, though? "Free speech", in the US, really just means that for the most part the government cannot tell you what you can say - that you are free to criticize the government, make bad jokes about Obama, mock the Catholic Church, whatever. This doesn't free you of legal responsibility for your words, which is why "free speech" doesn't protect you from a libel suit.

    But "free speech" as a phrase is pretty meaningless, which is why so many people act like it means "freedom to say whatever crosses my little pea brain, and nobody is allowed to tell me they're offended", and why they screech about censorship when they get modded.

    Did you read the rest of my post? Because I explained very explicitly and clearly what I meant, and I believe I accounted for all the things you brought up here, such as the freedom to say whatever you want without offense. In fact, from my comments it doesn't even seem we disagree on that. I'm specifically asking why people feel no obligation or responsibility to temper their language to foster better communication.

    So your question "what does this mean?" is rather disingenuous when I went to some length to explain exactly what I meant, and even covered most of what you said in this post.

    I guess this post of yours is an example of the rhetoric we should try to avoid. Also, you should look for meaning behind the phrases people use. Yes, I used the phrase "free speech," but I also explained precisely what I meant by that, and what I meant goes beyond the government-oriented notion of free speech. Why would you cut all the context out and ask me to answer them again? I am a bit confused.

    [edit: Edited out some pointlessly argumentative phrasing.]

    Drez on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    edit: Nevermind, wasn't being helpful.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2010
    Maybe we should talk about people dialing back the internet morality as well.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Did you read the rest of my post? Because I explained very explicitly and clearly what I meant, and I believe I accounted for all the things you brought up here, such as the freedom to say whatever you want without offense. In fact, from my comments it doesn't even seem we disagree on that. I'm specifically asking why people feel no obligation or responsibility to temper their language to foster better communication.

    So your question "what does this mean?" is rather disingenuous when I went to some length to explain exactly what I meant, and even covered most of what you said in this post.

    I guess this post of yours is an example of the rhetoric we should try to avoid. Also, you should look for meaning behind the phrases people use. Yes, I used the phrase "free speech," but I also explained precisely what I meant by that, and what I meant goes beyond the government-oriented notion of free speech. Why would you cut all the context out and ask me to answer them again? I am a bit confused.

    [edit: Edited out some pointlessly argumentative phrasing.]

    You don't appear confused; you appear to believe rather strongly that I am deliberately fucking with you. I can't think of any other reason to use 'disingenuous', which as I assume you know is one step up from 'liar'. Isn't not doing that kind of the point of this thread?

    I cut out the rest of your post not for sinister reasons, but because I wanted to focus on 'free speech' and what people mean by that. You assumed we all sort of know and agree on what 'free speech' means as a starting premise. That was not, to me, clear from your post, and I don't think everybody does agree - given as you note, that people use "free speech" to mean "I can say whatever I want" and "I have no moral obligation to be minimally civil or considerate".

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Did you read the rest of my post? Because I explained very explicitly and clearly what I meant, and I believe I accounted for all the things you brought up here, such as the freedom to say whatever you want without offense. In fact, from my comments it doesn't even seem we disagree on that. I'm specifically asking why people feel no obligation or responsibility to temper their language to foster better communication.

    So your question "what does this mean?" is rather disingenuous when I went to some length to explain exactly what I meant, and even covered most of what you said in this post.

    I guess this post of yours is an example of the rhetoric we should try to avoid. Also, you should look for meaning behind the phrases people use. Yes, I used the phrase "free speech," but I also explained precisely what I meant by that, and what I meant goes beyond the government-oriented notion of free speech. Why would you cut all the context out and ask me to answer them again? I am a bit confused.

    [edit: Edited out some pointlessly argumentative phrasing.]

    You don't appear confused; you appear to believe rather strongly that I am deliberately fucking with you. I can't think of any other reason to use 'disingenuous', which as I assume you know is one step up from 'liar'. Isn't not doing that kind of the point of this thread?

    I cut out the rest of your post not for sinister reasons, but because I wanted to focus on 'free speech' and what people mean by that. You assumed we all sort of know and agree on what 'free speech' means as a starting premise. That was not, to me, clear from your post, and I don't think everybody does agree - given as you note, that people use "free speech" to mean "I can say whatever I want" and "I have no moral obligation to be minimally civil or considerate".

