Throughout my two years of activity on these forums, I've always enjoyed a good debate over one topic or another. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone and a good argument once in a while can keep your ego in line. You might learn a thing or two from the opposition's point of view, and I have been swayed on some topics after listening to what somebody had to say. Arguing on the Internet has become a pass time, and from what I know, it can help you develop your own opinion on things in real life. And while many times an "argument" might be to twelve year olds trying to convince each other that the other is a noob at Counter-Strike, it can still be fun watching these young minds unleash on each other. Facepunch seems to be a special place for arguing. In every single forum, from Garry's Mod Discussion to Film and Television, the members opinions differ, and they will let you know it. Because Facepunch is so diverse in its subject matter, you might think that this would be even more helpful, as it can show you so many different viewpoints and opinions. And while I personally believe that to be true, the fact that there are many different kinds of forums means that many different types of people come to view their main subject of interest. And while a frequenter of the Furry forum might rarely view the Team Fortress 2 forum, they sometimes do. And this leads me into the actual subject of this thread.
Every time an argument erupts in any forum at any time, a massive "shitstorm" appears on the horizon, and it either sends everyone running for cover, or soaks those who were dumb enough to stick around.
This "phenomenon" has been getting increasingly worse, starting with the removal of the smartness system in 2009. The smartness system, for those of you who may not already know, kept a record of your "smartness points". What you need to know is that if you made a post with tons of miss spellings, you lost smartness, and when you lost a certain amount of smartness, you were automatically banned. Another system that was repealed in 2009 were ban words, which automatically banned you when you typed words like "the 'N' word" and other unwanted or vulgar words. Another action taken was the removal of the rules list. This baffles me, as a rules list was exactly what we needed if we were going to make these changes to the forums. The moderators could always quote the rules if a member was acting out of line, and swiftly ban him without any side affects. The result of these removals, and other "liberalizing" changes made in 2009 was an influx of noobs, mingebags, trolls, twelve year olds, cry babies, and the French. The forums started rapidly deteriorating when these members began joining, and the moderators did seemingly nothing to stop them, as they were unable. Whoever came up with "Use your common sense" seemed to have none himself, as those words can be interpreted in many ways.
Anyway, I digress. What I'm trying to get at is that a large amount of bad members started joining after 2009, and the forums deteriorated as a result. Any form of intelligent debate or discussion began to spiral into obscurity, as it became replaced by what we see today. Today, you will rarely see any type of progressive argument. There is no meaningful discussion or intelligent reasoning. Today's arguments are dominated by several "shatigories" of stupidity.
-The Rising Flame War
This is one of the most common and devastating Facepunch arguments. It can be described by secret and quite insults being slung between two posters unbeknown to the majority of the other "arguers" (Who are usually displaying characteristics of another shatigory). While the argument "progresses" in the background, a small group of posters slowly escalate their disagreement until they begin completely ignoring the thread content and focus only on insulting the opposing member. By this time, the entire thread has dissolved into these flame wars, which had originally started out as nothing more than a civil disagreement. But where most people could let a rouge insult go or ignore a troll poster, many Facepunchers seem to bite on every single morsel of trollbait, unintended or ignorant insults, and even blatant flaming made by a noobie or twelve year old poster. This shatigory is evident throughout all forums and can be displayed by all members and even moderators in severe cases.
-Arguing About the Argument
This recent phenomena has emerged from the In The News Section, but has now spread to most General and Garry's Mod forums. What happens is that when a member begins losing an argument, or he feels that his evidence is weak, he will begin accusing his opponent of some "infraction" or another. JDK and Prismatex are prime suspects of this in the In The News forum. "That's an ad-hominem statement." "Nice strawman argument, moron." "You're ignoring the evidence I presented!" Few, if any, people care about these "debate guidelines" save the culprit and possibly the victim (The opposing debater). As I said before, this shatigory is evident throughout the In The News forum and is usually used by well educated and experienced members.
-Snide Shitposts
This shatigory can be considered a sub shatigory of the Rising Flame War, because it is usually the prime cause of the flamewar. What occurs is a member makes a careless, ignorant, or troll shitpost that delivers no content to the thread and does not open a new lane of debate. One or two of these shitposts usually go unnoticed, but by the end of the second page of a thread, they have usually piled up, causing at least one member to comment on the shitpost. When this happens, the shitposter will return to the thread and flame his criticizer or stupidly defend his pointless post. Either way, the majority of the members in the thread will drop everything and focus on this new mini argument, and they will take sides with the shitposter, the criticizer, or begin their own argument, resulting in the Rising Flame War scenario.
-Crybabies
Many times an argument can be ruined by a simple, childish crybaby who refuses to allow his opinion to be criticized in any way, shape, or form. No matter what you say, if it differs from his view, it is wrong and you are flaming him. Also, you deserve to be banned, and the moderators will be informed of how you don't see exactly eye to eye to him. You deserve to be banned.
