Forums Discussion v3 - Post about Tudd and win a 1 month ban
5,023 replies, posted
[QUOTE=helifreak;52629441]Change your IP to one that was located in Finland in the 2000's (as in before 2010) when flagdog last got a geoip update.[/QUOTE]
Damn, that sounds risky. Changing IP only for country status... I'll better stay in Finland, local vodka is not worse than Russian one actually.
Bloody Russians, coming over here, stealing our IP addresses :v
this is the first stage of an invasion
[QUOTE=Chonch;52629247].
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
If you truly can't stand someone, there's also the ignore list.[/QUOTE]
It always comes down to this, huh.
Ionno about yous guys but this isn't exactly fixing a problem, it's ignoring it in my eyes. Sure, going as far to call it a problem could be petty but it's obvious that this isn't just some minor issue with one person against another, it's a group of people against another group of people. Sure, blocking out their posts solves the problem for that particular person maybe but the other who hasn't still gets bothered, then he starts acting on the issue and the thread gets derailed anyways. Same for people who haven't even been involved yet, they could just be browsing the thread and see the chaos and agree with one side's or the other's points so even if all of the people from both groups muted each other there's going to be more people taking a side, then an argument, rinse repeat ad infinitum.
Deterring the problem is a step towards fixing it, ignoring only lets it fester as Degrasse Tyson levels of pretentious as it sounds.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52629466]YEP.
Welcome to the very old IP database that flagdog relies on that won't ever get fixed.
Ever.
I remember when fruxodaily was an American.[/QUOTE]
Texas Frontier/Verizon shows up as Canada for all GeoIP services :v:
[QUOTE=MoopsiePook;52629806]It always comes down to this, huh.
Ionno about yous guys but this isn't exactly fixing a problem, it's ignoring it in my eyes. Sure, going as far to call it a problem could be petty but it's obvious that this isn't just some minor issue with one person against another, it's a group of people against another group of people. Sure, blocking out their posts solves the problem for that particular person maybe but the other who hasn't still gets bothered, then he starts acting on the issue and the thread gets derailed anyways. Same for people who haven't even been involved yet, they could just be browsing the thread and see the chaos and agree with one side's or the other's points so even if all of the people from both groups muted each other there's going to be more people taking a side, then an argument, rinse repeat ad infinitum.
Deterring the problem is a step towards fixing it, ignoring only lets it fester as Degrasse Tyson levels of pretentious as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, there's no fundamentally impartial way to moderate along the lines of the thing "[B]whataboutism[/B]" being asked for.
So-called whataboutism is just a poppy way of saying [I]tu quoque[/I] which is honestly one of the most abhorrent 'tricks' you can slide in to an argument if you have a ten-foot pole up your ass and a hard-on for so-called logic.
Here's a quick crash for those unfamiliar, from Wikipedia:
[quote]
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or [B]the appeal to hypocrisy[/B] is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]
An example would be
[I]Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing.[/I]"
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument
[/quote]
The 'point' it makes is that, somehow, [B]hypocritical[/B] statements are not "logically" wrong, they're just "rhetorical appeals." Completely without intellectual merit, yessir, yessir.
That's fine and dandy if you're in an Oxford bridge club, discussing abstract notional dialectic with Professor Dunworthy over tea after a rousing twelve-pointer. It's also just as blindly naive and detached from reality as Professor Dunworthy himself.
Indeed, pointing out hypocritical statements, and holding people accountable to them, is axiomatic for having productive conversations in a civil society. [Citation needed.] Otherwise, words and actions have no consistent, or relevant relationship. [See: Do as I say, not as I Do.]
So the issue is why do we even care about "Whataboutism," since it should just be, well, people pointing out hypocrisy. Well, ever since the flourishing of the new Red Scare™, people have taken sloppy youtube crash courses in Soviet-era espionage and COIN operations. There, they discovered whataboutism, useful idiots, and a whole plethora of wonderfully rich and interesting ideas that in the right hands are powerful deductive weapons, and then purposed them [I]to be wielded clumsily and erratically against their enemies.[/I]
Simply put, "Whataboutism" boils down to whether or not one arguer believes the other's objection is at all relevant to the discussion, the [B]Completely-Ad-Hoc-Topic-At-Hand™[/B], or "this objection makes me uncomfortable, make it go away."
Tasking moderators with enforcing against so-called "Whataboutism" would become an exercise in people essentially calling in a goonsquad whenever someone accuses them of hypocrisy, so that they can push whatever agenda, narrative or hastily selected 'focus' of discussion they want, over any possible objections or notional [I]appeals to hypocrisy.[/I]
Which would be dumb, and a lot of work. Most importantly, a lot of work. We've established, very clearly, [B]the mods love doing work.