    There's assuming good faith and there's assuming good faith to the point of naivety. My goal here wasn't to ask people to bend over backwards to give everyone the benefit of the doubt no matter what the other person says. Instead, I expect people on both ends of an argument to exercise temperance of what they say and tolerance of what others say. I don't expect anyone to completely ignore what words mean when responding to a post. As I said in my first post, sometimes people actually are trolling. Sometimes people actually are lying. We don't have to tolerate those things. We just shouldn't fly off the handle to accuse them of it, and we should be patient enough to let people explain themselves. My post didn't violate anything I suggested in this thread.

    What I'm talking about here are unhelpful rhetorical ploys, and I consider yours to be a common and (usually) disingenuous one, whether you or whomever else were actually doing it "sinisterly" or not. You don't have to actually be trying to manipulate a conversation to employ unhelpful rhetoric.

    When someone posts "<phrase>" and then couples that with a thorough explanation of what they meant by introducing that phrase, and then someone else pulls out that one phrase, asks "what do you mean," and the points they raise or questions they ask seem to have already been countered or answered in the text supporting that phrase, then...well it seems a bit disingenuous, yes. I didn't actually call you a liar, I said that your response was disingenuous, which just means that it doesn't genuinely follow the flow of conversation, which is what I believed to be true. And I didn't actually dismiss you - I was genuinely confused. I'm open to being wrong. That's what continued dialogue is for.

    I think one of the largest biases on this forum is laziness. I'm not accusing you of it, because I don't think my post was so long that you actually didn't read it. But the way you responded is similar to the way some people respond to certain posts, where instead of reading a post, they will instead skim a post for key words or phrases, and then pull those words or phrases out and discuss or attack them outside of the context of what was being proposed.

    Anyway, my points in this thread were not to expect absolute good faith in a total vacuum. It's about expecting people to be a little balanced in how they interpret and how they respond.

    Anyway, to respond to your specific qualm about my post, I will again suggest that I feel I thoroughly defined what I meant by the phrase free speech in relation to posting on a forum:
    Drez wrote:
    I believe in free speech. "Free speech" in a wholly unlimited capacity doesn't, and probably shouldn't, exist, either in public or in private. And in private, the owners of a property are, I believe, entitled to restrict speech in various ways. I think that's okay. But I still believe that people should be able to express themselves as freely as possible.

    I also believe, though, that some people use "free speech" as an excuse to excuse themselves of any personal responsibility. You may have the freedom and maybe even the right to call me a "fuckmuppet," or to use an analogy that even tangentially compares my situation to that of a pedophile's, but that doesn't preclude me from being offended by it either. "Free speech" doesn't wipe away the weight of your words.

    So while I do believe in free speech, I don't believe that you have no responsibility for the things you say. Maybe your point wasn't to compare pedophiles to homosexuals. Maybe your point was, legitimately, to discuss the way prejudice pervades just about everything. Making such an argument is fine, but it doesn't mean that the framework of your comparison wasn't insensitive and that you could have, perhaps, chosen a much better, less potentially-inflammatory one.

    I really don't see how that doesn't adequately explain what I mean by "free speech." That's all the post says: It is my definition of "free speech" in relation to posting on a forum. So, yes, we're back to me literally being confused by your post.

    But if you didn't get a clear picture of what I meant, that's fine. If you wanted clarification, that's absolutely fine. But to cut out the rest of my post isn't fine.

    I feel that cutting out the context of someone's post when responding to them is, generally, an unhelpful habit that often leads to conversational glitches, especially if more than one person decides to weigh in on the subject. It's a form of dismissal. Also, a third or fourth person coming into the thread may assume that that was all I said in my first post. I didn't say "I believe in free speech." I said "I believe in free speech <and this is what I mean by that>." The reason I posted context is because I felt it was relevant and it is kind of rude to excise the content when you are responding, not only because it is somewhat dismissive, but also because a forum thread invites responses from multiple people. Leave the context, but bold whatever you are asking for clarification on, or just highlight what you are asking about with your response. There's no reason to drop the surrounding words, and I think that often causes a lot of problems here.

    Drez on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Also, I know that's a fuckload of text, and I'm sorry for that. That's another rhetorical ploy - I know people have mentioned it in this thread. Throwing a wall of text at someone and expecting them to read it all and respond to them, or later saying "bah, you didn't even read everything I wrote" is a pretty underhanded tactic.

    Anyway, I don't mean to be too harsh mythago. If you weren't being disingenuous and you took offense to my application of that phrase, I apologize. Truly.

