• Forums Discussion v2 - GO TO PAGE 109 FOR SOMETHING NEAT
    4,995 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RockyTV;52562326]Is RedLetterMedia a meem?[/QUOTE] Sources say yes
[QUOTE=FreakySoup;52561696]what does this even mean[/QUOTE] No one knows what it means, but its provocative. It gets the people GOING!
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52563573]No one knows what it means, but its provocative. It gets the people GOING![/QUOTE] It's so dense, every word has so many things going on.
[QUOTE=AkujiTheSniper;52563668]It's so dense, every word has so many things going on.[/QUOTE] Postal is the key to all of this. Anyone else been noticing labpunch showing up in google results more often?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52563573]No one knows what it means, but its provocative. It gets the people GOING![/QUOTE] i think you mean nobody knows what it memes :hurr:
In light of recent events, should the White Nationalist March thread in SH be moved to Polidicks?
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52565824]In light of recent events, should the White Nationalist March thread in SH be moved to Polidicks?[/QUOTE] unless it was suddenly discovered all the marchers were politicians, no.
[QUOTE=Reagy;52566511]Antifa members have beaten people straight into unconsciousness, thats equally as bad as its still intended bodily harm, both sides are as bad as each other. Not when its one person preaching them like its the dawn of time and derailing the topic into a political shit flinging match. This is about what is happening Charlottesville, not arguing about political standpoints which apply no reasoning, if it was related sure but what I've seen presented so far is not related and is purely just pulling them up by a straw, Antifa is not the political movement that should be brought up to "combat" fascism and other aggressive movements when they themselves act on those same movements. [B]The thread should stick to the related discussions to what is currently happening and events that are related to that, not tooting another political movement in a completely stringed together form. (referring to AntiFA) And this is also final, stick to the discussion of the events or bans will be given out.[/B][/QUOTE] This is a news thread about a nazi march in the US turning violent as differing ideologies clash with each other. And a member of one of those extremists ideologies decided to run over and kill 3 people. So why ban talking about another extreme ideology in this thread? Am I missing something?
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1574809&p=52566511&viewfull=1#post52566511[/url] What is this? There was a valid conversation about Antifa in the thread, an extremely relevant topic -- considering members of the movement are present at the situation, even! -- but Reagy's decided to threaten to ban anyone who keeps talking about it... Only after they've snuck their own position in there, so they get the final word. (not unlike most of their ban messages, but that's more annoying than malicious) First of all, what the fuck? Second of all, why would discussion of Antifa not be allowed? e: apparently I'm not the only one who's thinking this
[QUOTE=Beetle179;52566573][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1574809&p=52566511&viewfull=1#post52566511[/url] What is this? There was a valid conversation about Antifa in the thread, an extremely relevant topic -- considering members of the movement are present at the situation, even! -- but Reagy's decided to threaten to ban anyone who keeps talking about it... Only after they've snuck their own position in there, so they get the final word. (not unlike most of their ban messages, but that's more annoying than malicious) First of all, what the fuck? Second of all, why would discussion of Antifa not be allowed? e: apparently I'm not the only one who's thinking this[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1574809&p=52566583&viewfull=1#post52566583"]Reagy actually just said that discussion is fine as long as you dont pull random things from "thin air"[/URL]
[QUOTE=da space core;52566594][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1574809&p=52566583&viewfull=1#post52566583"]Reagy actually just said that discussion is fine as long as you dont pull random things from "thin air"[/URL][/QUOTE] That's pretty vague if you ask me, especially since the post Reagy quoted was entirely relevant. A threat so vague is seriously open for Reagy's interpretation and could easily be used to just shut down ideas they don't like -- of course, no one's been banned yet, but that threat looming over the conversation is... dumb.
Reading back I can see how it can be misunderstood. Basically we want to see less dumb political promotion stuff and more actual discussion related to the events and topic on hand. Basically the post given as example didn't contribute anything other than X is the answer with no reasoning, there is nothing constructive in there.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52566642]Why can't I Shitpost![/QUOTE] Because you have a job to do.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52566642]I can't believe Reagy pissed in the cereal box. [editline]13th August 2017[/editline] Why can't I Shitpost![/QUOTE] Can't help it if cornflakes looks like the contents of a litter tray.
It's a good thing that I didn't read this thread. Or else I'll end being a shitposter without even realizing it.