[/B][U]
NOTE:[/U]​ This post was edited to more clearly reflect the facts, after a curt but poignant following comment.
You had some okay points up until that last bit.
We don't like doing [i]unnecessary[/i] work, especially when we each would have to be on the exact same page of what constitutes a ban and what doesn't. Finding ways to streamline our reviews of bannable posts is a lot of what we do, because it makes it more simple for users to understand what they can and can't be banned for.
Ultimately, I will say this: we can't ban people for being idiots. It's not our job to tell them to go get educated and stop being stupid. If they're not flaming, shitposting, or trolling, and genuinely have views that are just dumb as hell, it's not really up to us to determine whether or not they're stupid enough to warrant a ban. If a thread is getting derailed, it's probably because people are tearing apart that person's points which is fine with us.
The ignore list is there for a reason. Yes, it's ignoring the problem, that's kind of the point. If you're bothered by the derailing of a thread, another option is to step away from it for a few hours and then come back. There's a certain amount of self control that you guys have to exhibit when you're posting in those threads. If you're bothered by someone's opinion, then don't respond! It's easy as.
Like I said earlier, if you don't know whether someone's dumb post is bannable or not, you can always ask a mod. I always respond to PMs, and I can always give you a fair answer.
But no, we can't really start policing people's stupidity when it comes to serious topics. Unless said whataboutism is completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread, then I recommend just ignoring it.
Fair enough. I'm just thankful the few threads I even bother with in SH keep the topic consistent. I suppose it's just hopeful wishing that a thread heading to New York wouldn't detail and somehow end up in the same place the scripts to Transformers comes from.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52629247]Speaking from personal experience, I try to weigh the merits of reaching out to the user himself to clear up any misunderstandings, rather than derailing an unrelated thread to call it out. We don't have any sections appropriate for discussing ideas and positions independent of the news, but it doesn't take much to send a PM if it really bothers you. It's not official, but I've had great success over services like Discord as well.
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
If you truly can't stand someone, there's also the ignore list.[/QUOTE]
You are the second person I've seen tell people who disagree with them to get Discord and I'm at a loss as to how you and that other guy think you are important enough for people to download a random chat client to ask frivolous political questions to.
Like I haven't seen a post from you that I'd say deserves a banning (calling Muellers criminal investigation a "counter-intelligence probe" literally every chance you get is more amusing to me than anything else) but you are straight up admitting that you have no interest in actually having a discussion on Facepunch, and that you are more or less driveby shitposting in every thread you participate in; putting your thoughts out and not even sticking around long enough to defend them, and instead expecting PM's and people to add you on Discord.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52629247]Speaking from personal experience, I try to weigh the merits of reaching out to the user himself to clear up any misunderstandings, rather than derailing an unrelated thread to call it out. We don't have any sections appropriate for discussing ideas and positions independent of the news, but it doesn't take much to send a PM if it really bothers you. It's not official, but I've had great success over services like Discord as well.
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
If you truly can't stand someone, there's also the ignore list.[/QUOTE]
Question; why not actually reply to people instead of this 'come to discord' malarkey?
Don't go making an ass of yourself but then suggest people engage you in private. You don't seem to give the tiniest shit about having an actual discussion in any thread you post in so why should we bother entertaining you?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52630223]You are the second person I've seen tell people who disagree with them to get Discord and I'm at a loss as to how you and that other guy think you are important enough for people to download a random chat client to ask frivolous political questions to.
Like I haven't seen a post from you that I'd say deserves a banning (calling Muellers criminal investigation a "counter-intelligence probe" literally every chance you get is more amusing to me than anything else) but you are straight up admitting that you have no interest in actually having a discussion on Facepunch, and that you are more or less driveby shitposting in every thread you participate in; putting your thoughts out and not even sticking around long enough to defend them, and instead expecting PM's and people to add you on Discord.[/QUOTE]
For the record you don't need to download discord to use it, it can be done in browser and takes about a minute to make an account.
I'm not trying to take away from your argument here, just pointing out how discord can be used.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52630223]You are the second person I've seen tell people who disagree with them to get Discord and I'm at a loss as to how you and that other guy think you are important enough for people to download a random chat client to ask frivolous political questions to.
Like I haven't seen a post from you that I'd say deserves a banning (calling Muellers criminal investigation a "counter-intelligence probe" literally every chance you get is more amusing to me than anything else) but you are straight up admitting that you have no interest in actually having a discussion on Facepunch, and that you are more or less driveby shitposting in every thread you participate in; putting your thoughts out and not even sticking around long enough to defend them, and instead expecting PM's and people to add you on Discord.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52630229]Question; why not actually reply to people instead of this 'come to discord' malarkey?