    The tl;dr version of what I was saying is that cutting out what you think the "excess" is in a small or reasonably-sized post is not something that actually helps. Half the time it gets a "why did you cut out my context" response. I've seen that dozens of times recently. The other half of the time, it just twists away from what the original poster meant. All in all, it usually doesn't go anywhere good. You can quote an entire post and still focus on one part of it. I personally feel that that is a much more helpful mode of conversation, because even if you don't consider a certain part of the post relevant context, maybe the original poster does, and he can refer to it in his response without having to go back and find his original post so he can requote himself. And I do think it is akin to dismissal, albeit on a smaller scale.

    Drez on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    I believe in free speech. "Free speech" in a wholly unlimited capacity doesn't, and probably shouldn't, exist, either in public or in private. And in private, the owners of a property are, I believe, entitled to restrict speech in various ways. I think that's okay. But I still believe that people should be able to express themselves as freely as possible.

    I also believe, though, that some people use "free speech" as an excuse to excuse themselves of any personal responsibility. You may have the freedom and maybe even the right to call me a "fuckmuppet," or to use an analogy that even tangentially compares my situation to that of a pedophile's, but that doesn't preclude me from being offended by it either. "Free speech" doesn't wipe away the weight of your words.

    I agree. In summary, the problem is that some people see free speech as the ability to say whatever you want without consequence. In reality, free speech is the ability to say whatever you want without unreasonable consequences.

    I really think that if people just wouldn't post things here that they wouldn't say if they were having dinner with someone (i/e were face to face), things would stay alot more civil. For the most part, things are really civil in the PA forums. Especially compared to the wild hinterlands of the internet.

    Heffling on
    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    It is an option to get angry and shout him down, but I do think it's a better way to go to keep trying until you get the point across.

    Actually, an even better way to go is to put him on your Ignore list so you don't have to read his posts. You know the saying about wrestling a pig?

    It is unfortunately true that there are some posters whose primary goal in life is to piss other people off, or to be the center of attention. There are people who get drunk or high and post stupid shit they wouldn't and don't post sober. There are people whose egos are fed by making the nastiest arguments possible. There is no point engaging with such people. You ignore them, or Ignore them, and move on.

    People often make the mistake of conflating "those with whom I disagree, even profoundly" and "people who are just trying to stir up shit", and so they respond to the latter thinking they're the former. They're not. There's no point in feeding them. All they do is drag the discourse to the lowest level and ruin things for everyone else. Which, of course, is their goal.
    Be careful, however, because it is dangerous to promote the use of Ignore, for it is the root of Ignorance.

    With the propensity of certain threads to trend towards forming cliques, it is a terrible thing when they band together and promote the ignoring of certain posters just because they have a different viewpoint or opinion from them. To ignore someone with an opposing viewpoint is to destroy all possibility of debate and discourse, rendering the topic a stagnant echo chamber that doesn't belong in a place like this.

    The Ignore feature should only be used sparingly, and should never be actively promoted. It is a discussion ender.

    B:L on
    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    B:L wrote: »
    Be careful, however, because it is dangerous to promote the use of Ignore, for it is the root of Ignorance.

    With the propensity of certain threads to trend towards forming cliques, it is a terrible thing when they band together and promote the ignoring of certain posters just because they have a different viewpoint or opinion from them. To ignore someone with an opposing viewpoint is to destroy all possibility of debate and discourse, rendering the topic a stagnant echo chamber that doesn't belong in a place like this.

    The Ignore feature should only be used sparingly, and should never be actively promoted. It is a discussion ender.

    Indeed it is, which is why I believe it is appropriate for posters who have manifestly demonstrated that their contributions are useless - not because they disagree, or have repugnant values, but because they are either continually and unrepentantly dishonest, and/or because they have made it clear that their primary (and perhaps only) goal is to crap all over the thread. In other words, unrepentant liars and trolls.

    That's why I was careful to note, in my last paragraph, that "I disagree with X on everything" and "X appears to do nothing but try to bait people" are entirely separate concepts.

    At the risk of sounding snotty, I've heard the 'bozo filter' debate in many communities, with some people believing that it's actually immoral to ignore anyone and others going to the other extreme of using it to wall themselves off into an echo chamber. But if in my opinion somebody has repeatedly shown themselves to be a liar (not merely wrong: I mean actively dishonest) and/or merely here to crap on the discourse, there's no reason to keep reading their posts. At all.