It's pretty self explanatory, and is evident through all of Facepunch.
-The Hit and Run
This shatigory is used whenever a debater is about to lose, or the thread is about to implode. The culprit will post a short, meaningless post in an effort to weasel out of the argument, distract the observers or the opposing debaters, or change the rest of the members opinions on his argument. This can be done a few ways.
1. Dropping a joke. Usually it is actually a funny joke, which scores the poster a plethora of funnies, boosting his e-peen just enough to satisfy himself. If the joke is unfunny, he'll either flame everyone in the thread or pull a Crybaby.
2. Dropping a flame. When all hope seems lost and the poster's opinion is clearly not appreciated or supported by anyone, he will flame the opposing argument and leave the thread. If the thread does not collapse (As it usually does soon after), he may return when things have cooled down, but he will be angry at everyone and seemingly uncooperative.
3. Evacuate. Either the poster just leaves the argument without admitting defeat, or he leaves a final, stupid statement and disappears forever. If the argument is ever brought up in a later thread, the poster will evacuate that thread too.
-The Opinionless Argument
This last shatigory is pretty much self explanatory. An argument is either presented, argued against, or commented on without a clear motive, goal, or opinion. A random fact may be stated that offers nothing for the debate, or an insult might be thrown into the fray. Either way, nothing the culprit says is helpful in the slightest, although it can be quite damaging, and many a thread has been spammed by these non-opinionated statements. This shatigory can be seen when members who usually do not visit a certain forum make a post in it, because they may be uninformed, or totally clueless on what is being discussed.
So, now, what is there to discuss? Not much, really. I'm not going to start another pointless argument because there's really nothing to debate, and even if there was, nothing anyone said would convince anyone, inform anyone, or assist anyone, with anything. However, there is still hope for Facepunch. Firstly, I request that all pre 2009 changed to the forum be revoked and that Facepunch returns to it's authoritarian state. That's all I can really ask of the moderators, because I know how badly they are swamped with problems on these great forums. But I do have one thing to request from the community. If you do want to discuss something, please keep it civil, and don't resort to childish ways in order to reach your goal. I hope this can inform some people of what Facepunch has become, and possibly some ways to stop it.
Cool.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("snipe" - GunFox))[/highlight]
tl;dr
Needs to be shorter and still explain.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("tl;dr" - GunFox))[/highlight]
Joined September 2010.
"2 Years of activity"
Sounds legit.
Reading through your debating history, it's no wonder people get annoyed with your idiocy.
Yeah, this isn't my first account. Just in case you didn't already notice.
I'm aware of that, unless you underwent a dramatic change of personality when getting an alt i'll consider it to reflect on your other account's arguing history.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25122603]5,522 people were surveyed.
5,522/300000000[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to understand statistics and polling at all.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25122403][QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;25121609]you do realize many people can't help being poor. such is life in capitalism. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. how the fuck is it their fault?[/QUOTE]They refuse to work hard.[/QUOTE]
And this is just stupid.
[QUOTE=Slacks3000;25125723]Joined September 2010.
"2 Years of activity"
Sounds legit.[/QUOTE]
I joined in 2007.
i agree about that stupid "ad hominen" crap. hey buddy not all of us know what the fuck a "logical fallacy" is, so shut up
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;25125753]You don't seem to understand statistics and polling at all.[/QUOTE]
I was trying to say that I don't agree with changing our tax system to resemble Sweden's. Just because they interviewed 5000 odd people doesn't mean everyone agrees with them.
[QUOTE]And this is just stupid.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
While set rules and the like tend to lead to more civil discourse, I can think of many instances in which they limited membership, and eventually the forum involved became a closed circle of the same vocal minority.
It's better just to ban the obvious shitheels.
[QUOTE]-Arguing About the Argument
This recent phenomena has emerged from the In The News Section, but has now spread to most General and Garry's Mod forums. What happens is that when a member begins losing an argument, or he feels that his evidence is weak, he will begin accusing his opponent of some "infraction" or another. JDK and Prismatex are prime suspects of this in the In The News forum. "That's an ad-hominem statement." "Nice strawman argument, moron." "You're ignoring the evidence I presented!" Few, if any, people care about these "debate guidelines" save the culprit and possibly the victim (The opposing debater). As I said before, this shatigory is evident throughout the In The News forum and is usually used by well educated and experienced members.[/QUOTE]
This one is half true. While saying an argument is invalid because an insult was thrown in, saying someones argument is invalid because they are stupid is a proper logical falacy. It's more an improper use of them rather than actually calling someone out on being an idiot.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25125763]I was trying to say that I don't agree with changing our tax system to resemble Sweden's. Just because they interviewed 5000 odd people doesn't mean everyone agrees with them.[/quote]Precisely, you don't understand statistics and polling.
[QUOTE=Explosions]I disagree.[/QUOTE]Your naivete is amusing.
Sounds like good ol' Facepunch to me.