Don't go making an ass of yourself but then suggest people engage you in private. You don't seem to give the tiniest shit about having an actual discussion in any thread you post in so why should we bother entertaining you?[/QUOTE]
Fair (if not crudely worded) points. Over the past few months, I've seen more than enough casual arguing over politics in SH/PD to figure out that all it's good for is riling people up and getting otherwise fine users banned. I don't want that for anyone. More often than not, I choose to not risk derailing our [I]news subforums[/I] to get into the weeds for that reason. If you want to honestly discuss our political differences or what have you, I think it would be more appropriate to make a separate thread for it, or find a different medium on the site -- I'm happy to address any grievances you have therein until and unless there is some sort of dedicated location for purely political discussion. In lieu of that, Discord appears to be the most widely accepted solution (we even have some 'official' FP servers, so I've heard), but I'm open to other options if you have them. Whether it's worth it for you to go to the trouble is not my concern.
[QUOTE=MoopsiePook;52629806]It always comes down to this, huh.
Ionno about yous guys but this isn't exactly fixing a problem, it's ignoring it in my eyes. Sure, going as far to call it a problem could be petty but it's obvious that this isn't just some minor issue with one person against another, it's a group of people against another group of people. Sure, blocking out their posts solves the problem for that particular person maybe but the other who hasn't still gets bothered, then he starts acting on the issue and the thread gets derailed anyways. Same for people who haven't even been involved yet, they could just be browsing the thread and see the chaos and agree with one side's or the other's points so even if all of the people from both groups muted each other there's going to be more people taking a side, then an argument, rinse repeat ad infinitum.
Deterring the problem is a step towards fixing it, ignoring only lets it fester as Degrasse Tyson levels of pretentious as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
Like I explained to Pascall in pms, the ignore list can't actually solve this issue in particular anyways. The issue isn't people like Chonch continuously pushing things that have been conclusively proven false as facts, even if it's quite annoying. The big issue is that it consistently derails discussion in those threads. Sure you could add everyone who takes part in that to your ignore list but that'd end up being basically everyone who posts there because we all end up taking part in it on occasion because one time or another we won't realize it until it's too late to not bother making a post about it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52630223]calling Muellers criminal investigation a "counter-intelligence probe" literally every chance you get is more amusing to me than anything else[/QUOTE]
I find it annoying personally but that's because his insistence on pushing stuff that people have conclusively proven false as facts just results in him getting called out on it as soon as he opens his mouth by like a dozen different people. And usually when that happens then there's not a huge chance of discussion getting fully back on track.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52630356]The only reason people want him to post on here instead, is to have him make himself look bad in public rather than private.
Which is fair, I think, considering this is a forum for discussion.[/QUOTE]
Conch does bring up a valid point however in that those types of discussions can derail a thread pretty bad. While in a discussion thread in GD that's not particularly bad, in SH/PD that can easily lead into a convoluted pile of piss. There's also nothing against bringing up pm's/chat logs and posting images of them so long as they're being used to support a point/argument and not personally attack another user.
Ultimately we have to try and find a balance where people can have proper arguments without devolving threads into poo throwing contests. That can be particularly difficult considering how much emotion people feel about the current state of affairs in American politics and other things, so we do the best we can to try and keep an even playing field for all while keeping threads from degrading.
So if you want to argue in the thread that is 100% fine and encouraged, however if you feel that the argument is leading too far off topic it is not a bad idea to continue the conversation in a pm/discord/new thread in GD/etc.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52630383]Conch does bring up a valid point however in that those types of discussions can derail a thread pretty bad.[/QUOTE]
Sadly, it's undermined somewhat because it's pretty much always Chonch himself causing the derailing.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52630384]Sadly, it's undermined somewhat because it's pretty much always Chonch himself causing the derailing.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring some of the less-than-kind words in your previous edit, it's really never been my intention to derail or upset anyone. I'm totally open to suggestions on how to make this situation better for you and others.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52630447]it's really never been my intention to derail or upset anyone. I'm totally open to suggestions on how to make this situation better for you and others.[/QUOTE]
It's not like people haven't explained this stuff to you and the other users who keep posting like you in the past. Every time it does get explained though you guys either ignore it altogether or say it's not your responsibility to fix the issue.
