User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 219

  1. #41
    ndovjtjcaqidthi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Ah, the old wait-and-see gambit that has worked so well in the past. Can we bring burning brands on the modbox tour? I have a pitch fork.
    Ok what is your solution then?

    For the moment I am going to wait and see.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I don't think the forum has any problems. I think the problems are in how we react to things. Is some stuff more corrupted than others? Sure. But do we need to take all of this insane disciplinary action to cure it? No. I say no because corruption is just part of the world, and we can't hide from it. The best way I think is to confront it directly, to take on the challenge and triumph.

  3. #43
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    I can absolutely, 100% freaking guarantee you that we are not doing this to make things easier or "more secure" for ourselves. Increasing our moderation of indirect insults rather than dismissing them as we'd been doing previously will add a considerable amount of work for us, but we hope that the end result will be an improvement in forum discussion that will justify the extra effort for us. Let's see how it goes. We can always re-evaluate if the results are more negative than expected. The sky is not yet falling, for reals.
    -end of thread-

  4. #44
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I'm not especially libertarian about this. I just think the moderators are generating security for themselves and anxiety for others when it should be the other way around. They don't like community judgment at all, but in the absence of a community empowered to make some of its own decisions, you get a community less inclined to support coherent togetherness. You get people supporting and soothing themselves, because no one else will. Also known as: "hostility".
    The fact is typology central is based on authority. It is not based on therapy, and it is not based on the helping mode.

    And the purpose of authority is to bring order to chaos.

    And this is the work of the moderators.

    The moderators are all volunteers doing a difficult job well. I think we should stop double guessing them and let them get on with their work.

    An environment based on authority has its discontents. And we typically try to avoid our discontents by seeking an uninterrupted trance or by acting out.

    So typology central is not perfect and the moderators must constantly seek to bring order to imperfection.

  5. #45
    Seriously Delirious Udog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INfp
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp None
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    We're incorporating mod/admin observation plus member feedback from many recent threads, so the details are forthcoming.
    I like 'em.

    But that doesn't mean we're going to let you call another member a fuckface.
    Damn, and I had just made a resolution to use that word more frequently. Is "ass eyes" still okay?

    [*]Constant backbiting and/or aggressively confrontational posting contributes to a hostile environment. A hostile environment keeps other, less reactive people from feeling free to speak THEIR minds. We want to hear from them, too, not just the members with the most volatile personalities. [*]We will look not only at individual posts but also the pattern of posting. Specifically, it will be considered hostile behavior if an individual frequently makes posts which exhibit a pattern of low level insults, harassing behavior, attacking, bullying or trolling.
    One of the main issues I've seen complaints about is users fighting and flaming each other across several threads. While a single instance in a heated topic doesn't do too much damage, it definitely becomes an issue when it's spread across several threads consisting of various topics. I think "pattern of posting" could be updated to include "especially across multiple threads, topics, visitor walls, and all private communications".

    It's a nitpick, I know. I just wanted to contribute something specific and constructive.

  6. #46
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    That's a good point, ass eyes.

  7. #47
    Seriously Delirious Udog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INfp
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp None
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    That's a good point, ass eyes.
    This post was too funny. I'd like to report it.

  8. #48
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Meh, I'll find some other forum, then. I don't know if it's a personal interpretation or not, but that kind of thing is exactly what I was afraid of.

    I think it would be more productive to start with the members who are causing the trouble, but apparently no one wants to do that in these instances, although I'm sure they would in other instances.
    The perennial troublemakers will be making trouble soon enough under the new rules. I'm not sure what the objection is so far, at least using Uumlau's examples. If all you have to say is "you are an idiot", "everything you say is idiotic", etc., you don't have much to say yourself, and should probably stay out of the discussion. None of these phrases are needed to make a sound counterargument to anything. In fact, they contribute nothing to that at all, which is one reason they are useless and to be avoided. They provide emotional gratification and nothing more, and at the expense of the other member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    sounds relatively fine - it's how the censorship can effect the top 3 here that i am worried about:


    personally i don't give a shit about the bottom two, and could do well to live without them....
    It seems the new rules will impact mainly the bottom two and possibly the one above that. The top three are actually the preferred method of discussion, with the fourth a relatively empty approach - devoid of both insult and substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    now, i realize the reason they want to change this has nothing to do with it being a fallacy but rather because it hurts people's feelings, but just because it's designed to protect [insert NF stereotype] by limiting the means of delivery doesn't mean the symptom can't benefit [insert NT stereotype] by increasing the importance and basic requirement of content.
    The types of responses that seem open to sanction certainly do hurt many members' feelings, but they also do nothing to advance the substance of someone's argument. Perhaps this is what you are saying here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    there's a reason that baiting is such an effective strategy - it is indistinguishable from expressing a disagreement with someone's core values or most sensitive assertions, and it aims to do so in an environment where people have disagreements with each other's core values and sensitive assertions. on the flip side, you can't target something camouflage without targeting what they are camouflaging as. in this case the resulting process is:

    someone claims they where baited, and you are left to determine:
    • the suspected "baited" is rationalizing their own attack about someone's opinion as a defensive reaction by vilifying the intent, either a direct attack (if they report after "getting baited") or indirectly (attempting to use the mods to censor counter arguments to their own).
    • the suspected "baiter" was in fact bringing up a contrarian point of view for the sole purpose of pressing someone's buttons for the end means of breaking them into direct attack (and thus again attempting to use the mods to censor counter arguments to their own).

    now the mods are faced with the responsibility of determining intent, which is fertile ground for one thing only - the expressions of predisposed biases, whether it's who they like more, who they feel more protective towards or simply who they identify with more, it's going to be the determining factor simply because they force themselves into a situation where they need to determine something without having any substantial determining factor. no matter how competent the mod is, they are still human (except for @highlander who is an outcast immortal alien sentenced to earth and reincarnated in scotland - if this is happening after the one where he ends up getting telepathy, we're totally out of trouble).
    Baiting appeals to emotion, and is successful to the extent that the target of the baiting responds emotionally. One should not have to worry so much about intent. If I know, for instance, that someone on a thread is ardently pro-choice and I outline an extreme anti-abortion argument, provided it is civil and on-topic it should be fine. My argument stands or falls on its merits, regardless of my intentions. If, however, I bait them with insults or by dredging up personal details not publicly known (perhaps they had an abortion once), that is probably a foul, regardless of my intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    I felt it necessary to emphasis this point, as it is one of my primary concerns. It is why I prefer actions to be taking against members who have a pattern of acting in a way that is unacceptable, rather then having that standard selectively enforced across the board.
    @Ivy mentioned in the OP that the member's pattern of posting would be taken into account.

    Quote Originally Posted by prplchknz View Post
    if someone is expressing valid concern about someone's mental health, why.would they bring it up in public? wouldn't it be more sincere to say something in private? I just.don't see how im a heated discussion that could ever be fair. if someone else can please explain
    In a heated discussion, no. But I have responded on threads where the OP is looking for advice, say with a relationship problem, or even personal issues like depression, and another member legitimately suggests they seek professional help like counseling. In this context, it should be fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I like that pyramid. The second level - ad hominem attacks is a problem here. In theory, there are situations where this should be fine. In practice, ad hominem attacks tend to be rather uncivil. I think there are situations where the method would be fine - say, "you have x experience and that's why you think this way; you have this particular bias". That would be different than "why should i listen to you when you're a misogynist with a slim grip on mental sanity." One is bullying/insulting while the other is not.
    I don't see how ad-hominem attacks are ever appropriate, unless the target member's character or credentials are the subject of the thread. The closest examples are "what's my type" threads, or threads asking for career, relationship, or other personal advice. Is "Take a shower now and then, and quit acting like a dimwit" an ad-hominem attack, or a misguidedly blunt piece of genuine advice?