I like to debate on here too, but normally it's just pointless.
The ways of the old are long gone, and I doubt they will be brought back. No matter how much we try it just wont happen and we are forced to live with that. I miss old facepunch.
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;25125825]The ways of the old are long gone, and I doubt they will be brought back. No matter how much we try it just wont happen and we are forced to live with that. I miss old facepunch.[/QUOTE]Old Facepunch's arguments weren't much different, what dream are you living in?
Bans left and right. Living in constant fear, Oh the joy.
I agree with some stuff aswell. I don't agree on the smartness system since it can dump his load on you over a missing comma or anything of the sort, making new users go away. Sure they can be missbehaving in some way, but thats why we got mods to ban and ratings to "advise" people.
What I really hate is people going offtopic just to flame some guy who likes furries or is a furry or simply has a furry avatar, dismissing everything he might have said even though it could be right just because of his chooses. I don't like furries, but I couldn't care less about them as long as they don't start going all "I'm a furry, deal with it" showing it to everyone.
Another thing is idiots trying to be funny stating the obvious and people who just go into a bad thread and just say "shit thread ban op".
Another thing is when you like for example a game that nobody else likes just because of A B or C. You are drowned in boxes and flame comments and people saying Y is better then X. You are not allowed an opinion at times...
[editline]09:10AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;25125850]Bans left and right. Living in constant fear, Oh the joy.[/QUOTE]
Not really.
It's like hackers. People whine and whine and whine about it, but I don't see them at all.
It isnt that hard to not be banned around here you know...
I still remember the smartness system days. There were alot more bans and alot more idiot made flame threads that looked like threatning letters full of misspelling errors, something which I haven't seen in a long time.
Arguing online is pretty dumb since people are always going to find something wrong with your opinion or use some Latin against you or they're just plain trolling.
[quote]
-Arguing About the Argument
This recent phenomena has emerged from the In The News Section, but has now spread to most General and Garry's Mod forums. What happens is that when a member begins losing an argument, or he feels that his evidence is weak, he will begin accusing his opponent of some "infraction" or another. JDK and Prismatex are prime suspects of this in the In The News forum. "That's an ad-hominem statement." "Nice strawman argument, moron." "You're ignoring the evidence I presented!" Few, if any, people care about these "debate guidelines" save the culprit and possibly the victim (The opposing debater). As I said before, this shatigory is evident throughout the In The News forum and is usually used by well educated and experienced members.
[/quote]
that's not correct, arguing against an ad-hominem or a strawman is a waste of time. a personal insult isn't pertinent to the thread, and debating that will lead to what you call a flame war. arguing against a strawman is also useless because the person who puts it forth refuses to argue on any level except that.
[editline]01:39AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=markg06;25126389]Arguing online is pretty dumb since people are always going to find something wrong with your opinion or use some Latin against you or they're just plain trolling.[/QUOTE]
youous areous gayous dominee
[QUOTE=Explosions;25125763]
I disagree.[/QUOTE]
I take it you work with the might of a million men and make a high salary?
I only agree with some points, like others. It's too bad, even on my original account, I was just past the smartness system. I wonder how I would do in those conditions? I am tired of all the dumb arguments that happen, that is for sure.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25125698]OP[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
(am I doing it right?)
If pointing out a logical fallacy is followed by an explanation, it can be a very powerful tool.
"All of you are Darwinist separatist communist dick sucking tree hugging inhumane retarded limp dick buttlickers"
- In The Words of Warhol
^This is what I tend to see. I have yet to have a meaningful and polite argument with someone in a long ass time.
[QUOTE=Eagle9;25126769]"All of you are Darwinist separatist communist dick sucking tree hugging inhumane retarded limp dick buttlickers"
- In The Words of Warhol
^This is what I tend to see. I have yet to have a meaningful and polite argument with someone in a long ass time.[/QUOTE]
way to go with a strawman
if you wanna have a meaningful and polite argument, don't post trash like that
[QUOTE=thisispain;25126774]way to go with a strawman
if you wanna have a meaningful and polite argument, don't post trash like that[/QUOTE]
I was just quoting what some asshole tends to post a lot. I wasn't saying that is how I talk or debate.
How is that a strawman? I was simply quoting someones ignorance. Can I not do that?
[QUOTE=Eagle9;25126791]I was just quoting what some asshole tends to post a lot. I wasn't saying that is how I talk or debate.
How is that a strawman? I was simply quoting someones ignorance. Can I not do that?[/QUOTE]
ahah that wasn't a direct quote
do you not know what a strawman is? go read up on it here:[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman[/url]
[QUOTE=Explosions;25125698]
"You're ignoring the evidence I presented!" Few, if any, people care about these "debate guidelines" save the culprit and possibly the victim
[/QUOTE]
Haha, yeah guys honestly who cares about evidence posed by the other side when you can just cover your ears and keep chanting your own viewpoint.
I can already tell you're a master debator Explosions
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.