[QUOTE=code_gs;52629842]Texas Frontier/Verizon shows up as Canada for all GeoIP services :v:[/QUOTE]
its true
this is the closest ill ever get to decent healthcare
flagdog ip test, please ignore
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
fucking hell, I'm not in Canada, I thought switching my dynamic IP might help
[QUOTE=Chonch;52630354]Fair (if not crudely worded) points. Over the past few months, I've seen more than enough casual arguing over politics in SH/PD to figure out that all it's good for is riling people up and getting otherwise fine users banned. I don't want that for anyone. More often than not, I choose to not risk derailing our [I]news subforums[/I] to get into the weeds for that reason. If you want to honestly discuss our political differences or what have you, I think it would be more appropriate to make a separate thread for it, or find a different medium on the site -- I'm happy to address any grievances you have therein until and unless there is some sort of dedicated location for purely political discussion. In lieu of that, Discord appears to be the most widely accepted solution (we even have some 'official' FP servers, so I've heard), but I'm open to other options if you have them. Whether it's worth it for you to go to the trouble is not my concern.[/QUOTE]
Polidicks is a political debate / news forum. If you're not willing to participate, why even pretend to? Seems all I've seen of you in recent months in any given thread is one post, possibly two, (often intentionally loaded with false information), followed by complete silence when people begin to correct or question you. The point of a discussion board is to, you know... discuss.
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52630383]Conch does bring up a valid point however in that those types of discussions can derail a thread pretty bad. While in a discussion thread in GD that's not particularly bad, in SH/PD that can easily lead into a convoluted pile of piss. There's also nothing against bringing up pm's/chat logs and posting images of them so long as they're being used to support a point/argument and not personally attack another user.
Ultimately we have to try and find a balance where people can have proper arguments without devolving threads into poo throwing contests. That can be particularly difficult considering how much emotion people feel about the current state of affairs in American politics and other things, so we do the best we can to try and keep an even playing field for all while keeping threads from degrading.
So if you want to argue in the thread that is 100% fine and encouraged, however if you feel that the argument is leading too far off topic it is not a bad idea to continue the conversation in a pm/discord/new thread in GD/etc.[/QUOTE]
It's not "derailing" a thread if the conversation is relevant to the topic. Chonch's posts are on topic, but some of them are also objectively false, and correcting him on the falsehoods he is spreading is not "derailing" a thread, nor is requesting clarification or responses on his posts when he continues to uphold those falsehoods without response. This is a discussion board. It requires actual participation. In failing to do so, the only person who can be said to be "Derailing" these threads is Chonch himself.
Furthermore, you cannot complain about the "balance of discussion" and lack of "proper arguments" when the subject of [I]this[/I] conversation is actively refusing to participate. "Proper arguments" require both parties to be responding to each others' points, right?
on one side I find SH and PD occasionally becoming a bit too hostile and heated.
but on the other, when the news of the day is "Trump bans transgender folk from the military because they are icky," just how are you supposed to discuss that in a cool and calm manner, there is nothing logical about it. it is [I]inherently[/I] wrong, little debate to be had.
ive been on SH for a few years now, and I certainly noticed the change in attitude there with this recent political season having plain realities under attack. and as a bit annoying as it is, if you show up to a thread claiming that climate change is fake (or something of that sort), you are going to get slammed for it, and deservedly.
And yeah, the fact that certain posters show up, post repeatedly debunked nonsense and disappear from the argument, just to repeat the next day, is not helping.
in my opinion, I wouldnt ban that outright, but if someone posts something particularly stupid, a mod should tell said poster that they have ~48 to post proof for their wild claims or face a ban. I seen this done before and it works well.
De-mod kiwi grrrrrrrr :angry:
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52631336]
It's not "derailing" a thread if the conversation is relevant to the topic. Chonch's posts are on topic, but some of them are also objectively false, and correcting him on the falsehoods he is spreading is not "derailing" a thread, nor is requesting clarification or responses on his posts when he continues to uphold those falsehoods without response. This is a discussion board. It requires actual participation. In failing to do so, the only person who can be said to be "Derailing" these threads is Chonch himself.
Furthermore, you cannot complain about the "balance of discussion" and lack of "proper arguments" when the subject of [I]this[/I] conversation is actively refusing to participate. "Proper arguments" require both parties to be responding to each others' points, right?[/QUOTE]
To which Conch explained his point as to why he continues to call things whatever he wants to call them. At that point people had one of two options. One was to continue the main conversation knowing that whatever he decided to call something is essentially irrelevant to the main conversation since both parties know what is being conveyed.
The other was everyone could have gone off topic and go on a tangent as to what something is called and how factually incorrect it is.
Which do you think the forum chose?