    (And it goes without saying that "I'm putting X on my Ignore list!" is totally bad form.)

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    So while I do believe in free speech, I don't believe that you have no responsibility for the things you say. Maybe your point wasn't to compare pedophiles to homosexuals. Maybe your point was, legitimately, to discuss the way prejudice pervades just about everything. Making such an argument is fine, but it doesn't mean that the framework of your comparison wasn't insensitive and that you could have, perhaps, chosen a much better, less potentially-inflammatory one.

    While one may have a responsibility for that which one says, one is not responsible for how another reacts to a particular post; one is only responsible for that which the post, itself, entails and not for the subjective reaction of every particular reader of the post.

    Player A is offended by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
    Player B is not offended by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.

    Alright, so is the poster responsible for some cause of offense? Of course not. Some people were offended, others were not offended. So, the relation between the post and the offense is correlative, rather than causal.

    Persons chose to be offended. It is not practical or sensible to hold a poster responsible for every particular reaction anyone, ever, could have to their post.

    This is the problem with utilizing “offensive” as a kind of rubric to assess posts; not everyone is offended by the same thing. So, the predicate “offensive” cannot be objectively applied to anything; its application is subjective.


    If someone is offended by X, then it would be nice of the person who posted X to acknowledge that offense in some way. But claiming “You ought to have known that X would offend people” is complete nonsense; there is no way to know whether or not X will offend anyone.

    _J_ on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    So while I do believe in free speech, I don't believe that you have no responsibility for the things you say. Maybe your point wasn't to compare pedophiles to homosexuals. Maybe your point was, legitimately, to discuss the way prejudice pervades just about everything. Making such an argument is fine, but it doesn't mean that the framework of your comparison wasn't insensitive and that you could have, perhaps, chosen a much better, less potentially-inflammatory one.

    While one may have a responsibility for that which one says, one is not responsible for how another reacts to a particular post; one is only responsible for that which the post, itself, entails and not for the subjective reaction of every particular reader of the post.

    Player A is offended by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
    Player B is not offended by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.

    Alright, so is the poster responsible for some cause of offense? Of course not. Some people were offended, others were not offended. So, the relation between the post and the offense is correlative, rather than causal.

    Persons chose to be offended. It is not practical or sensible to hold a poster responsible for every particular reaction anyone, ever, could have to their post.

    This is the problem with utilizing “offensive” as a kind of rubric to assess posts; not everyone is offended by the same thing. So, the predicate “offensive” cannot be objectively applied to anything; its application is subjective.


    If someone is offended by X, then it would be nice of the person who posted X to acknowledge that offense in some way. But claiming “You ought to have known that X would offend people” is complete nonsense; there is no way to know whether or not X will offend anyone.

    Very little of this post is true. People don't choose to have emotions. And we are all responsible for the effects of the things we say.

    But offensive is very subjective, and it's not a term I use much, as it implies a different level of wrongness than 'fucking rude' or 'stupid, bigoted and rude'.

    Avoiding offense is impossible, and not even advisable, since homosexuality offends homophobes.

    Avoiding stupidity, rudeness and bigotry are possible and advisable.

    I like the ignore function. In fact, I wish there was a greater variety of forum tools available. I can't keep everyone straight, and I wish there was a tag I could put on someone that says 'Very nice to talk to about movies, always polite, but gets really dumb about X so avoid that.' In real life I can remember things like that about people, but it's difficult on a forum.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    While one may have a responsibility for that which one says, one is not responsible for how another reacts to a particular post; one is only responsible for that which the post, itself, entails and not for the subjective reaction of every particular reader of the post.

    One is certainly responsible if one knows one's post is likely to be offensive, particularly if one actually intends one's post to be offensive. If one says that all homosexuals secretly want to rape and eat children, one cannot be expected to be taken seriously if one says "Hey, I'm not responsible for your being offended at what I say. Your reaction is your problem."

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I like the ignore function. In fact, I wish there was a greater variety of forum tools available. I can't keep everyone straight, and I wish there was a tag I could put on someone that says 'Very nice to talk to about movies, always polite, but gets really dumb about X so avoid that.' In real life I can remember things like that about people, but it's difficult on a forum.

    I'm pretty sure you mean the tags would be private but I can't help but imagine what it would be like it the tags were public. If we did that, I'd have a whole alphabet of scarlet letters covering my avatar from all sorts of different posters.

    The funny thing is despite my years posting here, despite all the enemies I've accumulated on the boards, I've never been jailed or infracted. Evidence that I am a very civil poster.

    emnmnme on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you mean the tags would be private but I can't help but imagine what it would be like it the tags were public. If we did that, I'd have a whole alphabet of scarlet letters covering my avatar from all sorts of different posters.

    The funny thing is despite my years posting here, despite all the enemies I've accumulated on the boards, I've never been jailed or infracted. Evidence that I am a very civil poster.

    Uh, dude. I'm pretty sure you've been infracted twice. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Here and here.

    enc0re on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I like the ignore function. In fact, I wish there was a greater variety of forum tools available. I can't keep everyone straight, and I wish there was a tag I could put on someone that says 'Very nice to talk to about movies, always polite, but gets really dumb about X so avoid that.' In real life I can remember things like that about people, but it's difficult on a forum.

    I'm pretty sure you mean the tags would be private but I can't help but imagine what it would be like it the tags were public. If we did that, I'd have a whole alphabet of scarlet letters covering my avatar from all sorts of different posters.

    The funny thing is despite my years posting here, despite all the enemies I've accumulated on the boards, I've never been jailed or infracted. Evidence that I am a very civil poster.

    Clicking on your av shows the couple of infractions that you actually have. And even if your post were true that would correspond to one definition of troll - someone who annoys other posters without breaking the rules.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I like the ignore function. In fact, I wish there was a greater variety of forum tools available. I can't keep everyone straight, and I wish there was a tag I could put on someone that says 'Very nice to talk to about movies, always polite, but gets really dumb about X so avoid that.' In real life I can remember things like that about people, but it's difficult on a forum.

    I'm pretty sure you mean the tags would be private but I can't help but imagine what it would be like it the tags were public. If we did that, I'd have a whole alphabet of scarlet letters covering my avatar from all sorts of different posters.

    The funny thing is despite my years posting here, despite all the enemies I've accumulated on the boards, I've never been jailed or infracted. Evidence that I am a very civil poster.

    A tagging feature would be interesting, actually, public or otherwise (I'd prefer it as a private function though, otherwise it just becomes a Facebook wall).

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited July 2010
    poshniallo wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    So while I do believe in free speech, I don't believe that you have no responsibility for the things you say. Maybe your point wasn't to compare pedophiles to homosexuals. Maybe your point was, legitimately, to discuss the way prejudice pervades just about everything. Making such an argument is fine, but it doesn't mean that the framework of your comparison wasn't insensitive and that you could have, perhaps, chosen a much better, less potentially-inflammatory one.

    While one may have a responsibility for that which one says, one is not responsible for how another reacts to a particular post; one is only responsible for that which the post, itself, entails and not for the subjective reaction of every particular reader of the post.

    Player A is offended by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
    Player B is not offended by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.

    Alright, so is the poster responsible for some cause of offense? Of course not. Some people were offended, others were not offended. So, the relation between the post and the offense is correlative, rather than causal.

    Persons chose to be offended. It is not practical or sensible to hold a poster responsible for every particular reaction anyone, ever, could have to their post.

    This is the problem with utilizing “offensive” as a kind of rubric to assess posts; not everyone is offended by the same thing. So, the predicate “offensive” cannot be objectively applied to anything; its application is subjective.


    If someone is offended by X, then it would be nice of the person who posted X to acknowledge that offense in some way. But claiming “You ought to have known that X would offend people” is complete nonsense; there is no way to know whether or not X will offend anyone.

    Very little of this post is true. People don't choose to have emotions. And we are all responsible for the effects of the things we say.

    But offensive is very subjective, and it's not a term I use much, as it implies a different level of wrongness than 'fucking rude' or 'stupid, bigoted and rude'.

    Avoiding offense is impossible, and not even advisable, since homosexuality offends homophobes.

    Avoiding stupidity, rudeness and bigotry are possible and advisable.

    I like the ignore function. In fact, I wish there was a greater variety of forum tools available. I can't keep everyone straight, and I wish there was a tag I could put on someone that says 'Very nice to talk to about movies, always polite, but gets really dumb about X so avoid that.' In real life I can remember things like that about people, but it's difficult on a forum.