That thread has pulled in so many bans already. It's like watching the moderators hit it rich in Keno
When a thread gets merged into comments of another thread and completely breaks the Read Threads page. And it won't clear no matter what I do. Marking unread does nothing, marking the other thread as unread does nothing. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/T7TrT9f.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Chains!;52568155]When a thread gets merged into comments of another thread and completely breaks the Read Threads page. And it won't clear no matter what I do. Marking unread does nothing, marking the other thread as unread does nothing. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/T7TrT9f.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] If you leave it for a while it should just drop off.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52569616]I don't know if I believe this. I came into this thread for a place to ask this question and saw this post. Polidicks and Sensationalist Headlines seem to be going downhill, any given thread that has even the slightest to do with President Trump (and even some that have nothing to do with him) immediately get shit up with dogpiles of posters doing nothing but wishing ill of the President and insulting him. None of these posts are constructive or have any substance to them, and threads just devolve into a huge circlejerk of people calling Trump a coward or an idiot. This type of talk is bannable when it is directed at another user, so why is it acceptable for such toxic commentary to take place about the President? I don't mind posts where people state disagreement with him on moral or ethical grounds, but I would still prefer posts that are backed by some degree of evidence or fact. Even when I try to debate people from my conservative viewpoint (admittedly, I usually phrase myself pretty shit) I try to provide some sort of tangible evidence for why I think that way. It seems like users posting in opposition of Trump, even posts that have no substance and are completely non-constructive are safe from bans whereas conservative posters making the same style of commentary get struck down for "shitposting" or "having a hostile posting style." I understand that Facepunch is wildly liberal but I would hope that the bans don't carry the same implicit bias as most of the posts do. [editline]13th August 2017[/editline] It took me 5 minutes to find all these. These posts go on for days. Why are these okay? Even the Polidicks rules say this is bannable[/QUOTE] We all can't spend time combing through every post daily. mods are normal people with normal lives. If people aren't reporting them chances are we're not going to see it because we're at work or doing something else. So as to why they sit for days with no action, look at your fellow FP'ers for not putting in reports, as it takes two to flag a post.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52569699]I don't expect mods to do that at all. Some of those posts had upwards of 50 positive ratings on them. The issue isn't that people are making these comments so much as it is that these comments have become the standard. I've never seen a user banned or even warned for saying something like "Trump is such a fucking idiot" and posting no actual content. When these posts are made every day on such a huge scale without any intervention (ever), it just feels like the mod team condones the sentiment.[/QUOTE] They are mostly in reaction to the increasing stupid amount of actions that come from that head of state. If a single user do so repeatedly on every thread and get reported, they will be banned. This case, it is many different people at many times showing their shock, and if the same is done for another viewpoint by a user, unless they do so in every thread about that subject. I might be wrong, somebody may have been ban for such before, but I have not seen in.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52569712]I was under the impression that the purpose of the subforum was debate, not baseless emotional reactions.[/QUOTE] It was not a debate section, or else it would be Mass Debate. If you present an argument, you are expected to back it up with source and reasoning. You are not restricted to debate, you can respond to article, the feeling you have, or related to article. Why do I need to spell this out? It was divided from sensationalist headlines for purpose of seperation and higher conduct, yes? Not as a pure debate forum. Otherwise, its rule and posting habit needed would see far more people banned. It is not your place to say they are baseless, unless you can argue what they are affront by is not existing. And that would fall within the conversation of the thread, not by moderator determining it. I hope, at least.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52569721]Why don't you read the rules thread for the subforum? [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1559003[/url][/QUOTE] I already have, no where does it say debate is the only conversation to be had? It is saying if you make a claim, then these are the expectations moderator will hold poster to for backing up their claim. If I am fundamentally misunderstand, and you are correct, then moderator can correct me. I do not see what you are saying.
If Trump so weak, why he at wrestlemania 23
[QUOTE=Scratch.;52569735]If Trump so weak, why he at wrestlemania 23[/QUOTE] Becuase Wrestling is fake? :v:
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52569744]Becuase Wrestling is fake? :v:[/QUOTE] No wonder CNN is on that gif
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52569727]How is "Fucking weak. Trump is the weakest man alive" and posts like it "contributing positively to the current discussion." There's certainly no effort in that post.[/QUOTE] Why are all the "low effort posts" you reported critical of Trump? If you are such a big fan of debate how about you respond to the posts on those threads instead of asking for people to be banned for having an opinion you don't like.
Low effort posts in polidicks or SH threads consist of something unrelated to the topic that is either one word or one sentence that contributes neither thoughts, feelings, or arguments in reference to the OP. Similar to shitposting. People have always been and will continue to be able to express distaste, support, or present an argument regarding the thread topic in question. It's not a requirement to write a thesis in your post to contribute to a thread in either of these sections. If you have an issue with that then don't post there.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52569805] If you have an issue with that then don't post there.[/QUOTE] Confirmed posting there is an issue by itself.
Way I think about it, posting a genuine reaction to what you read/saw to recent news counts as barest of minimal effort. You are still in fact participating in the news thread correctly, but so barely could get banned for low effort anyway, and it's just an extra line to start a discussion or continue to roll with one already. We just don't want you to go "FUCK TRUMP LOL" shitpost and be obnoxious etc
[quote]I just wish that if people want to express their distaste for the man that they explain why in reference to the article they're replying to.[/quote] Finalhunter, because no other topic is brought in full discussion before their post, it is implication what they reference as their distaste is the thread article itself. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52569932]dude that's pretty obvious, I just want to know WHY they think/feel they way they do about the subject, not just how they feel about it that doesn't tell me anything other than they hate Trump.[/QUOTE] I am sorry, but why in cases is implicit to conclusion or effects of Article. Using case of ESkill's post, why does he call Trump Weakest Man? Because Trump respond to Putin in way that seem he does not understand what Putin's expulsion actually does, make him seem as he have no will, and show he does not know even basic of political retort to highlight weakness in Putin's decision, as shown by Gudman on the same page. Even if reason is not set from start, many users who share such sentiment will cover each other's reason. You are a smart person, you can infer, or ask if you are not clear. As postal say, no more than such is needed for minimal interaction with discussion, asking of it is cumbersome because it is not full debate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.