Ultimate everyone here has a decision, to make a post or not. It's not my job to tell you what to post, nor is it my job to ban people for having piss poor arguments and shitty opinions. If you fundamentally know that someone isn't going to continue a proper conversation then why bother to engage them? The only reason why there's any sensationalism around any of this, just like Tudd, is because people allow it to happen.
I see tons of people, including you BDA, becoming too emotionally invested in posts and conversations here on an online forum for a kids game. It is seriously not difficult to disengage from the forum, to not post yourself into a stupid argument, and to ignore people that you don't particularly agree with. I've managed to do it for over a decade, and I don't have any special mod perks or scripts to block out things I don't want to see.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52631853] ignore people that you don't particularly agree with[/QUOTE]
Why would we do that in what is essentially a political debate forum?
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52631860]Why would we do that in what is essentially a political debate forum???[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to that's on you, but it all comes back to if you know it's a useless fight why bother?
People who've decided to dig their heels in aren't going to budge, so there's no sense wasting breath especially when a good amount of people are on your side.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52631860][QUOTE]ignore people that you don't particularly agree with[/QUOTE]Why would we do that in what is essentially a political debate forum?[/QUOTE]
Alternatively, you don't necessarily have to aim your posts at anybody, you can still post your opinion without replying to anybody and have it out there regardless whether others who read it agree or not.
It allows you to express yourself while simultaneously avoiding pointlessly arguing with people who you either strongly disagree with and/or believe they're baiting/trolling.
Its better to say something indirectly than direct in most cases when it comes to political discussion.
People get far too heated as of lately and will take the small inkling to spark a fire over the most minuscule of statements.
Basically, don't let the actions or attitude of someone else back your discussion into a corner.
If you want to say something, then basically just fucking say it.
If it pisses off people then so be it, that's on them, its your view on the topic and as long as its relevant to the topic its all good, its when people start pulling out "BUT THE LEFT/RIGHT X Y Z" out of nowhere is when we'll step in.
Just because one person is being rowdy doesn't mean you can't just work around them and in most cases, when it becomes that problematic, we're normally informed (pls repot mor k) and take action.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52631871]If you don't want to that's on you, but it all comes back to if you know it's a useless fight why bother?
People who've decided to dig their heels in aren't going to budge, so there's no sense wasting breath especially when a good amount of people are on your side.[/QUOTE]
I think this mindset your asking of us is going to create the echo chamber that people constantly mock it as being.
I don't know how to solve this issue, but if the only people who post in "opposition" for lack of a better word to the regulars are doing so in a near drive by like manner then what is there to actually do? Just have the circle jerk we're accused of? Have an ignore list full of repeat drive by posters who promptly dry up and vanish when they realize they can't do that anymore here? I guess that is the answer but it feels hollow and doesn't help this place be a better community.
It's no ones job to make people post better, but I wouldn't find it so hard to believe peoples honesty when they actually respond to an argument they've prompted thirty times before through a fairly rote set of actions.
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Reagy;52632169]Its better to say something indirectly than direct in most cases when it comes to political discussion.
People get far too heated as of lately and will take the small inkling to spark a fire over the most minuscule of statements.
Basically, don't let the actions or attitude of someone else back your discussion into a corner.
If you want to say something, then basically just fucking say it.
If it pisses off people then so be it, that's on them, its your view on the topic and as long as its relevant to the topic its all good, its when people start pulling out "BUT THE LEFT/RIGHT X Y Z" out of nowhere is when we'll step in.
Just because one person is being rowdy doesn't mean you can't just work around them and in most cases, when it becomes that problematic, we're normally informed (pls repot mor k) and take action.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have a discussion with that person then them say one thing in tons of different instances, but never actually discuss it deeper than a teaspoon of water.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52632213]I'd rather have a discussion with that person then them say one thing in tons of different instances, but never actually discuss it deeper than a teaspoon of water.[/QUOTE]
Well it really all comes down to taking discussion into moderation, its really a case of using better judgement is what I'm raising.
If someone is adamant in their view and starts to go aggressive/ranting then its worth just moving on and skipping them for example.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52631860]Why would we do that in what is essentially a political debate forum?[/QUOTE]
That's where I stand too. Jimmema, it's nice that you're "above all that," but debate is the entire point of the subforum. These are important subjects that impact everybody's lives -- I don't think it's out of line to passionately discuss that, and I can think of no better place on this forum to do so. I also don't think it's out of line to hold certain standards of behavior and participation within those forums.
Coming full circle: does intentionally spreading objectively false information in a subforum devoted to honest debate, with stringent rules on selecting only credible and factual sources, violate the basic spirit of the subforum?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.