    While I agree with most of what you're saying, I disagree with the part in bold. People do choose whether or not to feel a certain type of emotion based on the situation. We define by ourselves what makes us happy, sad, angry, etc. These factor into our responses to what others say or do. For the example J gave, Player A is offended because he chooses so, whereas Player B is not because he chose not to be. Player A has developed a sensitivity to comments that, by his/her judgment, are deemed inappropriate. Player B does not have this sensitivity to such comments, perhaps instead disregarding it as bogus and unreal.

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I've got two pages of infractions and don't seem to have any foes. I don't think that's a good metric to go by.

    MKR on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    I've got two pages of infractions and don't seem to have any foes. I don't think that's a good metric to go by.

    Ah, come on. I'm looking through your list and half of those infractions are just you goofing around. You don't have foes because you're a generally good guy.

    emnmnme on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Where do you look up this "foes" business? I wasn't even aware this forum had user-targeted functionality.

    enc0re on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Preposterous

    And at what point do you think is generally good to stop testing someone for trollhood? After you've explained something once, twice? I've sometimes found that a person just needs to have it explained a certain way, and they might be lost if the threshold is too low.
    enc0re wrote: »
    Where do you look up this "foes" business? I wasn't even aware this forum had user-targeted functionality.

    It's informal

    MKR on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    While one may have a responsibility for that which one says, one is not responsible for how another reacts to a particular post; one is only responsible for that which the post, itself, entails and not for the subjective reaction of every particular reader of the post.

    One is certainly responsible if one knows one's post is likely to be offensive, particularly if one actually intends one's post to be offensive. If one says that all homosexuals secretly want to rape and eat children, one cannot be expected to be taken seriously if one says "Hey, I'm not responsible for your being offended at what I say. Your reaction is your problem."

    Can I find it offensive that, in the context of this discussion, you just implied that all pedophiles secretly want to rape and eat children, or at least that being a pedophile is inherently as morally debased as that?

    emnmnme actually has a valid point here, that we're deriding one group for irrational prejudices while holding irrational prejudices of our own. If what he's saying seems shocking to you, then that's the point.

    If we want to discuss what to do about trolling, then we should find examples that actually are trolling. Going into, say, a Christian forum and claiming that there is no god would certainly be trolling, but that's because the forum was deliberately designed to function as an echo chamber. We're supposed to be better than that.

    jothki on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Judgement wrote: »
    While I agree with most of what you're saying, I disagree with the part in bold. People do choose whether or not to feel a certain type of emotion based on the situation. We define by ourselves what makes us happy, sad, angry, etc. These factor into our responses to what others say or do. For the example J gave, Player A is offended because he chooses so, whereas Player B is not because he chose not to be. Player A has developed a sensitivity to comments that, by his/her judgment, are deemed inappropriate. Player B does not have this sensitivity to such comments, perhaps instead disregarding it as bogus and unreal.

    People choose to engage in a process of skin-thickening with regards to various things, but many emotional responses are reflexive and cathartic, and there isn't an opportunity to have the part of your brain that would typically intervene intervene without that kind of premeditated focus.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Judgement wrote: »
    While I agree with most of what you're saying, I disagree with the part in bold. People do choose whether or not to feel a certain type of emotion based on the situation. We define by ourselves what makes us happy, sad, angry, etc. These factor into our responses to what others say or do. For the example J gave, Player A is offended because he chooses so, whereas Player B is not because he chose not to be. Player A has developed a sensitivity to comments that, by his/her judgment, are deemed inappropriate. Player B does not have this sensitivity to such comments, perhaps instead disregarding it as bogus and unreal.

    People choose to engage in a process of skin-thickening with regards to various things, but many emotional responses are reflexive and cathartic, and there isn't an opportunity to have the part of your brain that would typically intervene intervene without that kind of premeditated focus.

    Regardless of the psychological nonsense posited to explain the process by which one "feels" offense, the point is that a particular poster cannot fathom every possible reaction any reader may have to any post. It is possible that every post, ever, is in some way offensive to someone.

    So, maintaining "You oughtn't post X because it might offend someone" is a sentiment which can be applied to every post, ever.

    Player A: I just ate some pepperoni pizza. It was delicious!
    Player B: I am jewish and pepperoni is not kosher. You just offended me by consuming unclean foods!

    It makes a bit of sense to not deliberately antagonize people by posting things which one knows will offend a mass of persons. The question is how one can know what will be considered offensive.

    Leaving aside the question of why it is bad to offend someone.

    _J_ on
Sign In or Register to comment.