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    Most of this boils down to "don't be a dick". If you're not a dick, you don't have anything to worry about. Yes, it is subjective to a degree, and it's astonishing to me that anyone could think it could be any other way. Any kind of authority or governing is going to have subjectivity. The alternative is an unmoderated forum, which is probably the preferred solution of a number of members. I encourage these members to visit Somalia. It seems like a really cool place to live.
    There is another alternative - mandatory sentencing. We see how well that works in the real world, too. I would prefer competent judges who are willing to make actual judgments. More work for them, but better results for everyone.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  9. #49
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The perennial troublemakers will be making trouble soon enough under the new rules. I'm not sure what the objection is so far, at least using Uumlau's examples. If all you have to say is "you are an idiot", "everything you say is idiotic", etc., you don't have much to say yourself, and should probably stay out of the discussion. None of these phrases are needed to make a sound counterargument to anything. In fact, they contribute nothing to that at all, which is one reason they are useless and to be avoided. They provide emotional gratification and nothing more, and at the expense of the other member.


    It seems the new rules will impact mainly the bottom two and possibly the one above that. The top three are actually the preferred method of discussion, with the fourth a relatively empty approach - devoid of both insult and substance.
    Looking back, I was kind of engaging in fallacious thinking... I was operating under the assumption that if changes were made, they would lead to more changes... and those would be ones I didn't like. I was also threatened because there is no clear definition of insulting... I was operating under a scenario where disagreement or contrarianism would be considered an insult.

    I'm actually for respect, even if I fall short of the ideal at times. I do have a hard time letting things go, which also means that if I have an issue for the person, and no overtures are extended (and mine are rejected) I will continue to have an issue with that person, in all likelihood (what I choose to do with that is up to me, of course). I can trust the mods to let me know if I'm stepping out of line, I suppose.

    I do think that when people resort to insults, my assumption is generally that they have no further argument to make. If one exists, it is not one that they have thought of. But I find that harder to put in perspective on some occasions, then in others.

    I'm not sure where sarcasm fits into this... it's another grey area that was a cause for concern. It's probably not what people are referring to by insults though... there's a big difference between that and ad-hominem attacks. It's certainly much nicer than calling someone a moron.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  10. #50
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Looking back, I was kind of engaging in fallacious thinking... I was operating under the assumption that if changes were made, they would lead to more changes... and those would be ones I didn't like. I was also threatened because there is no clear definition of insulting... I was operating under a scenario where disagreement or contrarianism would be considered an insult.

    I'm actually for respect, even if I fall short of the ideal at times. I do have a hard time letting things go, which also means that if I have an issue for the person, and no overtures are extended (and mine are rejected) I will continue to have an issue with that person, in all likelihood (what I choose to do with that is up to me, of course). I can trust the mods to let me know if I'm stepping out of line, I suppose.

    I do think that when people resort to insults, my assumption is generally that they have no further argument to make. If one exists, it is not one that they have thought of. But I find that harder to put in perspective on some occasions, then in others.

    I'm not sure where sarcasm fits into this... it's another grey area that was a cause for concern. It's probably not what people are referring to by insults though... there's a big difference between that and ad-hominem attacks. It's certainly much nicer than calling someone a moron.
    Exactly. I suppose there will be room for misunderstanding. Someone once addressed a very sexist insult to me, but I knew it was a joke, and had practically dared him to do it. We were both kidding around. Obviously I would not report it, but someone else on the thread might, trying to be a good Samaritan. I assume (or at least hope) the mods can figure out situations like this.

    As for identifying insults, I would look for: (1) does the comment address the person, or their statements? and (2) is there any reasoning or evidence backing it up? To use "ignorant" instead of "idiotic":

    • "You're really ignorant." Just sounds like an insult
    • "You're really ignorant on this subject, because by your own admission, you have never done X, Y, or Z". Might be valid, if the other person really did make that admission and it is relevant.
    • "Everything you post is really ignorant." Again, an empty insult.
    • "Everything you post is really ignorant, because it reflects no knowledge or experience of the subject matter whatsoever." Harsh, but might be valid if the observation is accurate.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. SUPER IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
    By yama in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-09-2016, 11:00 PM
  2. IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT - Linking Posts
    By highlander in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 10:12 PM
  3. IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
    By Ivy in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 12:48 PM
  4. Forum Announcement
    By MacGuffin in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 06:46 PM
  5. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 07:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO